The ISRP’s two 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 Condition in future annual reports and work plans:

1. Spawner-recruit relationships. Please present spawner-recruit relationships as a means to evaluate capacity of the habitat to support salmon and steelhead and to help track progress over time. If current data are insufficient to generate these relationships, then please describe efforts to improve data collection.
2. 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 Yakima Basin Habitat Project (199705100) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Yakima River basin. During the response loop, as a key M&E project and partner in the basin, we ask your project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what, where, and when your monitoring occurs and what is being monitored for and shared with implementation projects in the basin. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard.

The overall Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project is a very large and comprehensive salmon supplementation and habitat restoration project. This M&E effort reportedly focuses on salmon population dynamics including hatchery supplementation, harvest, and predation effects on salmon but does not specifically describe efforts to monitor fish responses to habitat restoration.

The ISRP is concerned that salmon and steelhead responses to habitat restoration actions in the Yakima Basin are not adequately addressed by the restoration projects and/or this M&E project. Most habitat restoration projects in the Yakima Basin identified this M&E effort as the project that is monitoring salmon and steelhead responses to habitat restoration actions. However, this M&E proposal is clearly focused on supplementation effects, and only occasionally mentions the response of natural-origin salmon to habitat restoration actions. This M&E project should be able to track the basin-wide response of natural-origin salmon and steelhead to habitat restoration actions over the long term while incorporating density dependence and environmental variability into the analyses.

The ISRP encourages the proponents to continue to address comments by the ISRP review of the Yakima Basin Master Plan (2020-3, 2020-9). These comments largely involve supplementation efforts of coho and summer/fall Chinook salmon that have greatly exceeded the EDT and Beverton-Holt capacity estimates. While it is understandable why the proponents target high spawning escapements, it is also important to consider the lower productivity (survival) associated with spawning densities of hatchery salmon that greatly exceed current capacity of the habitat to support the salmon. Higher and higher spawner densities have not produced more progeny. Furthermore, high densities of hatchery origin spawners promote interbreeding with the relatively few natural salmon and will inhibit local adaptation even though the hatchery attempts to use 100% natural broodstock. Recent reviews by Anderson et al. (2020) and the HSRG (2020) indicate that minimizing pHOS is more beneficial to promoting local adaptation than maximizing pNOB. We encourage the proponents to use the collected data to further develop and evaluate spawner recruit relationships for naturally produced spring and summer/fall Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead. For example, what is the relationship between smolts per spawner (or adults per spawner) and parent spawners, and at what parent spawner densities is smolt production and/or adult maximized? Monitoring of natural-origin salmon spawner-recruit relationships is critical to the evaluation of salmon responses to habitat restoration activities and to inform adaptive management contingencies.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The goal of the large and comprehensive Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) is to restore sustainable and harvestable populations of salmon, steelhead and other at-risk species that were historically present in the Yakima subbasin. Abundance objectives by species for the Yakima Basin were developed in collaboration with the Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee and presented on pages 212-249 of the task force’s Phase 2 Report, which was released in October 2020. Specific strategies to achieve these objectives include enhance existing stocks; re-introduce extirpated stocks; protect and restore habitat in the Yakima Subbasin; operate using a scientifically rigorous process that will foster application of the knowledge gained about hatchery supplementation and habitat restoration throughout the Columbia River Basin; and use modeling tools to facilitate planning and adaptive management for project activities. The proposal includes a number of M&E questions related to salmon propagation and supplementation, predation on salmonids, harvest and spawning escapement, and monitoring and evaluation methods.

The proposal would have benefited if species-specific objectives for the Yakima Basin were listed in the proposal itself rather than referenced in the Phase 2 Report.

The proposal does not describe monitoring of the salmon and steelhead response to habitat restoration actions even though most habitat projects stated this M&E effort was providing the necessary information.

Q2: Methods

This very large program involves a wide variety of methodologies, which are very briefly noted in the proposal with links to documents that provide more detail. This approach complicates the ISRP review process, but the ISRP recently reviewed the Master Plan that provides more detail. The proposal states that the Yakama Nation is working to update evaluation methods presented in the 1997 and 2006 Yakima Basin supplementation monitoring and evaluation plans. Most methods appear to be based on sound scientific principles. However, on page 18 of the 2020 annual report, it was unclear why the spawner-recruit analysis assumed no production from hatchery origin spawner and the analysis apparently removed hatchery spawners from the analysis.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

This is an M&E proposal for the very large and comprehensive Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project. In August 2020, the proponents provided a 378-page M&E annual report including appendices. The report provides numerous data tables along with text that can be used for documenting progress over time. The proponents reportedly review their methods and progress and make changes as needed. The project has also produced over 60 peer-reviewed articles. The effort to go through the peer review process helps ensure that results are properly evaluated and that the project adjusts to acceptable scientific standards.

