This meets criteria but also see comments on the M&E proposal 198335003.

Now that the program has shown that it can produce fall and spring Chinook that return to the Clearwater River as adults, perhaps it is time to begin to consider whether (and to what extent) the effort will yield self-sustaining runs of natural origin. The next iteration of the project needs to begin to address whether and how self-sustaining Clearwater River salmon runs will be achieved. Thus, while the NPT has done a good job in guiding the NPTH to this point, the ISRP’s longstanding concerns about the viability of the supplementation approach to rebuild self-sustaining natural reproduction in Idaho rives and streams remains unanswered.

1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The proponents do a good job of describing the history of the project and how it fits into regional Fish and Wildlife Program and AP planning. Technical background, along with the growth and evolution of the NPTH program is well described.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

Past ISRP concerns that project results were not being adequately described have been effectively dealt with by the very commendable January 2009 Orofino symposium. The current proposal summarizes material presented at the symposium but often provides inadequate narrative for those who did not have the opportunity to attend the symposium.

The proponents do a very good job of describing the project’s history and evolution, as well as to a lesser degree, how they went about solving unforeseen problems, mostly associated with low return of adults or with limited water supply. It is evident that the hatchery was built at a site having unsuitable water supply. The hatchery is reported to be operating better than in its first few years, however. Within the last year or so, production has increased to the point that objectives are being met or nearly so in terms of numbers of released fish.

One of the four or so apparent current “issues” with the project is whether the basic requirements for fish production are adequate at the NPTH facility. From the proposal it appears that ongoing improvements (of a wide variety) are adequate for the near future and that issue no longer exists.

Another issue is survival of juveniles immediately after release. It was mentioned at the symposium that results from tagging juveniles at Newsome Creek showed very high mortality by Lower Granite dam. It is important to understand relationships among fish size at release, time of movement from acclimation site, whether release is volitional or forced, and the habitat used by those fish as they overwinter. Granted, such monitoring should be (is?) done by another project (NPT M&E) but results need to be closely linked to this project so the best release strategies can be developed. Currently it does not appear that is receiving adequate attention.

Production goals for both spring and fall Chinook, in terms of numbers of juveniles leaving the various acclimation facilities, now seem close to being met. The obvious question now is whether those are the most appropriate production goals. Because the ultimate goal must be natural production, and the project duration is “until natural production in target streams can support exclusively the fishery management principles, goals and objectives listed above,” the key issue is whether the project is indeed moving toward that goal.

Objectives are not being met in terms of proportion of natural influence (PNI). The proportions of natural-origin adults in hatchery broodstocks (pNOB) are too low, and the proportions of hatchery-origin adults among naturally spawning fish (pHOS) are too high, therefore the PNI values are too low. For the ISRP to evaluate progress toward meeting PNI objectives, it would help for the proponents to provide the pNOB, pHOS, and PNI results for each year of hatchery operation.

SARs for the FCS and SCS components are roughly 0.1% and 0.3%, respectively. For natural production to be self-sustaining, SARs will have to increase by an order of magnitude. How can this be achieved? The next iteration of the project should start to address these issues and describe a plan for achieving them, otherwise, there will never be a termination date for the artificial production efforts on this project and the ultimate goals will never be achieved.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

Adequately described.


4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Adequately described.

This meets criteria but also see comments on the M&E proposal 198335003. Now that the program has shown that it can produce fall and spring Chinook that return to the Clearwater River as adults, perhaps it is time to begin to consider whether (and to what extent) the effort will yield self-sustaining runs of natural origin. The next iteration of the project needs to begin to address whether and how self-sustaining Clearwater River salmon runs will be achieved. Thus, while the NPT has done a good job in guiding the NPTH to this point, the ISRP’s longstanding concerns about the viability of the supplementation approach to rebuild self-sustaining natural reproduction in Idaho rives and streams remains unanswered. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The proponents do a good job of describing the history of the project and how it fits into regional Fish and Wildlife Program and AP planning. Technical background, along with the growth and evolution of the NPTH program is well described. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management Past ISRP concerns that project results were not being adequately described have been effectively dealt with by the very commendable January 2009 Orofino symposium. The current proposal summarizes material presented at the symposium but often provides inadequate narrative for those who did not have the opportunity to attend the symposium. The proponents do a very good job of describing the project’s history and evolution, as well as to a lesser degree, how they went about solving unforeseen problems, mostly associated with low return of adults or with limited water supply. It is evident that the hatchery was built at a site having unsuitable water supply. The hatchery is reported to be operating better than in its first few years, however. Within the last year or so, production has increased to the point that objectives are being met or nearly so in terms of numbers of released fish. One of the four or so apparent current “issues” with the project is whether the basic requirements for fish production are adequate at the NPTH facility. From the proposal it appears that ongoing improvements (of a wide variety) are adequate for the near future and that issue no longer exists. Another issue is survival of juveniles immediately after release. It was mentioned at the symposium that results from tagging juveniles at Newsome Creek showed very high mortality by Lower Granite dam. It is important to understand relationships among fish size at release, time of movement from acclimation site, whether release is volitional or forced, and the habitat used by those fish as they overwinter. Granted, such monitoring should be (is?) done by another project (NPT M&E) but results need to be closely linked to this project so the best release strategies can be developed. Currently it does not appear that is receiving adequate attention. Production goals for both spring and fall Chinook, in terms of numbers of juveniles leaving the various acclimation facilities, now seem close to being met. The obvious question now is whether those are the most appropriate production goals. Because the ultimate goal must be natural production, and the project duration is “until natural production in target streams can support exclusively the fishery management principles, goals and objectives listed above,” the key issue is whether the project is indeed moving toward that goal. Objectives are not being met in terms of proportion of natural influence (PNI). The proportions of natural-origin adults in hatchery broodstocks (pNOB) are too low, and the proportions of hatchery-origin adults among naturally spawning fish (pHOS) are too high, therefore the PNI values are too low. For the ISRP to evaluate progress toward meeting PNI objectives, it would help for the proponents to provide the pNOB, pHOS, and PNI results for each year of hatchery operation. SARs for the FCS and SCS components are roughly 0.1% and 0.3%, respectively. For natural production to be self-sustaining, SARs will have to increase by an order of magnitude. How can this be achieved? The next iteration of the project should start to address these issues and describe a plan for achieving them, otherwise, there will never be a termination date for the artificial production efforts on this project and the ultimate goals will never be achieved. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) Adequately described. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Adequately described.

While the ISRP recommends the project as fundable, the ISRP also expects the sponsors to do a better job of reporting results in their future proposals. The Project History reports only actions performed, e.g., the planning and creation of the hatchery, and numbers of fish of different sorts stocked each year since releases began in 2003. Adult return rates cannot yet be reported, of course, but it would be helpful to have information for each released group on egg-to-smolt survival and on smolt survival to points downstream. Reasons for variation in such results should be discussed, including comparison with literature values.

In their response, the sponsors provided additional data and explanations, and these seem adequate; however, in future review cycles, sponsors could do a better job of following the topical outline for proposals.