This operation and maintenance project is helping preserve and maintain endemic spring Chinook in the upper Grande Ronde and Catherine Creek. It has two main goals: 1) collect adult spring Chinook from these two areas for use as broodstock at the Lookingglass Hatchery and 2) rear, acclimate, and release smolts from acclimation sites. Current objectives for adult broodstock collection and smolt release numbers have been consistently met over the past decade or more. Fish produced from the project have helped protect and maintain spring Chinook endemic to the Grande Ronde subbasin. We offer a few suggestions related to both tasks for the proponents’ consideration. We also encourage the proponents to develop SMART implementation objectives and include them in future annual reports and proposals.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The project’s objectives, along with its expected quantitative outcomes, are clearly presented in this straightforward operations and maintenance proposal. SMART objectives per se, are not presented. Nevertheless, the tasks being performed and timelines for its two overall objectives (collection of broodstock and rearing and release of juveniles from acclimation sites) are clearly described and explained. Objectives for broodstock, smolt releases, and eventual adult returns are bound by mitigation agreements contained in the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) and in recent U.S. v. Oregon production mandates. Specific objectives for the project in the Upper Grande Ronde River and Catherine Creek drainages are presented in Annual Operating Plans (AOPs) produced by the multi-agency Grande Ronde Endemic Spring Chinook Salmon Supplementation Program (GRESCSP). The GRESCSP was established to preserve, recover, and eventually provide harvest opportunities on endemic spring Chinook in the Grande Ronde subbasin. Under current conditions, the project’s contributions to salmon supplementation in the Grande Ronde are necessary to prevent eventual extirpation. Q2: Methods The methods employed to capture broodstock, and rear and release juvenile spring Chinook are clearly summarized and are scientifically sound. Although these tasks are not directly the responsibility of the proponents, the ISRP offers several suggestions that the proponents and their M&E partners may wish to consider. First, the determination of the sex of prospective broodstock is a key information need. It appears that visual cues are currently being used for this purpose. The sex of spring Chinook adults can be difficult to establish, especially several months prior to maturation. The proponents may wish to consider using hand-held ultrasonic sensors to make such assessments. This approach is used throughout the Basin and has proven to be highly accurate. For example, in the Wenatchee River, fish biologists are using Honda Electronics Hs-101V Ultrasonic scanners equipped with a HLV155 5.0MHz Linear Rectal Transducer to successfully sex potential broodstock. For more information see https://www.rmpc.org//files/nwfcc/2008/20081203/session5/4-Chad_Herring-ultrasound.pdf

Second, 50 fish from each raceway (200 total per acclimation site) are sampled just prior to release to obtain weight and length information. If these fish were sacrificed, the proponents could use simple visual inspections to obtain an estimate of the percentage of males destined to become 2-year-old minijacks. Precocious maturation in spring Chinook reared in integrated hatcheries can be substantial. Lack of knowledge of their presence will likely lead to underestimations of juvenile and adult survival rates. Third, forced releases of smolts from the acclimation sites take place during daylight hours. If stream flows and turbidity are relatively low and water temperatures are rising, immediate post-release mortality could be high. The proponents may wish to investigate the potential benefits of releasing their fish during darkness. In other settings, such releases have increased initial survival rates.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The proposal narrative indicates that other GRESCSP projects are responsible for monitoring and evaluating the project’s activities. Project protocols and results are reviewed by the GRESCSP when annual operating plans (AOPs) are developed. This process is not described. The proposal does, however, refer to several operational changes resulting from the annual review process. For instance, originally, five-year rolling averages of fecundity, pre-spawning mortality, and egg-to-smolt survival were used to set broodstock needs. Three-year averages are now being used to account for recent decreases in fish size. The AOP process also developed restrictions on when adult broodstock can be collected due to water temperature concerns. Additionally, volitional releases of smolts from the acclimation sites was curtailed to increase the likelihood that project fish would be intercepted at Lower Granite Dam and barged down the mainstem. These adjustments demonstrate that, while not described in the proposal, an effective adaptive management process is in place and is used to adjust the project as needed.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

