The response contains a good deal of helpful information and gives a more comprehensive view of project accomplishments than was provided in the initial proposal. This is valuable in enabling a continuing dialogue regarding this ground-breaking endeavor. Reviewers now better appreciate that the project was conceived and funded as a gene maintenance program to prevent extinction and that the rather minimal adult returns over project years 1994-2006 were very much anticipated. Reviewers look forward to the time when the shift can be made to more conventional efforts scaled for adult returns. The response to the ISRP provides some critical data related to the performance of the sockeye salmon in the natural environment. This information is appreciated.

The Snake River sockeye captive culture program has been successful in rearing sockeye salmon in closed culture. This in and of itself is an achievement, and is consistent with success of the closed culture of a number of related salmonid species – rainbow trout, brown trout, Atlantic salmon, and brook trout. For this achievement the project participants are congratulated.

Under the Fish and Wildlife Program, producing products in a fish culture facility – whether those are eggs, parr, smolts, or adults – are not a sufficient endpoint. The appropriate performance of cultured individuals following release are a required performance standard established by the 1999 Artificial Production review and reflected in the current Fish and Wildlife Program.

The information provided, especially the adult return data from the most recent years, is encouraging. The current SARs appear to be sufficient to transition from a captive to a "conventional" anadromous culture program. The current SARs appear to still be too small to plan for development of an integrated program, which requires a natural population at or above replacement.

The data presented on juvenile growth and production, and limnology, from the Stanley basin lakes is useful. The role of the three lakes in sockeye rearing is discussed in better detail and reviewers more fully appreciate the complexity of inter-lake comparisons and difficulty in assessing dominant trends in natural sockeye rearing and survival in the hydrosystem. The use of genetic parentage analysis on the returning adults beginning in 2010 will facilitate fish identification and analysis of the success of release strategies.

The response also provided draft summaries of data examining the relationships between sockeye/kokanee abundance, growth rates, and zooplankton in the three lakes, although it does not discuss if and how such information will be used to enhance lake management. Significant, important results to date are also provided regarding parr size, parr growth rates and smolt survival. Those results enable project staff to hypothesize that the inverse relationship between smolt size and survival that was observed is because size at migration reflects previous growth, without regard to seasonal growth patterns, and that smolt survival might be strongly influenced by growth rates directly preceding migration. This is nicely done, and testing those hypotheses should significantly assist in designing future actions.

An explanation of how limnological monitoring and kokanee population sampling guides lake fertilization and stocking rates is not adequate. It is not clear to the ISRP how the limnological component is integrated into the development of fertilization and fish release plans.

Given the apparent success of the captive broodstock program, there is anticipation of a Three-Step master plan to expand production to 500,000 to 1,000,000 smolts. It is important to document the performance of the fish in the wild. As a component of the Three-Step review, it would be very useful if the program produced a comprehensive synthesis of available information, including comparisons with characteristics of viable sockeye populations in other regions. The synthesis should evaluate factors affecting survival during each life stage in order to identify key bottlenecks where additional focus may be needed to enhance population viability. Additionally, the SARs outlook for Snake River sockeye salmon should be explored while considering reasonable survival scenarios during smolt migration and ocean rearing. This analysis should evaluate what is needed in order to produce a viable, self-sustained populations of Snake River sockeye salmon.

Significant gains can be made through comparison of Snake River sockeye with sockeye populations in other regions. For example, in the Kvichak watershed, Alaska, (formerly the largest producer of sockeye in North Pacific), smolts produced per female spawner was approximately 58 smolts when productivity was high (broods 1974-1990) and 30 smolts when productivity was low and overall R/S was near replacement (broods 1991-1998; ~50% of decline was due to low survival at sea). Redfish lake smolts per female spawner seemed to be somewhat high prior to 2006 (46-133 smolts) but a bit low thereafter (22-32 smolts).

Mean length of age-1 smolts (reviewers assumed the data were for age-1 fish) was typically greater than 100 mm, which is reasonable. Many populations in Alaska and coastal BC produce age 1 smolts that are smaller than 100 mm. But this somewhat large size may reflect low densities. However, it was odd to see many age-0 sockeye in Redfish Lake during September reaching only 50 mm (research report). When reporting length or weight, it is important to clarify age of the fish.

