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.

This meets criteria but also see comments on the M&E proposal 198335003.

Now that the program has shown that it can produce fall and spring Chinook that return to the Clearwater River as adults, perhaps it is time to begin to consider whether (and to what extent) the effort will yield self-sustaining runs of natural origin. The next iteration of the project needs to begin to address whether and how self-sustaining Clearwater River salmon runs will be achieved. Thus, while the NPT has done a good job in guiding the NPTH to this point, the ISRP’s longstanding concerns about the viability of the supplementation approach to rebuild self-sustaining natural reproduction in Idaho rives and streams remains unanswered.

1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The proponents do a good job of describing the history of the project and how it fits into regional Fish and Wildlife Program and AP planning. Technical background, along with the growth and evolution of the NPTH program is well described.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

Past ISRP concerns that project results were not being adequately described have been effectively dealt with by the very commendable January 2009 Orofino symposium. The current proposal summarizes material presented at the symposium but often provides inadequate narrative for those who did not have the opportunity to attend the symposium.

The proponents do a very good job of describing the project’s history and evolution, as well as to a lesser degree, how they went about solving unforeseen problems, mostly associated with low return of adults or with limited water supply. It is evident that the hatchery was built at a site having unsuitable water supply. The hatchery is reported to be operating better than in its first few years, however. Within the last year or so, production has increased to the point that objectives are being met or nearly so in terms of numbers of released fish.

One of the four or so apparent current “issues” with the project is whether the basic requirements for fish production are adequate at the NPTH facility. From the proposal it appears that ongoing improvements (of a wide variety) are adequate for the near future and that issue no longer exists.

Another issue is survival of juveniles immediately after release. It was mentioned at the symposium that results from tagging juveniles at Newsome Creek showed very high mortality by Lower Granite dam. It is important to understand relationships among fish size at release, time of movement from acclimation site, whether release is volitional or forced, and the habitat used by those fish as they overwinter. Granted, such monitoring should be (is?) done by another project (NPT M&E) but results need to be closely linked to this project so the best release strategies can be developed. Currently it does not appear that is receiving adequate attention.

Production goals for both spring and fall Chinook, in terms of numbers of juveniles leaving the various acclimation facilities, now seem close to being met. The obvious question now is whether those are the most appropriate production goals. Because the ultimate goal must be natural production, and the project duration is “until natural production in target streams can support exclusively the fishery management principles, goals and objectives listed above,” the key issue is whether the project is indeed moving toward that goal.

Objectives are not being met in terms of proportion of natural influence (PNI). The proportions of natural-origin adults in hatchery broodstocks (pNOB) are too low, and the proportions of hatchery-origin adults among naturally spawning fish (pHOS) are too high, therefore the PNI values are too low. For the ISRP to evaluate progress toward meeting PNI objectives, it would help for the proponents to provide the pNOB, pHOS, and PNI results for each year of hatchery operation.

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.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

Adequately described.


4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Adequately described.

This meets criteria but also see comments on the M&E proposal 198335003. Now that the program has shown that it can produce fall and spring Chinook that return to the Clearwater River as adults, perhaps it is time to begin to consider whether (and to what extent) the effort will yield self-sustaining runs of natural origin. The next iteration of the project needs to begin to address whether and how self-sustaining Clearwater River salmon runs will be achieved. Thus, while the NPT has done a good job in guiding the NPTH to this point, the ISRP’s longstanding concerns about the viability of the supplementation approach to rebuild self-sustaining natural reproduction in Idaho rives and streams remains unanswered. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The proponents do a good job of describing the history of the project and how it fits into regional Fish and Wildlife Program and AP planning. Technical background, along with the growth and evolution of the NPTH program is well described. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management Past ISRP concerns that project results were not being adequately described have been effectively dealt with by the very commendable January 2009 Orofino symposium. The current proposal summarizes material presented at the symposium but often provides inadequate narrative for those who did not have the opportunity to attend the symposium. The proponents do a very good job of describing the project’s history and evolution, as well as to a lesser degree, how they went about solving unforeseen problems, mostly associated with low return of adults or with limited water supply. It is evident that the hatchery was built at a site having unsuitable water supply. The hatchery is reported to be operating better than in its first few years, however. Within the last year or so, production has increased to the point that objectives are being met or nearly so in terms of numbers of released fish. One of the four or so apparent current “issues” with the project is whether the basic requirements for fish production are adequate at the NPTH facility. From the proposal it appears that ongoing improvements (of a wide variety) are adequate for the near future and that issue no longer exists. Another issue is survival of juveniles immediately after release. It was mentioned at the symposium that results from tagging juveniles at Newsome Creek showed very high mortality by Lower Granite dam. It is important to understand relationships among fish size at release, time of movement from acclimation site, whether release is volitional or forced, and the habitat used by those fish as they overwinter. Granted, such monitoring should be (is?) done by another project (NPT M&E) but results need to be closely linked to this project so the best release strategies can be developed. Currently it does not appear that is receiving adequate attention. Production goals for both spring and fall Chinook, in terms of numbers of juveniles leaving the various acclimation facilities, now seem close to being met. The obvious question now is whether those are the most appropriate production goals. Because the ultimate goal must be natural production, and the project duration is “until natural production in target streams can support exclusively the fishery management principles, goals and objectives listed above,” the key issue is whether the project is indeed moving toward that goal. Objectives are not being met in terms of proportion of natural influence (PNI). The proportions of natural-origin adults in hatchery broodstocks (pNOB) are too low, and the proportions of hatchery-origin adults among naturally spawning fish (pHOS) are too high, therefore the PNI values are too low. For the ISRP to evaluate progress toward meeting PNI objectives, it would help for the proponents to provide the pNOB, pHOS, and PNI results for each year of hatchery operation. 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. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) Adequately described. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Adequately described.

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.

While the ISRP recommends the project as fundable, the ISRP also expects the sponsors to do a better job of reporting results in their future proposals. The Project History reports only actions performed, e.g., the planning and creation of the hatchery, and numbers of fish of different sorts stocked each year since releases began in 2003. Adult return rates cannot yet be reported, of course, but it would be helpful to have information for each released group on egg-to-smolt survival and on smolt survival to points downstream. Reasons for variation in such results should be discussed, including comparison with literature values.

In their response, the sponsors provided additional data and explanations, and these seem adequate; however, in future review cycles, sponsors could do a better job of following the topical outline for proposals.

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.

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.)