We appreciate the proponents’ effort to provide thorough point-by-point responses that partially address all six topics. We requested a revised proposal as a component of the response, but it was not provided. Although the point-by-point response touches on all the topics, we provide a few suggestions below to address remaining issues that were not adequately covered in the response, including a recommendation to revise the proposal to incorporate information provided in the response.

In our preliminary review, we requested a response on the topics listed below. Our final comments and suggestions based on the response are provided after each topic:

1. Timelines for implementation objectives. Timelines for the implementation objectives were provided. We recommend that the proponents revise the proposal to add these timelines prior to contracting as a record for the additional implementation timelines and for future reference.

2. Methods for adult recruits-per-spawner. We suggest that the proponents should provide a brief description in the next annual report to clarify terms, definitions, and methods for adult abundance, spawner abundance, and adult recruit-per-spawner productivity specific to Imnaha River steelhead. The response includes an expanded description of the methods used to determine adult abundance and recruits-per-spawner at the MPG and population levels. It also clarifies that the tributary escapement estimates are not combined with the subbasinwide estimate because they “are inherently included in the subbasinwide estimate.” However, some confusion remains regarding definitions and methods for estimating adult abundance and spawner abundance. Based on the descriptions in Kinzer et. al. (2021), adult abundance and recruits-per-spawner estimates are for escapement of adults returning to the lower Imnaha River IPDS location. Therefore, the abundance estimate does not directly represent the number of natural origin spawners, nor does the estimate of recruits-per-spawner represent a direct estimate of spawner-to-spawner productivity. Productivity calculated from adult escapement data at the lower Imnaha River IPDS site may vary from estimates based on spawner abundance depending on annual variability in pre-spawn losses resulting from harvest, catch and release mortality, pre-spawn mortality, and natural origin broodstock removed. ICTRT population viability assessment criteria are based on natural origin spawner abundance, and productivity is based on spawner-to-spawner data. Development of approaches to convert the escapement-based estimates to spawner-based estimates should be considered, if possible, thus allowing for direct comparisons with ICTRT VSP criteria in the future.

3. Number and proportion of natural spawning hatchery fish. We appreciate the extensive presentation and timeline associated with estimates of pHOS and PNI, which further highlighted the critical need to finalize the methods for estimating pHOS and abundance of naturally spawning hatchery fish. Our primary issue with not estimating pHOS and natural spawning hatchery fish abundance was related to the influence of hatchery spawners on viability assessment of total spawner abundance and productivity. Our main concern relates to positive bias in productivity that results when a substantial number of hatchery fish spawn naturally but are not counted as parents and thus their offspring are attributed to natural origin spawners. The description of future plans and the timeline for developing methods for estimating pHOS directly addressed our request and provides a clear path forward. We are confused why pHOS values are used to calculate PNI estimates, yet they are not used to estimate total spawner abundance. We suggest that a brief description addressing this issue be included in the next annual report.

4. Life cycle model. The proponents effectively addressed our concerns, and we appreciate the willingness to participate in the AMIP Life Cycle Modeling workgroup and consider opportunities for model development. We believe the development of a full life cycle model would be very informative and have broad application because the Imnaha River steelhead dataset is one of the best available in the Snake River basin.

5. Project evaluation and adjustment. The response provides the requested clarification as well as an extensive list of adaptive decisions and changes that have resulted from past review and management adjustments. We suggest that the appropriate additional text be added to the proposal to provide a record of the additions.

6. M&E matrix support. We recognize the challenges of adding additional objectives within restricted budgets. The Council and Council staff have indicated that developing summaries and matrices of the types and locations of monitoring efforts across projects in major geographic areas would provide important information. The ISRP has provided additional information on the summary of monitoring and evaluation for geographic areas in the Programmatic Comments of this report. The Fish and Wildlife Program may identify the specific elements and formats for these RM&E summaries and matrices in the near future. We encourage the proponents to participate in future efforts to characterize linkages between habitat implementation efforts and M&E as the expertise of this project would strengthen future coordinated M&E summaries. The project is providing valuable population level performance information that may be useful for assessing long-term population response to changes in habitat conditions.

Preliminary ISRP report comments: response requested (Provided for context. The proponents responded to the ISRP’s questions; see response link and final review above.)

Response request comment:

The ISRP thanks the proponents for providing a proposal that includes many of the essential elements requested and successfully integrates two projects—Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring and Imnaha River Steelhead Status Monitoring. The project has been underway for many years and addresses critical data gaps for smolt migration performance and viable salmonid population parameters, including adult abundance, productivity, life history diversity, and spatial structure. It provides population status and trend information for Imnaha steelhead MPG, one of the important steelhead populations in the mid-Columbia. It also provides critical information to a number of co-managers and recovery plans in the Columbia River Basin and informs VSP analysis. These data also are used to fulfill the FCRPS BiOp requirements. The 26-year data set is an important component of trend analysis for steelhead in the Snake River basin.

The project has achieved past objectives and provides critical data for a variety of assessments and management decision processes. The status and trends of Imnaha River steelhead are concerning with poor smolt-to-adult survival, low and declining abundance, and adult returns per spawner below 0.5 in most recent years. Thus, the information collected by the project is critical.

The goals are well described and provide clear qualitative desired outcomes. A comprehensive set of biological and implementation objectives along with monitoring questions are provided that directly support the goals. Most objectives are specific, measurable, and timebound, all of which are essential elements for SMART objectives.

In general, the methods are complete and scientifically sound. The integration of a diverse set of field and analytical methods functions well to address the extensive set of monitoring questions, the broad geographic area of study, and the diversity of environmental conditions. The ISRP commends the project for completing finalized protocols published in Monitoring Resources. There is the need for additional information in the objectives and methods sections that we detail at the end of this section.

The project is guided by an eight-step adaptive management decision process; however, details related to timelines, schedules, participants, and documentation are not provided.

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 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Project (199202601) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha geographic area. During the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021), we ask this project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what is being monitored by this project and where and when the monitoring occurs. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard.

The ISRP requests the proponents to address the following points in a revised proposal and to provide a brief point-by-point response to explain how and where each issue is addressed in the revised proposal:

1. Timelines for implementation objectives. No timelines are provided for Objectives A.1, B-1, and B-2. These objectives address the important need to estimate number and proportion of natural spawning hatchery fish and improving Proportion Natural Influence (PNI) estimates. Please modify the proposal to add a start and finish timeline for each objective.

2. Methods for adult recruits-per-spawner. The abundance/productivity viability assessment approach developed by the ICTRT and now executed by NOAA as part of the five-year ESA status reviews requires spawner-to-spawner data. It is unclear how the basinwide and tributary escapement estimates are combined and used to produce the spawner-to-spawner estimates. Please describe this calculation more thoroughly in the Methods section of the proposal.

3. Number and proportion of natural spawning hatchery fish. The productivity analysis relies on the assumption that no hatchery fish are spawning naturally, an assumption that is likely to be false and can create unknown positive bias in the productivity estimates. The proposal properly highlights the need to estimate abundance and proportion of hatchery origin natural spawners but lacks details on how this will be accomplished and who will participate. Please modify the Methods section to describe the steps for developing and evaluating efficacy of the two options provided in the proposal. How will you facilitate, "further consideration and discussion among researchers and co-managers" to ensure success?

In the future, when hatchery spawner abundance estimates are available, the ISRP encourages the proponents to consider incorporation of the results of the NOAA-ODFW relative reproductive success study on Little Sheep Creek in the recruit-per-spawner analyses. The project can derive estimates in two ways: 1) aggregate hatchery and natural origin spawners to estimate a combined productivity, and 2) partition productivity for hatchery and natural fish utilizing hatchery origin spawner abundance and hatchery origin relative reproduction success based on Little Sheep Creek studies. This second approach was recommended by the ICTRT when population specific reproductive success information is available. Please explain if the proponents disagree with these analytical approaches or propose an alternative approach.