Tables of smolt release numbers at both acclimation sites and returns of project adults in the proposal show that the project has consistently met its broodstock collection and smolt release objectives over the past decade. Changes in project practices have occurred over time and have been driven by monitoring and evaluation data collected by other partner projects. In summary, the project clearly has helped preserve and maintain endemic spring Chinook populations in Catherine Creek and the upper Grande Ronde. Continued support for the project is warranted given its conservation benefits and potential to provide needed within-subbasin harvest opportunities.

Modified by Thomas Ono on 3/23/2023 8:15:07 AM.

Qualification 1: The proponents should better describe their overall objectives for the fishery, not just operational, in-facility objectives.

Qualification 2: They should coordinate and integrate with CRHEET and show that they are implementing consistent protocols and metrics.

These qualifications can be addressed in contracting and discussed in progress reports and future proposals.

This project is intended to support a supplementation and captive broodstock program for spring Chinook in the Grande Ronde basin, in particular, the upper Grande Ronde River and Catherine Creek. It is related to several other projects in the Grande Ronde system and is consistent with the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan.

Included are an acclimation facility (for smolts prior to release) and an adult broodstock capture facility on each tributary. Broodstock are to be collected from local stocks in the Upper Grande Ronde and Catherine Creek. The project’s captive brood component is intended to minimize demographic risk of extinction, and its conventional hatchery production component is intended to balance the captive component and increase production while reducing the genetic risk of artificial selection. The stated objectives pertain straight-forwardly to fish production, but they should be accompanied by objectives that encompass the desired outcomes for the river system’s fish population abundance.

The sliding scale used for dealing with wild and hatchery adults in the operation is a particularly beneficial feature. In future review cycles, it would be helpful to show and discuss statistics indicating the degree of conformance to and progress in that scheme.

No specific methods or metrics were given. The ISRP assumes that standard hatchery practices will be employed. The proposal would have been improved, however, if more information were presented about the acclimation facility and procedures.

ISRP overall comments on the present proposal are similar to those of the previous ISRP 2007-2009 review. In that review it was stated that this project’s future proposals should summarize the quantitative results in tables or graphs, and should devote the project history narrative mainly to interpreting the biological significance of those results to date. The ISRP cannot see that this recommendation was followed.

Although this sizeable project has continued for over a decade, there does not seem to be a clear table or section of the report showing progress on the goals. The proponents do not show whether the supplemented stock is progressing toward the stage at which the program can be ended, as is the goal in supplementation. There also do not seem to be many meaningful reports resulting from this work. The project is summarized as routine fisheries work, but its fishery objectives should be stated and the results toward fulfilling them should be discussed. As the ISRP commented previously, “the desired outcome(s) should form the project’s biological objectives.” Once again, the proponents did not write this year’s proposal to remedy the problems with biological objectives.

The ISRP previously pointed out that the proposal should include the objective of terminating the project when M&E determines that supplementation either is not working or has been successful enough that the wild stock is recovered to the point that supplementation is no longer needed. The project is designed to provide emergency risk management of spring/summer Chinook in the subbasin and ultimately to recover self-sustaining populations if out-of-subbasin stressors are remedied. If those stressors are not remedied, the long-term viability of the spring/summer Chinook is uncertain. The ISRP commented in the previous review that a response was needed, in coordination with the other GRESCSP proposals, showing a decision tree detailing criteria for termination based on results, whether positive or negative.

The proposal lists annual fish production since 1997, but no quantitative results regarding the stock were reported and no management changes were shown. Therefore, meaningful accomplishments to date cannot be assessed on the basis of this proposal.

