In general, this proposal demonstrates good fisheries science. However, parts of this project are difficult to assess. In particular, it’s a combination of two projects with little in common (different species, equipment, even subbasins), and the relation between them was unclear. The need for continued Chinook monitoring at Secesh was well documented, and the addition of steelhead trout monitoring at Joseph Creek is justified as a benefit to the Fish and Wildlife Program, but it is not clear why the new steelhead program is to be combined with the Chinook program. Why is the proposed steelhead weir in this proposal and not in Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring project (ISEMP; BPA Project No. 200301700I) that has a fast-track proposal “to install two PIT tag arrays in lower Joseph Creek and two arrays in the lower Grande Ronde River?” 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The proposal has two parts: 1) The Secesh River is an unsupplemented stream, in the South Fork Salmon River drainage in Idaho, which acts as a reference stream for three ongoing Chinook supplementation evaluation programs. It is the only stream in the Snake River Basin where monitoring of natural origin salmon escapement occurs absent a hatchery supplementation program. Salmon escapement monitoring will be continued using dual frequency identification sonar (DIDSON). It was begun in 2004. 2) This project also includes the new fast track Joseph Creek steelhead escapement monitoring project. It would use a floating weir to provide status monitoring of adult steelhead in Joseph Creek in the lower Grande Ronde River in Washington. The Secesh DIDSON monitoring is effective. It is operational a high percentage of the time, produces a good count, and has been in operation for a number of years. The program is consistent with BiOp goals, etc. 2. Project History and Results The Secesh component has a long history. It has been yielding good results for at least 5 years from DIDSON technology. The Johnson Creek steelhead project is in early development–it's not even clear where an adult counting weir structure can be emplaced. 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods PIT tag arrays have been installed in the lower Secesh River to quantify both natural origin adult salmon and steelhead escapement. A comparison of PIT tag array escapement data with DIDSON salmon escapement information collected by this proposal will be performed over a period of years. The objectives and methods proposed for use in Joseph Creek seem reasonable and appropriate. A detailed explanation of methods including statistical methods is provided

Reviewers point out that their support of this project should not be construed as an indication of blanket support of supplementation (see programmatic comments). The LSRCP artificial production activities are being initiated with the M&E funded through the Fish and Wildlife Program, and much of the production is under the "supplementation" category. Reviewers note that goals that are required under a supplementation strategy are unlikely to be realized and are difficult to justify. There is little evidence that supplementation has made a positive contribution to the abundance of natural-origin adults, particularly in settings where the natural population is not replacing itself. Projects established for harvest mitigation, rather than natural population rebuilding, conducted under an experimental framework are perhaps more consistent with the environmental conditions faced by the fish and the program objectives of the managers.

The project would gain some important new information on Clearwater B-run steelhead. The response addressed most of the items requested and worked toward clarifying the few major issues. The most important issue, the need for a reference-control design, is addressed by discussing two options, neither of which is ideal. The second option, using "in and out" data from A- and B-run fish from a mixture of streams within and without the Clearwater, appears preferable but far from strong.

The proponents advocate the need for a three generation-long study. Because they will likely continue supplementation past a single generation, they will likely need to continue the M&E to monitor those hatchery release returns. However, if the results become clear that the strategy is not meeting its goals, reviewers maintain that three full generations of monitoring would not be needed.

A trend analysis in parr abundance should be informative and is suggested. If it is consistent, it may suggest the habitat is adequately seeded by fry to meet parr requirements, and that the steelhead population may be limited by available parr habitat (capacity). However, here, as elsewhere and throughout streams entering the Pacific coast, the major limitation to abundance appears to occur in the ocean.

There continues to be a need for consistency among supplementation efforts. The proponents should integrate this monitoring with the Columbia River hatchery evaluation team and collect metrics consistent with the Ad Hoc Supplementation Work Group.