4. Life cycle model. The ISRP recommends the proponents synthesize their information and embark on developing a life cycle model. The accumulated data are impressive, and there is substantial potential for further in-depth analyses. The project should collaborate with others engaged in life cycle modeling to plan and develop the modeling efforts and include it as an objective in the revised proposal. Results should be presented in future annual reports and as part of the next major proposal. If the proponents already have perspectives or plans for developing a life cycle model, then please describe the plan in the response.

5. Project evaluation and adjustment. The proponents should revise the proposal and describe in more detail the process for evaluation and adaptive adjustment with information on known decision points, explicit schedules for evaluation and decision-making, and documentation of decisions and project changes.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

This proposal represents an integration of the Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring and the Imnaha River Steelhead Status Monitoring Projects. Both projects have been underway for many years. The project addresses critical data gaps for smolt migration and survival information as well as adult abundance, productivity, life history, and spatial structure. Information provided by the project is essential for assessing viability status for the ESA listed Imnaha MPG.

Two overarching goals clearly describe the qualitative desired outcomes for the project. The goals specify the need to provide status and trends information for sound scientific management of Imnaha River steelhead and to improve the projects effectiveness from lessons learned and application of sound adaptive management.

The proposal includes 9 biological objectives, 14 implementation objectives, and 10 key monitoring questions associated with goal one. There is strong connectivity and continuity between goals, objectives, and monitoring questions. The monitoring questions address critical information needs and uncertainties. The objectives are basically implementation objectives, calling for the completion of monitoring tasks. While this is a common characteristic of implementation objectives, the existing objectives could be improved by defining the necessary time frames, geographic representation, and extent. We strongly support the new work focused on increasing knowledge of hatchery steelhead spawner abundance and distribution to improve estimates of PNI.

The old objectives from the earlier projects seem to continue as the objectives of the new merged project. However, it would be helpful to clearly explain the integration of old and new objectives so that there is continuity over time.

Q2: Methods

The project uses a diverse set of field and analytical methods to address the extensive set of monitoring questions, broad geographic scope of the project, and diversity of habitats in the watershed. The project uses a creative mix of techniques, including juvenile traps, adult weirs, spawning ground surveys, scale analyses, temperature and flow monitoring, PIT tagging and array detections for data collection.

Detailed methods are presented for each of the monitoring questions. For the most part, the overall sample designs are well described and appropriate, but it is unclear how the information is synthesized to describe the overall status and trends of the Imnaha River steelhead population. The project is applying standard analytical protocols that provide probabilistic estimates. Basinwide adult abundance estimates are derived through linked model outputs from DABOM and STADEM, and tributary adult abundance estimates are derived from weir counts or PIT array observations. Juvenile abundance estimates are derived with use of the Bailey mark-recapture model with variability estimates from bootstrapping.

The project has assembled a large body of information since 1997, which is sufficiently rigorous to support a more detailed full life cycle assessment of the status and trends of this steelhead population. Have the proponents explored the potential development of a life cycle model for Imnaha River steelhead? Much can be gained from the analysis with a moderate investment of effort. The accumulated data are impressive, and there is substantial potential for further in-depth analyses. If a deeper dive into the data cannot be supported under project funds, the ISRP encourages the proponents to pursue other options, including collaboration with universities or other agencies with modeling expertise. The project has reached an important stage in its development. The ISRP recommends the proponents develop a plan to collaborate with partners to create a synthesis and life cycle model. The project should begin the synthesis and modeling efforts soon and try to complete the life cycle model during this funding period. The project can provide information on their approach and progress in annual report and the next proposal.

There is lack of clarity regarding methods for adult recruits-per-spawner estimation. In addition, there is no description of a timeline and process for developing and evaluating alternative approaches for estimating PNI. Specifics requests related to these issues are provided in the Overall Comment section of the review.

The ISRP commends the proponents for their investment in development of a centralized data management system and their sharing of information through the Streamnet Coordinated Assessment Database. In addition, the project has demonstrated a strong commitment to documenting methods with finalized protocol publications in Monitoring Resources for most methods.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The project is guided by the Nez Perce Tribe's eight-step adaptive management decision process. The proponents indicate that they follow an eight-step process but do not describe the process for adaptive evaluation such as with regularly scheduled meetings, known decision points, and documentation of decisions. We recognize that such formal decisions may be made through a series of project, committee, and Nez Perce Tribal Council meetings, but the proposal does not provide information about this. The proponents should describe the process for adaptive evaluation with information on known decision points and explicit schedules for evaluation and decision-making.

The proponents provide some good examples of application of project adjustment, including expansion of smolt trapping time frames to achieve better estimates, assessing influence of spill on smolt survival, identifying poor quality PNI estimation methods and seeking alternatives, and actively meeting with co-managers to identify alternative management approaches to improving the abundance and productivity of salmon and steelhead in the Imnaha River subbasin. The proponents also describe numerous project changes that were implemented in response to past ISRP/ISAB review recommendations.

The proposal identifies habitat alteration, climate change, and predators as potential confounding factors. The proposal emphasizes the use of monitoring and hatchery production to address the effects of confounding factors on meeting mitigation goals. Other than increased use of hatcheries, the proponents do not identify any particular actions or strategies for dealing with climate change or increased abundance of predators. The proponents should identify more explicit strategies for dealing with recognized potential confounding factors and include that information in future annual reports.

Many of the answers to the objectives (stated as questions) in the Progress-to-Date section of the proposal present a logical development from the data collection to analyses and the systematic presentation is informative. The analyses of the data are mostly descriptive using graphs and linear regression (GLM is reported on later in the proposal). What is missing, however, is the final conclusion for each objective that explains how the steps lead to actually answering, as well as possible, the monitoring question. The text nicely leads the reader down a path but then stops short of getting to detailed progress on answering the question. To illustrate, question 5: What are the impacts of the hydropower system on Imnaha emigrant survival? The project estimates the difference in average survival rates, but is there any more than that? Similarly, question 8 about environmental and habitat features that may serve as limiting factors – a nice start is made on analyzing discharge and temperature data, but it seems more can be done. Given the long time series and wealth of data, a deeper dive into the analyses with a full life cycle model should be considered in order to extract even more information.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

 

The project has a strong record of meeting objectives and providing valuable information for assessing status and trends of steelhead abundance, productivity, life history diversity, and spatial structure. The proposal includes extensive time-series of data for each past objective. Some key findings that are concerning include 1) the decline in adult escapement from a high of 3,270 in 2011 to levels below 1,000 from 2017-2020, 2) smolt-to-adult return rates that are highly variable, generally poor, and well below the Council's goal of 2-6%, and 3) recruit-per-spawner estimates that have been below 1.0 since 2011, with only one brood year above O.5. Although SARs have declined, juvenile survival to Lower Granite Dam and McNary Dam have been relatively constant or slightly increasing. The project also determines the age structure, sex ratios, size at emigration and return, migration timing, spatial distribution within the basin, and potential limiting factors. The proponents describe these general trends but provide little interpretation about the implications for management actions or potential changes in status and trends.

This project provides important monitoring and evaluation data to partners in the Grande Ronde Basin Endemic Spring Chinook Supplementation Program (GRESCSP). Results from the project’s monitoring actions are designed to explicitly test numerous assumptions about the benefits and potential costs of using hatcheries as agents of salmonid conservation. Consequently, project findings are also of interest and value to other groups engaged in spring Chinook supplementation efforts throughout the Columbia Basin.

The proposal is well written and generally uses graphs and tables effectively to communicate prior results and plans for the next project period. Broadly, this is an important project that not only benefits spring Chinook salmon in the Grande Ronde basin but also produces information of interest to fishery managers throughout the Columbia River Basin.

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. SMART objectives. Place expected time bounds on the implementation tasks (e.g., repetitive annual tasks, and one-time actions that may need several years to complete).

2. Project evaluation and adjustment. Describe the overall project adjustment process used by the project and specifically the process used to appraise its own actions to make any necessary changes to fieldwork protocols, data collection, analyses, etc.