The proponents should continue to test the hypotheses mentioned in the proposal response. Importantly, the findings should be documented in published literature.

The ISRP requests a response on the following three items. 1. A succinct summary of the propagation and reintroduction efforts (yield of smolts and adult returns, egg-to-smolt survival rates, SARs, etc) for each year by lake and reintroduction strategy. The current proposal provides a chronology of releases and returns, but the yield from each strategy and location is not entirely clear. 2. A clearer explanation of the integration of the limnological monitoring, lake fertilization, and the success of reintroduction efforts. How does the limnological monitoring and juvenile O. nerka assessments inform lake fertilization and reintroduction decisions? How is the lake monitoring evaluated? What are the length of the smolts and the length at age? Is there evidence of depensation – is there evidence of safety in numbers? Results should be considered for each year releases. 3. A statement of the life-stage survivals (spawner to smolt, smolt to adult) and production levels needed to transition from captive propagation to a traditional anadromous hatchery propagation program to a self-sustaining natural population with abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity sufficient for delisting. How do these requirements compare to what has been observed in the 2000-2007 and the 2008-2009 time periods? Summary: In the 2007-2009 Fish and Wildlife Program solicitation review, the ISRP gave the Snake River sockeye captive propagation projects a does not meet criteria recommendation based on empirical results from the program that indicated the smolt-to-adult return (SAR) rates were so poor that the program would never be able to transition from a captive propagation program to an anadromous hatchery program at or above replacement. In the last three years, there has been an encouraging increase in the number of hatchery-origin and natural adults returning from the ocean. In 2010 more than 100 naturally produced anadromous adults returned to the Redfish Lake weir. Nonetheless, background information indicates SARs for naturally produced sockeye in Redfish Lake is typically less than 1 percent. SAR increased slightly above 1 percent only in 2008 and 2009 when sockeye survival throughout the Columbia River Basin increased. The exceptionally low survival rate for these sockeye is much lower than survival of sustainable sockeye populations throughout the Pacific Rim. The low survival and the low fecundity of sockeye (especially ocean age 2 fish) suggests that the captive brood stock and supplementation program will be necessary until the low survival can be significantly improved. The stock appears to be consistently well below replacement. The project should estimate egg-to-smolt survival or smolt per spawner and compare these values with those for other sockeye populations. These data and the SARs data would help identify the key bottleneck for Redfish Lake sockeye. The program indicates the need to fertilize the lake. It would have been worthwhile for the proponents to provide length at age of sockeye smolts that have reared in the lake so that growth could be compared with many other populations. Are these fish smaller than expected based on density, temperature, and lake productivity? Size at age data can be very informative. If the freshwater portion of the adult sockeye scale is still intact, one could compare mean smolt scale radius with that of return adults to examine the extent to which size-selective mortality is occurring after smolts leave the system. While cautious optimism is warranted, the ISRP concludes that the empirical evidence suggests substantial gains in survival are required to put the sockeye population on a trajectory toward delisting and recovery.

The preliminary review recommendation for 199107100 (Snake River sockeye salmon habitat and limnological monitoring) was Not Fundable. This recommendation was based largely on this project's interrelationship with 199107200, the primary proposal to conduct the Redfish Lake sockeye salmon captive propagation program, which received a Not Fundable recommendation.

The ISRP also found deficiencies in the reporting of results in the proposal; however, this deficiency alone could have been resolved with a response.

Together with the other Redfish Lake sockeye salmon proposals, the ISRP carefully considered the response from the project sponsors. The response addressing the reporting of results and activities for this specific proposal was brief, but adequate.

Early results of productivity enhancement show increased survival of juveniles stocked in the test lakes, and residual sockeye have been observed spawning. Consequently, researchers now believe that with enhancement of habitat productivity, it may be possible to develop self-sustaining populations of residual sockeye salmon in the Stanley Basin lakes.

If the above hypothesis and its basis are true, the ISRP believes that with a rigorous monitoring program, assessment of the role of predators and competitors, and a defined end-point for testing the hypothesis, the project has scientific merit.

Preserving the Snake River sockeye salmon ESU will likely hinge on the status of residual sockeye in the Stanley Basin lakes. Whether the residual sockeye is preserving the population needs to be further explored.

Consequently the ISRP finds the project is justified and the final recommendation is Fundable. Contingent upon the final outcome of stocking activities under proposal 199107200, some work elements may need to be modified. Juvenile and adult monitoring and lake fertilization remain essential components of this project.