Many projects involving restoration efforts depend on this umbrella project to provide data and information about the success of their efforts. It is not clear how responsive this project is to the needs of some of the sub-projects (e.g., 200739800; 199206200), which refer to this project for providing the biological monitoring efforts needed for feedback to assess the success of their stream restoration efforts.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The annual report provides many details regarding the benefits to fish and wildlife, including findings for multiple life stages of salmon. Supplementation has led to greater abundances of salmon returning to the watershed; however, abundances remain very small compared with historical levels. The YN recognize the long-term commitment to rebuild populations through supplementation and habitat restoration.

References

Anderson, J. H., K. I. Warheit, B. E. Craig, T. R. Seamons, and A. H. Haukenes. 2020. A review of hatchery reform science in Washington State. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; Final report to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, January 23, 2020. Available at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/02121/wdfw02121_0.pdf.

HSRG (Hatchery Scientific Review Group). 2020. Developing recovery objectives and phase triggers for salmonid populations. December 2020.

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: Specifically, we recommend that in the future the project use standardized calculations/metrics for determining impacts of supplementation, as presented in the Ad Hoc Supplementation Work Group reports and ISRP supplementation reports (e.g., incorrectly using total number of redds before and after supplementation efforts, rather than number of redds from wild spawned returning adults before and after treatment). The project needs to really assess response to supplementation of the wild population...and to do that, the calculations will need to include a method of estimating proportions of wild to hatchery fish in reference versus treatment streams.

Qualification 2: We also acknowledge that because of the sheer size and complexity of this project, it is not possible for any single reviewer to get his/her arms around it. As a group we wholeheartedly support the idea that future ISRP review efforts should be conducted in conjunction with the annual Yakama Nations' Fisheries Program Review, thereby taking advantage of that meeting's presentations and discussions.

The project team's response does, however, provide additional information and clarification when available for some ISRP concerns and further justification of constraints and future plans for other ISRP concerns when a current resolution is not available. As such, it helps move along the dialogue regarding the role of supplementation efforts in the subbasin.

The response includes good discussion of the specific items raised in the review. It is clear that much improved understanding is needed regarding factors that impact pre-smolt survival of natural- and (post-release) hatchery-origin. As seen in other watersheds as well, there appears to be a pattern emerging of poor natural-origin fish survival in the months prior to smolting that contrasts with better survival of hatchery-origin fish. More study is needed.

The comments on this proposal, 199506325, apply to all three YKFP projects. This is an immense proposal that covers a lot of territory, with varying levels of detail. Most of the real RM&E activity is housed under this project, with more WDFW administration under 199506425, and more hatchery Operations under 199701325. The proposal and especially the presentation were both well-organized and very informative. We agree with Dave Fast’s suggestion at the presentation, that the next review of this project would be best coordinated with their annual coordination meeting. This strategy would help the better understand coordination efforts and how all of the pieces fit together. Some general questions exist, and a response is requested: As presented in more detail below, results reported the total number of redds per year, what are the results when returns are adjusted for presence of hatchery fish? It is recognized that because of hatchery limitations, out-of-basin coho smolts are still being brought into the basin. Why can’t they collect the broodstock and rear them offsite? If NO fish start out-performing HO fish, will there be a transition to NOs and local brood? 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives This project is characterized as an “Umbrella proposal for monitoring and evaluation of natural production, harvest, ecological and genetic impacts for spring Chinook, fall Chinook, and coho fisheries enhancement projects in the Yakima Basin.” As such it is quite complex in its nature. The overall purpose is summarized as follows: “To restore sustainable and harvestable populations of salmon, steelhead and other at-risk species, the YKFP is evaluating all stocks historically present in the Yakima subbasin and, using principles of adaptive management, is applying a combination of habitat protection and restoration, as well as hatchery supplementation or reintroduction strategies to address limiting factors....” There are four very broad research focal topics listed as objectives: Ecological Interactions, Genetics, Harvest, Natural Production, with little real objectives type statements; instead these objectives are accompanied by a list of metrics/methods – but these are very terse descriptors. The authors do, however, provide the following set of four research questions that the project is addressing: 1. Can integrated hatchery programs be used to increase long-term natural production? 2. Can integrated hatchery programs limit genetic impacts to non-target Chinook populations? 3. Can integrated hatchery programs limit ecological impacts to non-target populations? 4. Does supplementation increase harvest opportunities? 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management There is a brief set-up as a problem statement. The scope of the proposal, however, is so vast, that no introduction of a reasonable length could cover it all. That said, a nice review of YKFP history and background is provided. The project’s lengthy list of accomplishments, including a commendable number of scientific publications, is highlighted. There is a strong discussion of adaptive management. Work to date on ecological interactions has been extremely strong, extensive in scope, and well published. Certain results, however, continue to portray results in a way that does not reflect the true goals of a supplementation project. Specifically, results presented in the proposal and in the presentation to the review group reported the total number of redds per year, a number that was not adjusted for presence of hatchery fish. Results need to be reformatted to provide sufficient data to determine the project’s status on demonstrating the efficacy of its experimental design as well as how well it is really accomplishing its supplementation objectives. We want a paragraph or two and tables containing the correct analyses. Authors should coordinate with WDFW on this response, specifically including results that Todd Pearsons presented at the AHSWG. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) As an umbrella project, this proposal does a good job of tying the myriad aspects together in a reasonable description of the vast network of inter-relationships of this project with other groups. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Deliverables were less than specifically identified, although the work elements were laid out in great detail in the boxes with tasks etc, along with methods and metrics. Bottom Line – this is such a huge project, providing the level of detail given by other proposals would be impossible.