3. 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 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Project (199202601) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha geographic area. During the response loop, we ask this project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what is being monitored by this project and where and when the monitoring occurs. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The proposal clearly defines the primary purpose of the project—to help operate and evaluate whether a spring/summer Chinook supplementation program occurring in the Lostine River is meeting its four overall goals. Under each of the project’s four goals, the proponents list one to four general objectives. Altogether, ten general objectives are described. To determine if progress is being made in meeting these objectives, the proponents developed 27 questions that their monitoring effort is addressing. Forty-one specific implementation objectives were developed to answer the management and monitoring questions presented in the proposal. The ISRP commends the proponents for developing monitoring questions that are largely applicable and useful to salmonid supplementation projects throughout the Columbia River Basin. Additionally, results from the project’s previous monitoring efforts were presented along with lessons learned. The data, figures, and discussion in the proposal unambiguously show the value of the O&M and M&E work being done.

The project’s implementation objectives, however, are not presented in a SMART objective format. Many appear to be reoccurring annual tasks, but others, such as the creation of a population model specific to Lostine Chinook, will likely take longer to complete and are not on an annual cycle. Consequently, the ISRP is uncertain about when tasks will occur and be completed. We ask that the proponents indicate when each of their implementation tasks will be completed and whether they occur annually.

Q2: Methods

The proposal provides adequate general descriptions of the methods being employed. Standard and well-established protocols are followed when collecting field data. New field data are entered electronically and downloaded into databases for further analysis. A table in the proposal links the project’s implementation objectives to the MonitoringResources.org website, where further details on the methods are described.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

Data and findings produced from the project are used by the GRESCSP in an adaptive management cycle. Cooperators in the GRESCSP (Nez Perce Tribe, Confederated Umatilla tribes, ODFW, and USFWS) develop Annual Operating Plans that are informed and modified by project data. The proposal presents examples of the how the Lostine spring Chinook project has changed its operations due to monitoring results in the proposal’s “Lesson Learned” segments.

Several questions regarding how adaptive management proceeds, however, need to be addressed. First, does the project have its own internal adaptive management process? Seemingly, such a process would allow the proponents to regularly review whether specific tasks were performed as expected and if any changes in objectives or methods are needed. Second, the proposal lacks a general description of the adaptive management process used by the GRESCSP, which should include a brief description of the process being used, how frequently it occurs, and how decisions are documented for long-term reference. The proponents mention that a supplementation workshop occurs every five years—is this when the GRESCSP evaluates progress and determines if any changes need to occur? If so, are those results summarized and reported somewhere?

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

Quantitative findings produced by the project are clearly presented in the “Progress to Date” part of the proposal. For example, the project has met its goal of acclimating and annually releasing 250,000 spring Chinook smolts into Lostine River for 9 out the past 10 years. Additionally, adult returns from HOR smolts have consistently been greater than for NOR adults, indicating that the hatchery program is providing a demographic boost to the Lostine population. However, the most important contribution of the project may be the testing of key assumptions associated with supplementation. Data on HOR and NOR spring/summer Chinook are being used to examine a broad suite of assumptions about the benefits/costs associated with supplementation. These range from assessing and comparing HOR and NOR juvenile and adult survival rates, relative reproductive success, age-at-maturation, maturation timing, spawning ground distribution, productivity, genetic diversity, straying rates, and so on. Results are also being used to parameterize life cycle models.

General Comments
For the most part, the proponents have adequately addressed the ISRP's comments, providing comprehensive responses to some of them, most notably the discussion of “results.” The response was well organized and clearly presented. The proponents continue to take ISRP comments in a productive spirit to make their proposed work more transparent and subject to productive evaluation. We commend the proponents for also clearly identifying how and where the narrative was revised.

Comments on Responses to Specific ISRP Questions
1. “Clearly identify additions to this proposal from the basinwide RME strategy” - This ISRP comment was adequately addressed. The proponents identified and discussed two major additions to the project from the basinwide RME strategy. One of the additions, extended operation of the weir, is crucial for estimating hatchery and natural adult fish abundance and managing outplanting of hatchery fish above the weir. The other was an evaluation of details of the captive brood program.

2. “Provide in the proposal the goals and objectives for hatchery and natural production in the Lostine River that are components of the NEOH Master Plan. How do the objectives relate to AHA and the HSRG recommendations?” - Objectives for hatchery and natural production in the Lostine River that are components of the NEOH Master Plan are now more clearly identified (Table 1). The proponents evaluated HSRG recommendations based on AHA for the Wallowa/Lostine and concluded that NEOH goals for the Wallowa/Lostine, TRT abundance recommendations, and obligations of the LSRCP were inconsistent with the suggested goals of the HSRG. Thus, the proponents have not adopted those goals. They are, however, using AHA as a complementary tool to assess various management scenarios. This approach appears reasonable and the proponents are wisely keeping in mind the assumptions and limitations of AHA identified in RIST.

The proponents propose to "Manage population [presumably Wallowa/Lostine] for ... (PNI) of 0.67." and "Manage Lostine population for PNI of 0.5". These estimates need to be reconciled. Specifically, is the 0.67 level attainable if the PNI for Lostine only reaches 0.5?

3. “Present the results for each year of operation for each goal and objective related to natural and hatchery production, perhaps patterned after the NPT presentation at the supplementation workshop/symposium held in Orofino, ID. These results can be reported in a couple of pages with a table. We are not expecting and exhaustive report, but a manageable additions.” - Reporting of results was improved considerably over the original proposal. They were more detailed and included a betterdescription of life history performance results and assessments of how well the project has met its goals to date. Management assumptions (Table 5), which in effect are objectives, could be more closely associated with defined project objectives (Table 4). How do the two relate? Can management assumptions be considered sub-objectives?

4. “Provide a self-assessment of meeting the goals. In particular, the proponents should rigorously evaluate and present convincing evidence that natural production could consistently meet or exceed escapement goals and in what time frame.” - The proponents provided a reasonable self-assessment of how well established project goals have been met. Some short-term goals have been met and other midor longer-term goals either have not yet been met or data is insufficient to determine whether they have been met. The proponents still did not define time frames for short, mid-, and long-term goals. Nor did they present evidence or a reasonable discussion of whether natural production could consistently meet or exceed escapement goals and in what time frame. This is admittedly difficult to assess, but it appears from the data presented that at this point in time, due to variability in population parameters, the likelihood that long-term goals can be met is unknown. The proponents definitely should provide time estimates for short, mid- and long-term goals. Otherwise they have little meaning and could be interpreted (or misinterpreted) in multiple ways.

It is worth pointing out that the fish production that this project is evaluating is conducted under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) and negotiated in the US. v. Oregon production and harvest. The LSRCP anticipates a step-wise review of spring Chinook in December 2010, and steelhead and fall Chinook in 2011 and 2012, respectively. The sufficiency of the data collection and further evaluation of whether the overall effort is achieving the objectives of the subbasin plan and LSRCP will take place in that review. This project supports the NEOH monitoring design previously reviewed and supported by the ISRP. After the NEOH monitoring was designed the ISRP and ISAB further elaborated on monitoring supplementation projects, and the Ad Hoc Supplementation Workgroup has produced recommendations for standard monitoring of supplementation.

The proposal states that monitoring in the Lostine, using the NEOH design, is consistent withrecommendations for monitoring supplementation. However, in the data and monitoring designinformation presented in the proposal, there was an absence of discussion of whether abundance ofnatural-origin adults in the supplemented streams was contrasted to reference streams. The 2007 LSRCPannual report states that evaluation of spring Chinook supplementation in the Grande Ronde was unableto demonstrate a benefit to natural-origin adults. This is a critical evaluation that needs to take place inthe Lostine. Figure 16 shows a trend line for annual redd abundance in the Lostine in contrast to theMinam. This contrast appears to be total redds. The appropriate contrast needs to account for reddsproduced from hatchery and natural spawners.

5. “Clearly identify the BiOp VSP parameters that are to be determined by this project and how precision will be established for the methods to be employed to estimate the parameters.” - VSP parameters were identified. The proponents, however, did not adequately discuss how precision of the methods for evaluating VSP parameters will be established, but instead referred to other documents. Assuming this documents adequately address the precision issue a brief summary or synthesis would complement the response.

The project evaluation needs to include an explicit measure of whether supplementation is leading to an increase in abundance of natural-origin female spawners.

