The Chief Joseph Hatchery Program encompasses the operation and maintenance of the hatchery as well as research, monitoring, and evaluation of the hatchery’s summer/fall and spring Chinook programs. The proponents have well-defined and comprehensive in-hatchery standards for broodstock collection and survival, survival of green or eyed eggs to the smolt stage, disease monitoring, tagging, marking, and release numbers. In combination, the post-release goals for the project’s four Chinook programs are designed to meet trust commitments and conservation needs. Issues preventing the project from consistently meeting program objectives have been identified (e.g., warm water leading to high pre-spawn mortality) and potential solutions have either been identified or implemented. This reflects an effective adaptive management process. The proposal is well written and organized, especially the section on goals and objectives. There are, however, some objectives that lack quantification and time specification (see Question 1 below). The project has been through the Three-Step Review required of new hatcheries, and ISRP questions and suggestions have been addressed during those steps. The proponents have developed a hatchery program with monitoring and evaluation elements that will enable the hatchery releases to meet objectives.

As described in section Q3 of this review, the relationship between several of the CTCR projects is unclear in the proposal. Specifically, on proposal page 51, the proponents state that OBMEP collects habitat data used in EDT modeling, but the responsibilities of each project are not clearly stated. The OSHIP project is proposing to expand their geographic scope and state that OBMEP will provide biological monitoring, but OBMEP does not mention this in their proposal.

The ISRP’s recommended Conditions are listed below. The proponents need to assist with development of an M&E Matrix during the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021) and to provide information to address the other following Conditions in future annual reports and work plans.

1. Straying rates. The proponents report straying rates (2% or so) from the perspective of emigration from the Okanogan basin but not from the perspective of immigration to receiving basins. The immigration rates should be examined and reported in future annual reports.
2. M&E matrix – support. As habitat projects and monitoring projects are not presented as part of an integrated proposal or plan, the need for a crosswalk to identify the linkages between implementation and monitoring is extremely important for basins or geographic areas. The ISRP is requesting a response from the Upper Columbia River Programmatic Habitat Project (201000100) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, and Okanogan basins. During the response loop, the ISRP ask this project to assist them and requests that the proponents of this project, OSHIP and OBMEP provide a brief description showing who collects what data, subcontracts the EDT modeling, relates this to VSP and uses the results to make management decisions for the projects.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The Chief Joseph Hatchery program examines within-hatchery and post-release performance of the summer/fall and spring Chinook it produces. Although not presented as formal goals or objectives in the proposal, the project has clear within-hatchery standards for pre-spawn survival, fecundity, and survival rates across life stages during the rearing period as well as objectives for release numbers. These expectations meet SMART objective criteria. Data on within-hatchery performance has been collected since the beginning of hatchery operations for each of its four Chinook programs (Integrated NOR summer Chinook; Segregated HOR summer Chinook; Segregated spring Chinook; Integrated Methow Comp 10j spring Chinook).

However, there are issues with some objectives. As one example (proposal page 29), Goal 3 lacks a quantitative, time-bound objective. An example could be: Provide 100 Chinook for tribal harvest and 25 Chinook for non-tribal harvest by 2027. Similarly, other objectives (e.g., Objectives D, E, F) are not quantitative and time bound. Other objectives are repetitious, for example, Goal 7 and Goal 8 (which is repeated on the next page) are basically the same, although Goal 7 provides more detail. The ISRP encourages the proponents to develop SMART objectives for all project objectives to improve project evaluation and adjustment in the future.

Q2: Methods

Methods for the in-hatchery evaluations of performance are not described but descriptions of the procedures being used can be found in MonitoringResources.org, annual reports and the Fish Cultural Manuals (Volumes I & II) developed for the hatchery. A link to the project’s annual reports provides more details on project methods. Suitable summaries of the methods in the project’s Rotary Screw Trap (RST), juvenile beach seining and PIT tagging, adult weir, spawning ground survey, creel survey, Coded-Wire laboratory, eDNA, genetic monitoring, and database operations are presented. All methods appear to be scientifically valid. We note that straying rates for project fish are only reported as the percentage of project fish that strayed into other subbasins. This metric measures the loss of hatchery fish to their expected destination, but not the potential genetic cost of straying to adjacent populations, which needs to be measured.

The project also has developed a database that could be used by staff to archive historical data, maintain current data, and be used by biologists and managers to quickly summarize information. It is not clear whether the database is available to the public, either openly or by user-generated requests. If not, we encourage the proponents to make their data available to the extent possible to benefit managers and researchers throughout the Columbia River Basin.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The project’s Annual Program Review process is used to identify issues where adaptive management or changes in operations may be needed. At this meeting, a series of key management questions are asked. Answers to these questions are used to guide upcoming operations. The process appears to be robust, contains a formal structure, and uses an established tool (ISIT) to help with broodstock collection rates.