The Proponents state that: “The captive brood component was implemented to minimize the imminent demographic risk of extinction. The conventional component exists as a long-term strategy to balance the captive component and increase production while reducing the genetic risk of artificial selection. The GRESCSP has produced substantial adult spring Chinook returns to the target tributaries beginning in 2002. As returns increase, reliance on the captive component will diminish and as the demographic risk of extinction decreases, we will increase the conventional component until the captive brood component is expected to be phased out.” This paragraph would have much more meaning if data were presented to show how substantial those returns have been, how far along toward objectives those returns are, and, at the current rate of progress, when the existing captive brood program would be phased out. These data and projections do not seem to exist in the proposal. To include and discuss them could provide a useful description of success and status related to objectives. The ISRP requests that this be done in the next proposal.

Qualification 1: The proponents should better describe their overall objectives for the fishery, not just operational, in-facility objectives. Qualification 2: They should coordinate and integrate with CRHEET and show that they are implementing consistent protocols and metrics. These qualifications can be addressed in contracting and discussed in progress reports and future proposals. This project is intended to support a supplementation and captive broodstock program for spring Chinook in the Grande Ronde basin, in particular, the upper Grande Ronde River and Catherine Creek. It is related to several other projects in the Grande Ronde system and is consistent with the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan. Included are an acclimation facility (for smolts prior to release) and an adult broodstock capture facility on each tributary. Broodstock are to be collected from local stocks in the Upper Grande Ronde and Catherine Creek. The project’s captive brood component is intended to minimize demographic risk of extinction, and its conventional hatchery production component is intended to balance the captive component and increase production while reducing the genetic risk of artificial selection. The stated objectives pertain straight-forwardly to fish production, but they should be accompanied by objectives that encompass the desired outcomes for the river system’s fish population abundance. The sliding scale used for dealing with wild and hatchery adults in the operation is a particularly beneficial feature. In future review cycles, it would be helpful to show and discuss statistics indicating the degree of conformance to and progress in that scheme. No specific methods or metrics were given. The ISRP assumes that standard hatchery practices will be employed. The proposal would have been improved, however, if more information were presented about the acclimation facility and procedures. ISRP overall comments on the present proposal are similar to those of the previous ISRP 2007-2009 review. In that review it was stated that this project’s future proposals should summarize the quantitative results in tables or graphs, and should devote the project history narrative mainly to interpreting the biological significance of those results to date. The ISRP cannot see that this recommendation was followed. Although this sizeable project has continued for over a decade, there does not seem to be a clear table or section of the report showing progress on the goals. The proponents do not show whether the supplemented stock is progressing toward the stage at which the program can be ended, as is the goal in supplementation. There also do not seem to be many meaningful reports resulting from this work. The project is summarized as routine fisheries work, but its fishery objectives should be stated and the results toward fulfilling them should be discussed. As the ISRP commented previously, “the desired outcome(s) should form the project’s biological objectives.” Once again, the proponents did not write this year’s proposal to remedy the problems with biological objectives. The ISRP previously pointed out that the proposal should include the objective of terminating the project when M&E determines that supplementation either is not working or has been successful enough that the wild stock is recovered to the point that supplementation is no longer needed. The project is designed to provide emergency risk management of spring/summer Chinook in the subbasin and ultimately to recover self-sustaining populations if out-of-subbasin stressors are remedied. If those stressors are not remedied, the long-term viability of the spring/summer Chinook is uncertain. The ISRP commented in the previous review that a response was needed, in coordination with the other GRESCSP proposals, showing a decision tree detailing criteria for termination based on results, whether positive or negative. The proposal lists annual fish production since 1997, but no quantitative results regarding the stock were reported and no management changes were shown. Therefore, meaningful accomplishments to date cannot be assessed on the basis of this proposal. The Proponents state that: “The captive brood component was implemented to minimize the imminent demographic risk of extinction. The conventional component exists as a long-term strategy to balance the captive component and increase production while reducing the genetic risk of artificial selection. The GRESCSP has produced substantial adult spring Chinook returns to the target tributaries beginning in 2002. As returns increase, reliance on the captive component will diminish and as the demographic risk of extinction decreases, we will increase the conventional component until the captive brood component is expected to be phased out.” This paragraph would have much more meaning if data were presented to show how substantial those returns have been, how far along toward objectives those returns are, and, at the current rate of progress, when the existing captive brood program would be phased out. These data and projections do not seem to exist in the proposal. To include and discuss them could provide a useful description of success and status related to objectives. The ISRP requests that this be done in the next proposal.

