This proposal is to fund production of salmon and steelhead for a hatchery program in the Umatilla River basin in support of subbasin plans. A recent innovation in 2009 is to create two groups of smolts, a “Conservation” group derived from natural origin returns and a “Harvest” group of smolts derived from hatchery origin returns. The two groups are to be reared and released at separate locations, the “Harvest” group low in the watershed where returning adults are expected to be vulnerable to fisheries and the “Conservation” group high in the watershed where returning adults are expected to be less vulnerable to fisheries and in better spawning habitat. The assumptions are that the “Conservation” group, relatively relieved of harvest pressure and sustained primarily by natural origin returns (i.e. an Integrated program in the sense of HSRG), will over generations adapt to the habitat high in the watershed and ultimately naturalize as a self sustaining population in the river and that the “Harvest” group (i.e. a Segregated program in the sense of HSRG) will be highly vulnerable to harvest in the lower river and will remain isolated from the “Conservation” group. A response is requested on the following three items: 1. What has been the effect of supplementation on summer steelhead, fall Chinook, and spring Chinook in the basin? Is the project impeding or advancing recovery as part of RPA 39? 2. Explain how the new “Conservation” and “Harvest” broodstocks will be managed separately for their different goals. 3. Will the harvest needs in the basin (now to be met by the four-times larger “Harvest” broodstock) ever be satisfied by a future self-sustaining population? Are harvest needs in the basin being met now? If not, why not? 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The purpose of the program is stated as artificial production with an emphasis on supplementation of summer steelhead, fall Chinook, and spring Chinook. The proposal numerically summarizes production of smolts and indicates that the program has produced fewer adults than the program goals (without giving actual numbers) and states for each of the three programs that “Elimination of the hatchery program would mostly likely result in closing of fishing opportunity” apparently a response to the ISRP 2007 review recommendation to eliminate or modify these failing programs. Despite its centrality in the purpose of the program no information about the effect of supplementation by any of the three programs is given. No information is given about whether the project is impeding recovery as required by RPA 39 The ISRP review of the entire Umatilla program in 2006 (ISRP2007-15) noted that the program had not achieved its salmon or steelhead goals for either escapement or harvest and raised the concern “whether the long-term fitness of the (steelhead) population that has been supplemented has deteriorated from interbreeding with fish that have had parents (or grandparents) reared in a hatchery.” The ISRP recommended that the hatchery production components of the program “consider modifying the spring Chinook and steelhead program goals and eliminating the fall Chinook program.” In response to this recommendation and in response to an HSRG review the Umatilla program changed production methods in 2009 to create two groups of smolts, a “conservation” group derived from natural origin returns and a “harvest” group of smolts derived from hatchery origin returns. The two groups are to be reared and released at separate locations, the “harvest” group low in the watershed where returning adults are expected to be vulnerable to fisheries and the “conservation” group high in the watershed where returning adults are expected to be less vulnerable to fisheries and in better spawning habitat. The critical assumption is that the “conservation” group, relatively relieved of harvest pressure and sustained primarily by natural origin returns, will over generations adapt to the habitat high in the watershed and ultimately naturalize as a sustaining population to the river. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management All accomplishments are described as numbers of juveniles reared and transferred. No indication is given of the resulting harvest or the resulting supplementation with respect to program goals. The proponents should provide information about progress toward program goals i.e. artificial production emphasizing supplementation. Will the program’s management adapt to successful supplementation, i.e. re establishment of a sustainable natural population, by restraining harvest within the productivity of the natural population or will there be perpetual artificial production of harvest fish. If releases of hatchery fish are not meeting goals for adult returns, is there information to suggest the causes for this? 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) This project links closely with the four others in the Umatilla Restoration Program. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods The deliverables are restricted to fish production, and no methods are described. How do the fish production deliverables relate to the Umatilla Program goals? How will the deliverables relate to the production of Conservation and Harvest subpopulations?