This is a very nicely crafted proposal. The current situation is clearly described and problems laid out, followed by a clear and logical development of the proposed work. Testable hypotheses are presented. The tasks to monitor B-run steelhead supplementation in Lolo Creek and the South Fork Clearwater River are needed, actually a requirement, for assessment of the restoration strategy. One piece that is missing is a contrast between the abundance trend in the treatment streams and reference sites. This needs to be clarified in a response, and the proposal is not justified without the contrast. A response is requested to explain the basis for increasing the smolt releases at these sites. It appears that the releases are conducted under the auspices of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP). The ISRP anticipates a sequential review of Lower Snake River Compensation Plan spring Chinook, fall Chinook, and steelhead production programs over three years (one species annually) beginning in December 2010. This LSRCP review will provide an opportunity to revisit the scientific basis of the release numbers, empirical data on the programs results, and assess the adequacy of the experimental designs. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives This project will monitor the effectiveness of B-run steelhead hatchery (supplementation) in the Clearwater River subbasin. Short term productivity will be assessed through Relative Reproductive Success (RRS) in Lolo Creek. Comparative performance of conventional and supplemental production strategies will be evaluated in the South Fork Clearwater River. This project will also endeavor to validate PIT tag array-based status and trend estimates and facilitate a run-reconstruction of Snake Basin steelhead. According to the proposal, “The 2008-2017 U.S. vs. Oregon Management Agreement designated 200,000 unclipped (supplementation) steelhead reared at Dworshak National Fish Hatchery (DNFH) released into Lolo Creek and 330,000 unclipped steelhead reared at the Clearwater Anadromous Fish Hatchery (CAFH) released into tributaries of the South Fork Clearwater River (SFCR). These releases are in addition to the 840,000 conventionally reared, AD-clipped, steelhead smolts released into the SFCR each year. The motivation behind the unclipped fish releases is escapement from down-river fisheries and increased contribution to natural production to bolster natural steelhead population abundances. The brood stock composition of the supplementation releases (e.g., integration of natural adults into the brood stock) and the increase of these releases from the current level of 60,000 into Lolo Creek to full production (200,000) will be decided by tribal, state, and federal co-managers. Therefore, this project is structured as an observational study of management actions, as per the recommendation of ISRP/ISAB.” Also to be evaluated is the possibility of a velocity barrier existing below the stocked tributaries of the SFCR, in the vicinity of Golden, Idaho. This seems an important item. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management Very little history and results of work accomplished thus far were presented. No data were presented despite releases since 2006 and earlier. Unclipped smolt releases (50,000, to increase to 200,000) into Lolo Creek are to bolster natural production. What evidence that this is working? Are there associated issues with unclipped hatchery fish that confound other studies? The presentation of preliminary data analyzing abundance, behavior, performance and survival of natural, conventional and supplementation returns to date is needed. The population monitoring appears needed, but there remain questions of its benefit. Fifteen years for supplementation results, or three generations seems lengthy – would not the returns from one generation (>five years) be sufficient, particularly given other, better studies? 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) Relationships with other studies on supplementation appear to be lacking. Questions may be best addressed in more detailed studies elsewhere. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Methods and metrics are clearly delineated and seem generally appropriate. The proposal uses existing facilities plus new facilities being Fast Track funded. There is insufficient detail on results to date, parentage analyses, sample size availability, and sample size requirements. The section (Objective 8) on steelhead run construction was confusing. There is also need for development of a decision framework and time scale for several elements of the work, particular the supplementation evaluation, with indication of key indices or reference points for management action.

This project is an observatioal study of management actions and will not be marking hatchery fish. 

The response was excellent in resolving both some rough spots in the original proposal and clarifying for the ISRP our misconceptions. They clarify that the project is not nearing termination, but intend for it to provide enumeration of adult summer Chinook in the Secesh River over the long-term. They explained the pilot project the ISRP referred to, and noted it was being completed with collections in 2006. They provided a succinct summary of the challenges of enumerating adult salmon using redd counts and discussed a timeframe to establish the precision and accuracy of estimates using DIDSON technology. The sponsors also clarified the methods they use to validate estimates using DIDSON, that hatchery and natural spawners and spawner ages are determined from carcass surveys, not from the DIDSON technology. Finally they clarified the status of video counts at Lake Creek, and the relationship between monitoring Lake Creek, Secesh River, and their roles as reference streams for Snake River spring and summer Chinook abundance and productivity. The roles of Lake Creek and Secesh monitoring provide good justification for continuation of the project.