The project is important to efforts aimed at conserving/restoring spring Chinook salmon. It provides an opportunity to assess and evaluate how well artificial production succeeds/contributes to restoring a previously depressed local population. If successful, the population could be an important mid-basin component of the ESU. The project provides an M&E program that could be of both short term (prevent extirpation) and long-term (meet escapement goals for natural production) benefit to anadromous fishes in the Lostine basin.

The fast track portion to upgrade and operate the weir is justified. However, the remainder of the project needs a response in the form of a revised narrative. In the response the proponents should:

1. Clearly identify additions to this proposal from the basinwide RME strategy

2. Provide in the proposal the goals and objectives for hatchery and natural production in the Lostine River that are components of the NEOH Master Plan. How do the objectives relate to AHA and the HSRG recommendations?

3. Present the results for each year of operation for each goal and objective related to natural and hatchery production, perhaps patterned after the NPT presentation at the supplementation workshop/symposium held in Orofino, ID. These results can be reported in a couple of pages with a table. We are not expecting an exhaustive report, but a manageable addition.

4. Provide a self assessment of meeting the goals. In particular, the proponents should rigorously evaluate and present convincing evidence that natural production could consistently meet or exceed escapement goals and in what time frame.

5. Clearly identify the BiOp VSP parameters that are to be determined by this project and how precision will be established for the methods to be employed to estimate the parameters.

1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships

Lostine River spring Chinook have declined significantly in recent decades and now are a component of the Snake River spring/summer Chinook ESU listed as Threatened in 1992. This project is directed at preventing extirpation and increasing abundance of Chinook salmon in the Lostine through supplementation and is deemed by NOAA-Fisheries to be important for recovery of Snake River and Grande Ronde River Chinook salmon. The project also proposes to monitor status and trends of steelhead and bull trout populations in the Lostine basin. Apparently, little information on steelhead abundance and productivity is available for the Lostine River. Specifically, the program is to operate an adult trapping weir, support juvenile rearing at Lookingglass Hatchery and a smolt acclimation and volitional release program on the Lostine.

The Grande Ronde Supplementation project (including Lostine O&M and M&E components) is an ongoing project that has been reviewed previously by the ISRP. The projects have received favorable reviews by the ISRP largely because they effectively integrate scientific monitoring directly into program designs. Recent "Qualifications" of the Grand Ronde project stated in the previous ISRP review are of particular relevance for the review of this proposal. These qualifications include: 1) need for enhanced (adequate) presentation of analyzed data and results (especially for adult return rates), 2) the need for the M&E portion of the project (project # 200713200) to be funded to justify the O&M portion, and 3) enhanced decision criteria that complement program assumptions in order to fully consider various potential management alternatives.

The proponents point out that the Lostine project is a component of the Northeast Oregon Hatchery program, established through US v. Oregon and the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan. NEOH has undergone an ISRP Three-Step Review under the Fish and Wildlife Program. As well as a component of NEOH, the project is related to many other ongoing projects in the Snake Basin. Because so many of the projects are closely related, a better approach than reviewing projects individually might be to review the whole set of interrelated projects.

The technical justification for the project could be improved. The problem description should have summarized the abundance of natural and hatchery fish in the watershed before the program began as well as trends to the present. The background section should clearly identify the new elements in the proposal that put it in the fast track portfolio. The proposal identifies BiOp RPAs and other action agency documents that recommend implementation of an M&E program and expect the project, at a minimum, to reduce the risk of extirpation of the extant natural Chinook population. Although the proposal provides some data that documents the depressed status of Chinook salmon in the Lostine River basin, it should present more comprehensively the data and analyses that support this conclusion.

2. Project History and Results

The description of Project History is adequate. The project has been ongoing since 1994 and funded by BPA since 1998. To date, the project has been successful in achieving some of its objectives (Table 3 in proposal). The proponents state that NOAA-Fisheries concluded that the project prevented extirpation of the Lostine spring Chinook stock. It has met the short-term goal of maintaining escapement of combined hatchery and naturally spawning Chinook at above 250 fish. It has also enabled harvest by a tribal fishery. Its success at achieving the mid-term objective of maintaining an escapement of 500 naturally produced fish is less certain. This level of escapement appears to have been achieved, but only marginally, in five of eight of the most recent years (2001-2009). There is no clear trend of a sustained increase in escapement toward the long-term goal of 1716 naturally spawning adult Chinook, although positive trends toward the long-term escapement objective may require a longer time to manifest. It would be helpful if the proponents provided the time frame since inception of the project for achieving short-, mid-, and long-term goals.

Given the above uncertainty, is it likely that the project is only going to be able to prevent extirpation through continued supplementation or is recovery of an unsupplemented naturally spawning population a real possibility? A useful exercise might be to determine whether the population would remain viable if current escapement trends (marginally meeting or below the goal) continue. The proponents should also seriously consider terminating planting of hatchery adults above the weir to determine if natural production can be sustained without augmentation or, alternatively, provide justification for continued augmentation.

Presentation of results of the project should be improved. A primary "Qualification" of past ISRP reviews has been the evaluation of the program's success by robust data analysis and reporting of results (relative to biological objectives, work elements, and hypotheses). The current proposal gives a first level of these required/qualified analyses in that return rates, harvest rates, escapement, etc. are provided. However, the ISRP remains interested in deeper analyses that demonstrate how well the program is meeting its goals and expectations. Therefore, this remains a qualification. The project also should clearly state the objectives and goals as established in the NEOH Master Plan and the FY07 project proposal. It was sometimes difficult to distinguish NEOH M&E goals and objectives from the objectives of this proposal as, apparently, they overlap. Clarification of this distinction and relationship would be helpful.

Last January the ISRP attended a supplementation workshop/symposium held in Orofino, ID, sponsored by the NPT. In the symposium the presenters laid out the goals and objectives for fish culture (broodstock collection, spawning, egg hatch, etc) and post release goals. They then compared each of their projects to the program goals. The symposium included the Lostine project. The type of summary presented at that symposium needs to be included in the results section of this proposal. The ISRP also suggests looking at the presentation of results by the Warm Springs Tribe for Hood River steelhead and Chinook in their draft revised Master Plan. The presentation need not be ponderous, but it should be thorough.

3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods

The objectives, work elements, and methods have largely remained unchanged. This is appropriate at this point to avoid complicating the design until a thorough evaluation and robust analysis of the data are performed to warrant adapting the program.

The proposal would be strengthened considerably by a more comprehensive presentation of methods, particularly those related to collection of data on life history performances. More specifics are needed on how the proponents are going to achieve the data precision standards that are called for in the Comprehensive M&E strategy.

The proponents have made an effort to quantify out-of-basin effects on adult returns to the Lostine. They are currently developing a model that will incorporate ocean conditions. To help determine the impact of out-of-basin factors and assess efficacy of supplementation in the Lostine basin, the proponents should consider comparing patterns and trends in abundance of the Lostine stock to reference streams such as the John Day which has been little influenced by hatchery introductions compared to other Columbia Basin rivers.

An element of the objectives focuses on extended weir operation for steelhead. Although it is a minor element (opportunistic because the weir is already operated and maintained), it will provide tangible and logical support for the proponent's objective of monitoring adult steelhead returns.

4. M&E

The program has a strong M&E component built into the O&M part of the project. The objectives for this project tie directly into broader GRESCSP and NEOH program objectives, as well. The M&E components of the proposal are critical to evaluating the Lostine portion of the Grande Ronde Chinook Supplementation program. The details regarding assurance that the methods will achieve BiOp RPAs and basinwide M&E for VSP parameters could be improved. To date, the project has been successful in achieving some of its short- and mid-term objectives, which is encouraging. Nevertheless, continued monitoring is necessary, especially to assess adult returns of naturally spawning Chinook. The results of the supplementation effort in regard to natural Chinook production are mixed. In some years returns of natural spawners have marginally met the established escapement goal. In other years it has been well below the goal. Escapement is variable, as would be expected, but the concern is that even the best adult returns appear to have barely exceeded the escapement goal and no sustained increase in escapement is evident.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 10/14/2013 10:26:47 AM.

