The sponsor provides a complete reply to the questions raised by the ISRP. The ISRP requested evidence and justifications that the sites selected for an analysis of the relative reproductive performance of general production (hatchery), supplementation (hatchery), and natural-origin salmon were suitable. This response is thorough. The ISRP also requested additional information on the type of analysis the sponsor was going to pursue. The sponsor provided information on the type of genetic marker they intend to employ (the coastwide standard Chinook microsatellite panel) and that either assignment or exclusion methods would be used to identify parents. Sponsor provided a thorough discussion of sample sizes and statistical tests to evaluate assortative mating.

The response to the ISRP questions were less satisfying regarding 1) beginning with an initial analysis followed by expanding the investigation to archived and contemporary samples, and 2) identifying a lead geneticist, a genetics lab to perform the genotyping, and an apparently high cost per sample. In response to the ISRP suggestion that the analysis begin with a subset of individual and demonstrate the ability to reasonably make an assessment of relative reproductive success, the sponsors noted that they have been associated with successful studies with Chinook salmon in the Pahsimeroi River and with sockeye salmon in Redfish Lake. The ISRP does not question the feasibility of the methodology working or the ability of the sponsor to execute the work. The query was about whether in this specific instance the estimates of reproductive success will be reasonable and statistically justified. In coho salmon studies in Minter Creek, Washington and steelhead studies in Hood River, Oregon there are an appreciable number of individuals that cannot be assigned to parents. It is unknown whether this represents individuals produced by resident fish or migrants. If this were the case in the ISS streams, extensive effort would not be justified. Nonetheless, the ISRP considers the examples provided sufficient evidence of proof of concept. Finally while the ISRP would prefer that in a project of this magnitude and importance the lead geneticist and lab would have been established before the proposal was accepted, we are satisfied they have a framework for identifying an appropriate lead geneticist and lab.