The ISRP carefully considered the sponsor's response. The ISRP acknowledges that the recommendation in the preliminary review was controversial. The ISRP believes the project sponsors have done all they can do to promote restoration of this sockeye salmon population given the status of the population and environmental setting. The program has been well run using accepted principles of genetics, conservation biology, and salmon culture. The proposal and response are sufficient to the extent that they provide adequate data and explain the sponsor's perspective. The ISRP's pessimistic recommendation is based on our assessment that the project is not showing progress toward meeting an ultimate objective of the population emerging from being maintained by an ex situ, closed captive population. There is inevitable change in the population, and a bleak outlook that significant environmental change is likely in the near future. We are not suggesting alternative approaches that they should have pursued.

The narrative for proposal 200727600 - Idaho Department of Fish and Game Rearing expansion for Snake River Sockeye Salmon provides a more comprehensive explanation of the ultimate intent of the captive propagation project than the narrative for 199107200. From 200727600:

"The program's ultimate goal is to function as a conventional supplementation program, relying on genetically diverse, rack returns of anadromous adults to meet in-hatchery captive broodstock as well as prespawn adult out-planting needs."

"…to address the long-term project goal and species recovery, the first important milestone to reach will be to generate sufficient anadromous adults to satisfy all in-hatchery spawning needs and to meet release objectives for eyed-eggs, presmolts, and smolts. The second milestone will be to return an adequate number of adults to release to program nursery lakes for natural spawning."

The sponsors have not made the case that the program is working - which was our original concern. There are a lot of data about the thousands of fry and smolts produced by the captive broodstock program, but only meager adult returns to the Stanley Basin.

The central point the ISRP emphasizes for the sponsor and Council is that the ISRP cannot deduce from the data provided that the population can ever progress from captive broodstock to conventional anadromous hatchery to supplementation supported and finally to naturally self-sustained. This is the goal of the program.

The sponsor argues that the reason the program has not progressed is due to a lack of smolt releases. They conclude that the levels of hatchery fish production impedes the programs success, and that more, not less, production is needed. If one reviews the releases in Redfish Lake provided in the proposal, there is substantial variation across years; in 2002 only 96 smolts were released. However, the sponsor's conclusion that fish for release is limiting the programs is somewhat difficult to reconcile with the sponsors emphasis on the substantial numbers of adults, eggs, pre-smolts, and smolts released from the program, as it's central success. There have in fact been difficulties in achieving the fish release goals of the culture operations. But that is not the primary issue.

The project reports that the average smolt-to-adult return ratio (SAR) is just under 0.1%. They report an average fecundity per female of 1979 eggs (calculated by the ISRP from the project's data) and they report a recent eye-up percentage of 78%. The sponsor does not track eye-eggs into eyed-egg plants, pre-smolt plants, smolt plants, adult plants, and adults retained for future broodfish for any broodyear, in the proposal. Consequently it is not known what the survival from eyed egg to smolt is in this program. In other words, by broodyear we cannot account for the fate of the eggs produced. Under typical hatchery rearing conditions one could reasonably expect another 78% survival from eyed-eggs to smolts.

Using these biological characteristics: a fecundity of 1979 eggs per female, 78% survival from green egg to eyed egg, 78% survival from eyed egg to smolt, and 0.1% survival from smolt to adult when released in either Redfish Lake outlet or the upper Salmon River, the expected return from a cohort of eggs from a female is 1.2.

For the program to progress from an ex-situ captive population to a self-sustaining anadromous hatchery supported population, the replacement rate per female needs to be at least two (one male and one female). Thus, under the current conditions the program can never progress from captive supported to an anadromous hatchery supported population, no matter how large one made it.

Based on this assessment the ISRP believes that it is our responsibility to report our finding that the project is unlikely to achieve the ultimate goals, and is therefore not scientifically sound. The only likely way for the captive propagation program to lead to a recovered population is to substantially improve the smolt-to-adult return ratio. The ISRP does not know whether that is possible. The ISRP does not see any evidence for being optimistic that SARs will be improved in the near future.

The ISRP also points out that "Not Fundable" means the proposal is not scientifically justified. The ISRP does not make funding decisions.

See the ISRP comments under proposal 199107200.