The proponents' responses were adequate. The minijack query was nicely addressed. Reviewers view the project favorably, but are very concerned about the low SARs observed to date. These are not values that will lead to recovery or sustainability. The ISRP’s request for additional clarity on this issue was perhaps misunderstood. This observation is not a policy issue. Understanding what bottlenecks exist and are contributing to low SARs and how they can be minimized is the job of proponents and reviewers alike. This is in everyone's best interests. If actions to address the low SARs are being taken within basin, the ISRP was interested in knowing more about the actions. If the low SARs are thought to be entirely due to downstream mortality factors, this calls into question the likelihood of reaching SARs and returning adult numbers identified in the NPT Hatchery Plan or the Clearwater Subbasin Plan.

It is also worth noting as a programmatic concern, that the NPT spring Chinook SAR goals do not match those of the Fish and Wildlife Program and Subbasin Plans; thus, the SAR goals need further examination. SAR goals for the NPT Hatchery are less than the subbasin goals and won't result in rebuilding or the creation of a self-sustaining population. A SAR of 0.4 may result in some harvestable fish, but it will not result in naturally sustainable runs. If the proponents are interesting in rebuilding fish, these SAR goals are not compatible.

A response is requested on the following points (also, see additional discussion in comments below): 1. How will SARs increase (nearly an order of magnitude) under the present program to achieve program goals? 2. How are harvest goals (and present harvest actions in tributaries) to be reconciled with the rebuilding targets and schedules? 3. Need a discussion of minijacks. 4. Need additional interpretation of results for Spring Chinook. Summary: This is an excellent proposal. It is clear that this continues to be a quality program. The proponents deserve a good deal of credit for the recent 5-year review Symposium and for the establishment of a new DFRM website on which selected information will be available. The NPTH Goal is to increase the number of naturally spawning adults to achieve goals within 24 years (this timeline is consistent with the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program). This should result in 4-6% SARs for spring-summer Chinook, 3% SARs for fall Chinook, and 4% SARs for steelhead as measured at Lower Granite Dam, within the next 24 years. However, presently SARs are about 1/10th this amount. Consequently, the proposal should describe how the 3-6% SAR goals for the various species are to be reached, when they are so much lower than that at present. In a similar vein, how are the Subbasin Plan’s harvest goals to be accounted for (i.e., justified) when SARs are not indicative of rebuilding to target levels. What is the scientific basis for believing that a fishery for fall Chinook could be soon warranted on a substantial scale that would not be in conflict with the stated goal of the hatchery project that is to establish a natural spawning run of salmon? Allowing harvest impacts before reaching the project’s target rebuilding goals will reduce the number of fish in the system or require increasing overall hatchery production for the project. Either step will likely slow the local adaptation process of the naturally spawning salmon population and therefore will delay achievement of the project’s rebuilding goals. Also relevant and needed is a discussion regarding minijacks, the abundance of which is being seen (i.e., by proposal 200203100) to be problematic in several ways in supplemented Chinook populations. The proposal includes no discussion of minijacking, its consequences, or potential management solutions. The second concern deals with the reporting of project results. Proponents are to be commended for the detailed presentation. Results are fairly clearly presented for fall Chinook; however for spring Chinook, reviewers are inundated with fine detail without adequate interpretation. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives This proposal seeks funding to continue monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of NPTH activities to: 1. Mark NPTH hatchery production with adipose fin clips, Coded-Wire Tags, and/or PIT tags; 2. Monitor the status and trends and life history diversity of Clearwater subbasin spring Chinook salmon and fall Chinook salmon including typical subyearling emigration versus yearling or holdover emigration strategy and associated adult returns; 3. Evaluate the effectiveness of the NPTH program at meeting production goals, stimulating Chinook salmon natural production, minimizing deleterious impacts to target and non-target populations, aiding in the recovery of ESA listed Snake River fall Chinook and maintaining genetic integrity; 4. Facilitate adaptive management of operational processes including innovative rearing strategies, variable stocking rates, and release locations; and 5. Report (electronically post) data and results. The primary regional data systems (PTAGIS, RMIS) will be provided tag data. Additional annual reports, metadata, and performance measure data will be available on the new DFRM website. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management The study’s results are shown in clear and thorough detail. While it has been an ongoing issue for ISRP reviewers to get proponents to adequately describe a project’s history, accomplishments, and the use of adaptive management, the NPT does a very good job of describing the project’s history and evolution, including how they went about solving unforeseen problems, mostly associated with low return of adults or with limited water supply. These are good and well described examples of adaptive management. The project has gone through several phases. First was an initial building and troubleshooting phase where facilities and protocols were tested against the project’s goals. Next was a phase of refining the project’s objectives and refining the artificial production protocols, while attempting to reach the project’s production goals. The most recent stage has been one where the protocols are refined and the production goals are increasingly being reached. Thus, the project was implemented, refined, and now regularly approaches its production goals. Because the ultimate goal for the project is one of reaching sustainable natural production consistent with the subbasin and fishery management goals, the next phase of the project will need to focus much more on post-release survival, mortality factors, and performance of returning adults. The NPTH M&E project describes much of how this will be done. The proponents’ minimal discussion of meanings and conclusions (which would constitute the study’s accomplishments) is appropriate, given the few years of data that are available thus far. Also, the rather new hatchery’s supplementation project being evaluated has only recently begun reaching production goals. The ISRP expects that in future cycles of review (and in other reports) the study will be providing conclusions about effects of the supplementation. For example, SARs for the FCS and SCS components are roughly 0.1% and 0.3%, respectively. For natural production to be self-sustaining, SARs will have to increase by an order of magnitude. How can this be achieved? The next iteration of the project should start to address these issues and describe a plan for achieving them, otherwise, there will never be a termination date for the artificial production efforts on this project and the ultimate goals will never be achieved. Other issues in the new phase of the project include the high number of minijacks, the low SAR rate, and how tribal harvest goals are consistent with natural production goals, given the low SAR rate. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) Adequately covered. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Adequately covered.

We judge the overall implementation of the project to be adequate, but the Yes (Qualified) rating does not represent ISRP endorsement of the interpretations of data and results.

Qualification 1: The ISRP believes that natural-origin abundance trends in Johnson Creek as a response to a supplementation treatment must be interpreted by reference to an unsupplemented reference location. The Sesech River is proposed by the proponent. These analyses need to be included in future proposals and any Three-Step review for expanded production.

Qualification 2: The proposed expansion of the Johnson Creek project and facilities needs to be reviewed through the Council’s Three-Step process. Additionally, the expansion of the fish releases will require review and consultation with NOAA Fisheries for the Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP).

Summary: The ISRP appreciated the proponent's constructive approach to the response. The proponents gave a clear and articulate response that continues to advance a positive dialog regarding the Johnson Creek project. Probably the most important issue, the proposed expansion, was deferred to the Three-Step process, and that seems most appropriate. Other ISRP concerns that were well addressed include the egg-to-smolt differential survival for wild versus hatchery fish and possible mini-jacking.

With respect to the pending Three-Step review, the ISRP believes that consideration of expansion needs to explicitly treat both demographic and genetic elements of conservation. The proponent is principally arguing for expansion based on retention of genetic diversity. Any formal plan needs to demonstrate how expansion can achieve the intended goals for genetic diversity, and for abundance and productivity. Expansion has the potential to decrease natural adult abundance by removing adults for hatchery production, and the potential to increase density dependent effects on juvenile survival and life-history/behavior by addition of juveniles beyond the stream’s carrying capacity.

The explanation of the updated replacement rates for natural and hatchery adults is not entirely satisfactory. It is clear that the updated numbers reflect an expanded geographic scale. It is less clear how the current numbers are estimated. It appears to the ISRP that this must be due to hatchery-origin adults returning in larger numbers than reported previously, and spawning below the capture weir. The types of data (weir, redd counts, carcass surveys) that are used to arrive at the updated evaluation and the actual numbers, expansion, and derivation are not transparent.