See ISRP comments on the set of NEOH projects under proposal 198805301.

As one of several projects that compose the Grande Ronde Endemic Spring Chinook Supplementation Program (GRESCSP), this project covers the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Nation's role through operating adult capture facilities and juvenile acclimation and release facilities in the upper Grande Ronde River and Catherine Creek. The project will provide side benefits to other species such as steelhead through monitoring at weirs.

The proposal presents a strong case for continuation and funding as part of the GRESCSP. The project appears to be well integrated with the ODFW proposal 199800704 on spring Chinook in the Grande Ronde, both of which are needed to meet program goals. The proposal clarifies objectives and methods more than in the submissions of previous years. Methods were described in detail. Design was reasonable.

The proposal relates clearly to priorities and objectives outlined in the GRESCSP. As a "conservation" project, it meets ISRP review criteria. The requested funds are solidly matched with cost-shared funds from other sources. The stated objectives are operational.

A history of project activities, budgets, and results is presented in detail. In the narrative, unnecessarily repetitive data shown in the accompanying tables created confusion. Tables enable better overview of statistics than does narrative text. Moreover, many of the statistics stated in the narrative do not seem to match the values shown in the tables. This project's future proposals should summarize the quantitative results in tables or graphs, and should devote the project history narrative mainly to interpreting the biological significance of those results.

This sizeable project has continued for several years, but the data shown on returns indicate only modest success to date, especially with regard to natural production. As captive brood fish have returned in higher numbers, natural fish have responded much less dramatically, and dropped in 2005. The sponsors express little concern about this. Although the overall program may be under much internal NEOH scrutiny, there is little indication from the proposal or the response that it is.

The ISRP commented that some of the proposal's "biological objectives" are just tasks (activity objectives), and that, overall, the project is being run just as performances of operations, without its organization as a strategy directed toward reaching an outcome being explicitly set forth. The desired outcome(s) should form the project's biological objectives. The sponsors did not revise their proposal to remedy the problems with biological objectives; however, some of their response discussion indicates their strategy.

The ISRP pointed out that the proposal should include the objective of terminating the project when M&E determines that its supplementation either is not working or has been successful enough that it is no longer needed. The project is designed to provide emergency risk management of spring/summer Chinook in the subbasin and ultimately to recover self-sustaining populations if out-of-subbasin stressors are remedied. If those stressors are not remedied, the long-term viability of the spring/summer Chinook is uncertain. The ISRP commented that a response was needed, in coordination with the other GRESCSP proposals, showing a decision tree detailing criteria for termination based on results, whether positive or negative (see item 2, below).

The fundable (qualified) recommendation is for two reasons:

(1) Scientific justification for the project depends on the funding of the M&E proposal 200713200.

(2) In response to the ISRP request for a decision tree detailing criteria for termination based on results, whether positive or negative, the sponsors clarified planned activities if the results are positive, including termination of the captive broodstock program, etc. However, no information was provided on the criteria for termination if the program fails to show adequate, sustained results. The sponsors indicate that such decision would be made at an administrative level above the project level and do not say how those decisions would be made. This constitutes a lack of transparency in the plan. For reviewers to be able to evaluate the plan, the proposal should contain the criteria and anticipated alternatives that this higher level will use. (See the decision tree provided under proposal 199800704.)

Some of the data presented in the response are unclear. For example, some of the abbreviated column headings in Table 3a are not explained, so the material beneath them is not interpretable.