See the overall comments for the five related Yakima/Klickitat Fishery Projects under proposal 19881205.

Comments specific to this M&E proposal.

Technical and scientific background: The M&E project is the omnibus scientific component (a large share) of the broader YKFP and is the most amenable to scientific review. This project essentially provides the rigor and measurement to test the basic assumptions of supplementation within the Yakima subbasin. The background treatment is actually a bit light, instead, referring to previous efforts, e.g., "The YKFP monitoring program is built on a foundation laid in a number of earlier projects. The general elements of a monitoring plan were first outlined in the YKFP's 1993 Project Status Report (BPA 1993)."

Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: This project is the key tool for comprehensively measuring assumptions and strategies long in place within the Yakima subbasin regarding supplementation and other programs. These are expressly detailed in the Yakima Subbasin Plan and need to be better articulated within the proposal.

Relationships to other projects: This project is the umbrella or omnibus M&E activity for the others in the Yakima subbasin by both the Yakima Nation and the WDFW. It is designed to address the basic assumptions underlying the YKFP with intensive and explicit examination of the subcomponents of supplementation (and presumably habitat restoration and other H's).

Project history: The project history is extensive. The table is quite data heavy. This proposal represents a major leap forward in the monitoring and evaluation of supplementation as a restoration and mitigation strategy within not only the Yakima subbasin, but basinwide. It addresses many of the key risks long assumed to be negligible with artificial production, as well as other critical variables (uncertainties). As such, the information generated will be highly relevant to future decisions as to ongoing efforts in the basin and subbasin.

Objectives: The list of measurable biological objectives is quite lengthy. There needs to some thought to prioritizing these such that "measure everything" philosophy yields to "measure critical variables". These critical variables must address the key decision points in a logic path or decision tree. Non-biological objectives overlap somewhat with other proposals (e.g., unclear as to how NEPA for this project differs from NEPA for O&M project, etc.). Ultimately, while some individual hypotheses may be addressed rapidly, the timeline to gather information on the broader question of whether supplementation is "contributing to" versus "detracting from" natural reproduction may require a few generations (i.e., 10-15 years).

Tasks (work elements) and methods: The methods are extensively and adequately described. The sponsors appear to have responded well to earlier comments/critiques/suggestions by ISRP (specifically) and ISAB (more generally re: supplementation). The M&E component of YKFP should address the appropriateness and soundness of assumptions. The techniques are largely appropriate for each of the tasks and include some references/controls, as well as involvement of statistical and design expertise.

Monitoring and evaluation: This is a monitoring and evaluation component to the broader program. We look forward to a site and program review with summarized data and results of various activities ongoing in the Subbasin.

Facilities, equipment, and personnel: There will be a large staff associated with these efforts (50+ fulltime and numerous part time/seasonal). The large staff is commensurate with scale and scope of the undertaking.

Information transfer: The described intent is to make data (raw) available through various institutional means throughout the basin as well as to provide annual reporting and periodic evaluation. There is intent to produce high quality and credible summary in peer-reviewed outlets. There is also a web site with up-to-date fish counts, links to reports, cartoons (not skewering the ISRP) and swimming fish.