The proponents need to provide additional clarification on the following points. The points are further elaborated in the Summary and specific comments below. 1. The proponents need to demonstrate that the expansion is needed to address the perceived problem. The increase is discussed indirectly in the Problem Statement but needs to be more clearly and directly justified. The proponents need to convincingly describe the problem and what they believe are the potential causes. There appears to have been a boost in returning adult numbers in recent years associated with the Johnson Creek supplementation effort. Recent increases in adult returns beg the question of why an expansion of the program is justified. 2. A response is needed to clarify how abundance and productivity of spring/summer Chinook is to be assessed in the Johnson Creek supplementation program, and discuss the potential for coordination with the hatchery effects proposal to bring this project into full compliance with the AHSWG recommendations. The ISRP understands that the Sesech River will serve as a reference site to evaluate JCAPE, but the methodology is not presented, and results to date are not presented. 3. There appears to be a change in numbers reported that requires clarification. There is a very important difference in the data reported here, and that reported in the 2007-2009 proposal and the ISRP requests a clarification. In the 2007-2009 proposal the replacement rate for supplementation fish was lower than for natural-origin adults for 1998 and 2000 (6.99 versus 6.95 for 1998 and 4.46 v. 2.88 for 2000). In Table 4 these replacement rates are now 6.78 versus 7.06 for natural and supplementation in 1998 and 2.81 versus 3.5 for natural and supplementation females in 2000. How did these estimates change in the interval since the earlier reporting? 4. Another issue involves the (poor) survival of wild juveniles in the Upper Salmon and their habitat use. The proposal indicates eyed egg to smolt survival for the JCAPE has averaged 97.4%, which they contrast with high mortality (74.8%) from the egg to smolt stage within the Salmon River (Kiefer and Lockhart 1997). It would seem that evaluation of the causes of those patterns would perhaps pinpoint the causes of poor wild juvenile survival. The proposal’s DELV-14 is to “Determine status and trends of Chinook salmon habitat in the South Fork Salmon River Subbasin” by implementing the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) sampling framework, a statistically based and spatially explicit sampling design to quantify status and trends in stream and riparian habitats. Such monitoring is well designed but could be more valuable if in addition it was designed to test specific hypotheses regarding juvenile habitat use and survival, and contrasting patterns for wild vs. JCAPE fish. 5. Another issue pertains to possible minijacks, the abundance of which is being seen (i.e., by proposal 200203100) to be problematic in several ways in supplemented Chinook populations. Granted, calculation of female:female ratios somewhat obviates some concern, but the proposal includes no discussion of minijacking. Summary Comments: The proposal was in general well written, and the Executive Summary does a good job giving basic history, accomplishments, and logic. This proposal is for an expansion of both facilities and scale of the Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement. Consequently, a more thorough review of the proposal is likely warranted through the Three-Step Process. In the meantime, the proponents need to respond to several items. The main thrust of the proposal is to increase smolt production of JCAPE from the current 100,000 smolts (produced by 80 NOR adults) to 300,000 smolts, which would require 240 NOR adults for broodstock. Given the preliminary result presented in the proposal it is hard to see why the increase is justified. The increase is discussed indirectly in the Problem Statement, but needs to be more clearly and directly justified. The increased production objective also drives the hatchery facility expansion. Without a more clearly justified explanation for the proposed increase in production, it isn’t possible to support the proposed expansion of the facilities. During the presentation, the ISRP asked for additional information on the justification for tripling the smolt releases and the hatchery facility expansion? Jason Vogel said the tripling is to diminish the genetic risk – that a broodstock sampling of 80 NOR fish was not adequate to represent the entire run. If this is true and modeling could help identify whether it is adequate or what sample size might be more representative, additional NOR fish could be brought into the broodstock sample without the necessity of increasing the number of smolts released (and therefore having to increase the facility size). The proponents note that the justification for the increases (broodstock, smolts, and facilities) come from M&E findings that are detailed in the JCAPE HGMP to be submitted to NOAA Fisheries. This information needs to be in the proposal and in the response to the ISRP. Other concerns include: 1. There does not appear to be a restriction on supplementation fish on the spawning grounds. At the present time the returns of hatchery-origin salmon are not so large as to create a population largely influenced by hatchery production, especially since all brood fish are natural-origin. If hatchery returns should increase substantially this balance could shift, and there does not appear to be a decision framework or experimental design to evaluate the consequences. 2. How does abundance of natural-origin adult Chinook salmon in Johnson Creek compare with Secesh River, the designated reference location? The essential measure of supplementation is the abundance of natural-origin adults (females) in a supplemented stream in comparison with a reference location, and the productivity in the supplemented population in contrast with an unsupplemented reference site. How these evaluations are going to be conducted and preliminary analyses need to be incorporated into the proposal. Full comments: Some of the comments below are highlighted above. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The principal linkage for this project to regional programs, based on the proposal, is to Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit; the Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan developed by the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakama Tribes. The proposal identifies elements of the 2008 BiOp that recognizes the actions in Johnson Creek, and considers Johnson Creek to be an important component of the South Fork Salmon spring Chinook Major Population Group. No specific reference is provided to the Council Research Plan or to the recent Anadromous Salmon Monitoring Strategy. Problem Statement/Technical Background: The explanation of where the project is taking place and the status of the spring/summer Chinook population is adequate. The technical background is incomplete. The stated purpose of the supplementation in Johnson Creek is to reduce the extinction risk (extirpation risk) for this spawning aggregate. The discussion of this topic does not quantify either the extinction (extirpation) risk, the anticipated reduction in risk owing to the project, or provide a sufficient method for evaluating any benefit. As elaborated on elsewhere in the review, and emphasized in the ISAB supplementation report (ISAB 2003-3) and ISAB and ISRP memo on supplementation monitoring (ISRP/ISAB 2005-15), the essential metrics of interest are the abundance of natural-origin adults returning to Johnson Creek and the productivity (female to female replacement rate) of natural-origin adults resulting from supplementation. While there are many interesting metrics being collected, there is not an analytical framework presented in the proposal to address these essential uncertainties. The project should have clear objectives for performance of the fish in the hatchery, performance of both hatchery and natural fish in the wild, and measures of benefit (abundance of NORs) and deleterious risk (productivity of NORs spawning in the wild). The monitoring that takes place (weir counts, redd counts, juvenile (parr, smolt)) provides valuable information on an important population of spring/summer Chinook. Objectives: Obj-1. Maintain and enhance natural production in the Johnson Creek summer Chinook population: The ISRP does not believe that productivity of the Johnson Creek spawning aggregate can be increased by hatchery smolt releases. The proponent states that they assume this objective will be attained by having supplementation and natural productivity equal. This may increase abundance, but is unlikely to increase productivity. The concern with supplementation is that the increased abundance owing to supplementation will be at the cost of natural spawning productivity. Obj-2 Maintain life-history characteristics in Johnson Creek summer Chinook salmon. The comparison needs to be between natural-origin juvenile and adults in Johnson Creek with an unsupplemented reference location, not a comparison of supplementation and natural fish within Johnson Creek. As the accomplishments demonstrate, there are a variety of life-history difference between natural and hatchery fish in Johnson Creek, and these have been demonstrated in a number of spring/summer Chinook supplementation programs (Grande Ronde, Tucannon, Imnaha). The important uncertainty is the extent to which natural fish life-histories are being altered by interbreeding with the supplementation fish, and whether there is a productivity decline as a consequence. Obj-5 Operate the hatchery program to achieve optimal production effectiveness while meeting priority management objectives for natural production. Description: The desired outcome...if hatchery smolt-to-adult return rate is equal to JCAPE criteria (0.65 and 0.87). It is not clear to the ISRP what the JCAPE criteria are. What do the 0.65 and 0.87 refer to? It would be useful to include the JCAPE criteria in the problem statement. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management The history, accomplishments, and results are generally adequate. The proponents include a substantial summary of data collected from the project. One element that is missing is a summary of the numbers of hatchery-origin and natural-origin adults (by sex) that were passed above the weir for spawning. It may be possible to summarize this from Table 8, but a simple table would be useful. There is a very important difference in the data reported here, and that reported in the 2007-09 proposal and the ISRP requests a clarification. In the 2007-09 proposal the replacement rate for supplementation fish was lower than for natural-origin adults for 1998 and 2000 (6.99 versus 6.95 for 1998 and 4.46 vs. 2.88 for 2000). In Table 4 these replacement rates are now 6.78 versus 7.06 for natural and supplementation in 1998 and 2.81 versus 3.5 for natural- and supplementation females in 2000. How did these estimates change in the interval since the earlier reporting? The observation that hatchery spawning yields an increase in adult fish is not surprising. This common observation is the primary reason supplementation is contemplated as strategy to improve the status of ESA listed species. When this is realized in a supplementation system it is not evidence of success of supplementation. It is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for supplementation to provide a benefit. The report in 2007 that supplementation fish had a lower replacement rate than natural-spawning female was evidence that a fundamental condition for supplementation was not being achieved. Supplementation cannot provide a benefit if the fish taken into the hatchery produce fewer adults than fish left in the stream. The corollary, that if supplementation fish produce more adult progeny than natural spawning fish, then supplementation is beneficial is not true. The measure of benefit is whether natural spawning by a mix of supplementation and natural adults produces more adult progeny than the natural adults alone would have. This is a challenging evaluation. It requires comparing the production from the supplemented system to a reference unsupplemented population. This essential evaluation does not appear in the proposal accomplishments. Perhaps the most significant finding is that hatchery broodstock do reproduce in the wild successfully, at a rate that is 7.25 times that of their natural counterparts. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) The principal linkage for this project to regional programs, based on the proposal, is to Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit; the Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan developed by the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakama Tribes. The proposal identifies elements of the 2008 BiOp that recognizes the actions in Johnson Creek, and considers Johnson Creek to be an important component of the South Fork Salmon spring Chinook Major Population Group. No specific reference is provided to the Council Research Plan or to the recent Anadromous Salmon Monitoring Strategy. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods The project is part of the DFRM database management program. This looks strong, but is difficult to evaluate from this prospective. Also, the plan for five-year review looks commendable. The hatchery expansion or new construction needs the Council’s Three-Step Review.

