A response is requested on the following points (also, see additional discussion in comments below): 1. How will SARs increase (nearly an order of magnitude) under the present program to achieve program goals? 2. How are harvest goals (and present harvest actions in tributaries) to be reconciled with the rebuilding targets and schedules? 3. Need a discussion of minijacks. 4. Need additional interpretation of results for Spring Chinook. Summary: This is an excellent proposal. It is clear that this continues to be a quality program. The proponents deserve a good deal of credit for the recent 5-year review Symposium and for the establishment of a new DFRM website on which selected information will be available. The NPTH Goal is to increase the number of naturally spawning adults to achieve goals within 24 years (this timeline is consistent with the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program). This should result in 4-6% SARs for spring-summer Chinook, 3% SARs for fall Chinook, and 4% SARs for steelhead as measured at Lower Granite Dam, within the next 24 years. However, presently SARs are about 1/10th this amount. Consequently, the proposal should describe how the 3-6% SAR goals for the various species are to be reached, when they are so much lower than that at present. In a similar vein, how are the Subbasin Plan’s harvest goals to be accounted for (i.e., justified) when SARs are not indicative of rebuilding to target levels. What is the scientific basis for believing that a fishery for fall Chinook could be soon warranted on a substantial scale that would not be in conflict with the stated goal of the hatchery project that is to establish a natural spawning run of salmon? Allowing harvest impacts before reaching the project’s target rebuilding goals will reduce the number of fish in the system or require increasing overall hatchery production for the project. Either step will likely slow the local adaptation process of the naturally spawning salmon population and therefore will delay achievement of the project’s rebuilding goals. Also relevant and needed is a discussion regarding minijacks, the abundance of which is being seen (i.e., by proposal 200203100) to be problematic in several ways in supplemented Chinook populations. The proposal includes no discussion of minijacking, its consequences, or potential management solutions. The second concern deals with the reporting of project results. Proponents are to be commended for the detailed presentation. Results are fairly clearly presented for fall Chinook; however for spring Chinook, reviewers are inundated with fine detail without adequate interpretation. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives This proposal seeks funding to continue monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of NPTH activities to: 1. Mark NPTH hatchery production with adipose fin clips, Coded-Wire Tags, and/or PIT tags; 2. Monitor the status and trends and life history diversity of Clearwater subbasin spring Chinook salmon and fall Chinook salmon including typical subyearling emigration versus yearling or holdover emigration strategy and associated adult returns; 3. Evaluate the effectiveness of the NPTH program at meeting production goals, stimulating Chinook salmon natural production, minimizing deleterious impacts to target and non-target populations, aiding in the recovery of ESA listed Snake River fall Chinook and maintaining genetic integrity; 4. Facilitate adaptive management of operational processes including innovative rearing strategies, variable stocking rates, and release locations; and 5. Report (electronically post) data and results. The primary regional data systems (PTAGIS, RMIS) will be provided tag data. Additional annual reports, metadata, and performance measure data will be available on the new DFRM website. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management The study’s results are shown in clear and thorough detail. While it has been an ongoing issue for ISRP reviewers to get proponents to adequately describe a project’s history, accomplishments, and the use of adaptive management, the NPT does a very good job of describing the project’s history and evolution, including how they went about solving unforeseen problems, mostly associated with low return of adults or with limited water supply. These are good and well described examples of adaptive management. The project has gone through several phases. First was an initial building and troubleshooting phase where facilities and protocols were tested against the project’s goals. Next was a phase of refining the project’s objectives and refining the artificial production protocols, while attempting to reach the project’s production goals. The most recent stage has been one where the protocols are refined and the production goals are increasingly being reached. Thus, the project was implemented, refined, and now regularly approaches its production goals. Because the ultimate goal for the project is one of reaching sustainable natural production consistent with the subbasin and fishery management goals, the next phase of the project will need to focus much more on post-release survival, mortality factors, and performance of returning adults. The NPTH M&E project describes much of how this will be done. The proponents’ minimal discussion of meanings and conclusions (which would constitute the study’s accomplishments) is appropriate, given the few years of data that are available thus far. Also, the rather new hatchery’s supplementation project being evaluated has only recently begun reaching production goals. The ISRP expects that in future cycles of review (and in other reports) the study will be providing conclusions about effects of the supplementation. For example, 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. Other issues in the new phase of the project include the high number of minijacks, the low SAR rate, and how tribal harvest goals are consistent with natural production goals, given the low SAR rate. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) Adequately covered. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Adequately covered.