The proponents identify climate change as a potential confounding factor. They indicate that the hatchery will attempt to ensure that the natural environment drives adaptation rather than the hatchery. This is a sound strategy. Additional considerations could include identification of hatchery-related risks to wild populations if numbers of Chinook and steelhead continue to decline. The proposal also acknowledges floods, drought, extreme temperatures, wildfire, and invasive fish as additional confounding factors. While these factors are identified, the proposal does not indicate how the project would respond or adapt to them. The ISRP encourages the project to develop adaptive adjustment alternatives for these confounding factors as anticipatory steps rather than reactive responses after the fact. The proponents provide a more thorough discussion of in-hatchery confounding factors, such as disease and decreases in fecundity.

The Chief Joseph Hatchery Program relies on the Okanogan Basin Monitoring & Evaluation Program (OBMEP 200302200) to provide habitat metrics used in EDT modeling, which in turn is used to indicate the status of salmonids in the Okanogan basin relative to VSP criteria. Okanogan Subbasin Habitat Implementation Program (OSHIP 200722400) also cooperates with the hatchery program. All these projects are part of the CTCR Anadromous Fish Division, but it is not clear what the relationship will be going forward. OSHIP is proposing to expand their geographic reach to include the Entiat and Wenatchee basins and become the Upper Columbia Habitat Implementation Project (UCHIP), but OBMEP does not mention that they will be assuming additional monitoring in their proposal. As these projects are interrelated, it is important that the proponents of each project understand and accept their responsibilities to each other.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The proposal clearly presents the results of the project and describes the relative success of the project in meeting quantitative biological targets in detail. The benefits to fish and wildlife are described clearly. The primary purpose of the hatchery program is to meet trust obligations by providing harvestable fish for ceremonial, subsistence, and cultural functions. Simultaneously the hatchery is serving an important conservation goal by augmenting the abundance of summer/fall Chinook and reintroducing spring Chinook back into the Okanogan subbasin. The hatchery program consists of 2 million summer/fall and 900,000 spring Chinook. Pre-spawning mortalities and lower than expected fecundities have kept the hatchery from meeting this release goal. Nevertheless, the project is providing substantial cultural, harvest, and conservation benefits. The project’s monitoring and evaluation program is focused on such metrics as keeping the number of hatchery strays and the proportion of hatchery-origin spawners (pHOS) on the Okanogan basin spawning grounds low. There are, as yet a small number of returning adults but it is expected that, in time, the project will meet its goals. When the hatchery goals are met, excess production of summer/fall Chinook might become a donor stock for reintroduction into blocked habitat above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams as was noted by the Independent Science Advisory Board (ISAB 2019-3).

The ISRP recommends funding for progressing through the Three-Step Review process and revision of the project's Master Plan. Subsequent funding for the construction and implementation phase of the project should be contingent on adequate Master Plan revision and favorable scientific review (for programmatic rigor and consistency with the Fish and Wildlife Program principles). The total cost for the CJDHP master plan and design work was $430,449 and includes master plan completion and submittal, conceptual engineering designs and costs, and staffing necessary to complete work for the submission of the master plan. (NPCC FY 2006 $1,825,000 Capital)

The first step of the ISRP's review identified a number of uncertainties, unanswered questions, and suggested improvements that have not yet been received. The next round of review in the process is anticipated in Fall 2006.

Ultimately, the response provides little direct or additional scientific content to satisfy concerns with issues of science. The sponsors indicate that M&E is intended to be developed and presented in Step Three. M&E and early inclusion of these concerns need to be accommodated early in design. Moreover, confidence that such a plan will be rigorous and robust would be greatly elevated if a basic framework with specific kinds of informational gathering (with some justification) were specifically provided in a response.

Another important consideration for the sponsors to address remains the proof in concept for supplementation at assisting with recovery of naturally reproducing salmon. For example, returns of Chinook to the Similkameen Pond is given as a sufficient pilot project and proof of concept. It is not a sufficiently complete or robust test of the broader hypothesis. No evidence is provided from an M&E basis that the population is self-sustaining and that recruits per spawner are >1. Moreover, there were questions regarding whether the proposed integrated recovery program can/will co-exist in harmony with the integrated harvest (mitigation) program. ISRP recommended some presentation of evidence or a model (e.g., AHA modeling results) of how this coexistence might work relative to other alternatives.