Qualification: Analyses using data collected under this proposal – whether conducted by the NPT, FPC, or others – should be increased and documented in future project progress reports and proposals.

Summary: The project provides valuable data for several other projects and management applications in the basin. The project rationale is clearly presented, adequately showing how the data collected and supplied by this project are applied to management issues and decisions. The history of project activities and the time series assembled are outlined in a general sense, at least insofar as what was done (rather than what was discovered).

In a previous ISRP review of this project, the ISRP wrote that 199701501 is not a research investigation but essentially a data collection project. That assessment remains accurate. The objectives are more accurately called sampling and data summary tasks designed to provide the data in a form suitable for a database. The objectives are adequate as far as they go, i.e., as strictly a monitoring project. The project itself is well conducted using appropriate sampling and population estimation methods. The methodologies for this sort of smolt trapping work are identified and referenced, and are adequately standardized.

Although the historical data generated in this project are presented in the proposal, the proponents indicate that interpretation of the data is probably someone else’s primary responsibility, or is at least outside of the scope of the proposal. It is unclear, however, whose responsibility is it to analyze this valuable data.

There remain several opportunities for making more effective use of this 13-year data set. First, in a general sense, it would be helpful for the proponents to discuss the meaning of their results. The tables present the collected data very well. There appear to be some trends, and it would be helpful for the proponents to discuss those possible trends. Besides showing the accumulated data, presenting basic analyses (with narrative) of those data would be required to fulfill the criterion that the project “benefit fish and wildlife” as would interpreting the data and drawing conclusions about effects on the focal fish population and management implications. These data do not need to be dealt with in a routine manner. The results need not just be reported but can also be evaluated and interpreted.

For example, how might accuracy, precision, and bias be evaluated? Would short-term operation of a second trap (if cost-effective), or another approach, provide accuracy and precision estimates? It is not clear what biases may exist in this sampling regime. None of these issues are indicated as being addressed.

As for interpretation of the data collected, there is no research component, no hypotheses are listed, no indications are given of any research analysis designs. There are meaningful hypotheses that can be tested. For example, Roper and Scarnecchia (1999: CJFAS 56:939-946) develop and test several hypotheses around a 3-4 year data nearly identical in form but of much shorter duration than the impressive data set described in this proposal. There are also many other papers cited in that paper where hypotheses are tested with screw trap data on salmonid migrations. Such hypotheses might include an analysis of factors affecting run timing and duration, such as discharges, water temperatures, lunar phase, etc. It might also compare survival rates of early and late migrants. Such hypotheses testing and analyses would provide meaningful information for the Imnaha and be potentially applicable to other areas of the basin. A thorough analysis of this data would not only make full use of this valuable data set, it would show the limitations of the data and improve the sampling design for the future. This appears to be a missed opportunity; there are no refereed publications listed as having emanated from this project by the proponents.

The data are thus not being fully utilized beyond the good use by the FPC and by the LSRCP. The next proposal or project report should preferably describe the analyses conducted or proposed with this data whether through the NPT, FPC, or others.

Qualification: Analyses using data collected under this proposal – whether conducted by the NPT, FPC, or others – should be increased and documented in future project progress reports and proposals. Summary: The project provides valuable data for several other projects and management applications in the basin. The project rationale is clearly presented, adequately showing how the data collected and supplied by this project are applied to management issues and decisions. The history of project activities and the time series assembled are outlined in a general sense, at least insofar as what was done (rather than what was discovered). In a previous ISRP review of this project, the ISRP wrote that 199701501 is not a research investigation but essentially a data collection project. That assessment remains accurate. The objectives are more accurately called sampling and data summary tasks designed to provide the data in a form suitable for a database. The objectives are adequate as far as they go, i.e., as strictly a monitoring project. The project itself is well conducted using appropriate sampling and population estimation methods. The methodologies for this sort of smolt trapping work are identified and referenced, and are adequately standardized. Although the historical data generated in this project are presented in the proposal, the proponents indicate that interpretation of the data is probably someone else’s primary responsibility, or is at least outside of the scope of the proposal. It is unclear, however, whose responsibility is it to analyze this valuable data. There remain several opportunities for making more effective use of this 13-year data set. First, in a general sense, it would be helpful for the proponents to discuss the meaning of their results. The tables present the collected data very well. There appear to be some trends, and it would be helpful for the proponents to discuss those possible trends. Besides showing the accumulated data, presenting basic analyses (with narrative) of those data would be required to fulfill the criterion that the project “benefit fish and wildlife” as would interpreting the data and drawing conclusions about effects on the focal fish population and management implications. These data do not need to be dealt with in a routine manner. The results need not just be reported but can also be evaluated and interpreted. For example, how might accuracy, precision, and bias be evaluated? Would short-term operation of a second trap (if cost-effective), or another approach, provide accuracy and precision estimates? It is not clear what biases may exist in this sampling regime. None of these issues are indicated as being addressed. As for interpretation of the data collected, there is no research component, no hypotheses are listed, no indications are given of any research analysis designs. There are meaningful hypotheses that can be tested. For example, Roper and Scarnecchia (1999: CJFAS 56:939-946) develop and test several hypotheses around a 3-4 year data nearly identical in form but of much shorter duration than the impressive data set described in this proposal. There are also many other papers cited in that paper where hypotheses are tested with screw trap data on salmonid migrations. Such hypotheses might include an analysis of factors affecting run timing and duration, such as discharges, water temperatures, lunar phase, etc. It might also compare survival rates of early and late migrants. Such hypotheses testing and analyses would provide meaningful information for the Imnaha and be potentially applicable to other areas of the basin. A thorough analysis of this data would not only make full use of this valuable data set, it would show the limitations of the data and improve the sampling design for the future. This appears to be a missed opportunity; there are no refereed publications listed as having emanated from this project by the proponents. The data are thus not being fully utilized beyond the good use by the FPC and by the LSRCP. The next proposal or project report should preferably describe the analyses conducted or proposed with this data whether through the NPT, FPC, or others.

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. 

Technical and scientific background: This is a thorough and well-written proposal that documents the long history of the NPTH project including (somewhat between the lines!) the long interaction and dialogue between the ISRP and the project.

The current proposal accurately reflects many of the conclusions reached during previous reviews and is focused on implementing and monitoring Phase 1 of the three-phased, 20+ year project. Phase 1 is expected to take approximately 5 years; however, specific adult returns (i.e., benchmarks or biological triggers) have to be achieved to move the project into Phase II.

Sponsors provide substantial detail throughout the proposal and in the attached M&E Action Plan describing specific tasks and performance measures.

It would appear from this well-crafted proposal that the years of dialogue have paid off and that the systematic approach outlined in the proposal and M&E action plan are likely to yield much needed information on supplementation effects and results.

Relationships to other projects are well described.

This is a very expensive ($2 million/yr) effort to assess the performance of NATURES rearing and of this supplementation program. Prior ISRP comments specified that this M&E be done commensurate with a Phase 1 production level; however, it is difficult at this time to tease out if there should be any differences for M&E between the two phases.

Objectives, tasks, and M&E are well described including a detailed description of uncertainties, assumptions, and hypotheses.

For the response loop, the project sponsor submitted a letter from BPA that listed BPA's existing ESA implementation commitments and an estimation of new work anticipated to be a priority in addressing limiting factors for ESA-listed fish. The Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement Project is listed in a table attached to the letter. The BPA letter does not address the scientific issues raised by the ISRP in its review. The ISRP recommendation of "Fundable in part" from the preliminary review stands.

The Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement Project is Fundable in Part for one year (FY07) with subsequent annual funding contingent upon reporting of monitoring results and evidence of adaptive management decisions justified by the results. Sponsors also need to analyze and report on extinction risk. The annual report should be reviewed by an independent team.

The ISRP's preliminary review comments (June 1, 2006) were:

This is a long and complex proposal that richly documents its history including numerous iterative reviews by the ISRP. Significant exchanges have occurred between the project sponsors and the ISRP since the late 1990s and the removal of Johnson Creek from the ISS control stream status.

The goal of the Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement project is to reduce the demographic risk of extirpation of the ESA listed Johnson Creek summer Chinook salmon and begin its recovery through supplementation while maintaining genetic diversity of the artificially propagated summer Chinook salmon population and the natural population. The sponsors hope to increase adult returns through increased juvenile survival and improved homing in order to preserve and recover the Johnson Creek salmon population. The ISRP has long been critical of this project for a variety of technical reasons. Most of these have been addressed through the above described iterative review exchanges.

A decision was made to initiate a supplementation program in Johnson Creek to increase the population size as it appeared to be at increasing demographic risk during the 1990s. Decision-makers must have concluded that removing Johnson Creek from the ISS study design would not compromise the objectives of the ISS. The current proposal redirects the Johnson Creek work to become an additional stand-alone assessment of supplementation. What is the reason for another stand-alone assessment?

The sponsors have provided an excellent summary of the results of their project to date. The proposal is well done. Proponents should be commended for reporting and making these data available. The next step is to make adaptive management decisions on the appropriateness and scale of further supplementation. This discussion is absent from the proposal.

The important data that the sponsors provide calls into question whether the supplementation program is providing any demographic benefit or whether it may be creating a demographic loss (page 24, Table 10). For both the 1998 and 2000 brood years, the female-to-female replacement rate was lower for supplementation than for natural spawning (6.99 vs. 6.95 for 1998, and 4.46 vs. 2.88 for 2000). In both these cases, more fish would have returned had the collected females been permitted to spawn in the wild than by bringing them into the hatchery.

With results to date, the ISRP does not currently see justification for supplementing Johnson Creek. Moreover, this project could result in harm to the wild population based on the data reported. What are the limits to broodstock mining? Continuing the project with adequate monitoring may only be valuable in better understanding the problems with supplementation.

The proponents provide appropriate evidence that the summer Chinook population in Johnson Creek has decreased over the past 50 years. The purpose of supplementing the population is to reduce a risk of extirpation of the population. What is needed to more fully justify the action is a quantitative assessment of the likelihood of extirpation within specific timeframes. This should be followed by a presentation of the level of demographic support from supplementation that would be required to reduce this risk; i.e., how much supplementation at specified performance levels would lead to a 10, 20, 30, 40% etc. reduction in the risk of extirpation? This provides a context for comparing the project to alternatives. If for example, the population has a 50% chance of extirpation in the next 25 years, will we only reduce that chance to 40% under the expected performance of the supplementation program? Finally, this type of analysis would logically lead to clear performance thresholds by which to judge the artificial production portion of the program.

While it is clear (p. 29) that natural origin adults are used for broodstock, it is not clear whether adults of hatchery origin are also used for brood stock purposes. This should be clarified. Supplementation in its strictest sense (RASP) would rely solely on natural origin adults.

This project has changed from what it was first intended to be. It is now viewed as a stand-alone assessment of supplementation rather than as a part of the ISS assessment program. It appears that several issues that were contentious in the recent past have been resolved. Benefits of the program are unknown at this point, but objectives seem vague in terms of reducing the risk of extirpation - by how much, in what timeframe. They also are vague with respect to adaptive management loops to modify, expand, or terminate the supplementation.

The monitoring indicates they are adding contrasts between supplemented and unsupplemented reference streams, but no detail for this contrast is provided. It is still unclear just how supplemented and unsupplemented "reference" streams will be compared. The reliance on contrasts of supplementation with natural fish within Johnson Creek are informative but not sufficient to evaluate demographic or fitness benefits or losses from supplementation. Evaluation for the project is dependent on suitable data from reference streams, but available streams are not free from stray fish from adjacent supplementation programs.

The sponsors have made information from the project available for independent review.

The identification and magnitude of adverse outcomes for non-focal species is unknown.

Viewed in the context that this is essentially a data collection project, the rationale for the presentation of tasks as objectives is understandable. The proposal as constructed must be viewed not as a research investigation per se but a data supply project. The response does an adequate job of showing how the data collected by this project are applied through other analyses and inform management decisions. Interpretation of the data is acknowledged by the presenters as probably someone else's primary responsibility, or is at least outside of the scope of this proposal. However, the sponsors should remain vigilant on staying current on how the information is being used in management decisions to ensure that they are collecting the highest priority data. The proposal is fundable on that basis.

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

This project conducts supplementation of Lostine River spring Chinook salmon toward avoiding extinction of this much-reduced stock and, in the longer term, achieving its recovery. It is one of several projects that compose the Grande Ronde Endemic Spring Chinook Supplementation Program (GRESCSP). This project operates a smolt acclimation facility and an adult trapping station on the Lostine River tributary of the Grand Ronde River. Adults are spawned at the station; the fertilized eggs are then transferred to hatcheries elsewhere for raising until the young are brought back to the Lostine smolt acclimation site. The project monitors and evaluates the results in terms of population abundance and life history performance. There will be side benefits to other species such as steelhead via monitoring at weirs.

The proposal makes a strong case for continuation and funding as part of the GRESCSP. The authors are to be complimented on a clear, well-organized presentation that is thorough in most details. The project's biological objects are truly stated as biological objectives. Much of this proposal could serve as an example for other projects' proposals.

Project history and summary results to date are well presented, but future proposals for this project need to show more results in terms of return rates. There is no evidence so far that benefit from supplementation is occurring. The proposal gives well-warranted recognition that long-term prospects for the population depend on the remediation of habitat problems by related projects in the watershed.

Biological objectives are described with well-articulated and designed hypotheses to permit robust adaptive management. It would be logical to add an objective of terminating the project when M&E determines either that it is not working or that the target population recovers. A response was needed describing such a decision tree.

The sponsors responded well to most of the few questions that the ISRP had relating to this strong proposal. They reiterated the nature of the hypotheses and biological metrics.

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 its initial review, the ISRP requested a decision tree, which would describe a path of adaptive management. For each of the project's eight management objectives, the sponsors responded with a list of hypotheses or criteria, which they term "management assumptions." They regard the resultant outline a "decision framework" for guiding the decision process of NEOH adaptive management. The array is based on the NEOH M&E Conceptual Plan (Hesse and Harbeck 2000). In addition to this framework of assumptions, a decision tree would require statements of reasonably foreseeable alternative adjustments of management (scenarios, including project termination) that would depend on whether the assumptions are borne out. (See the decision tree provided under proposal 199800704.)