In the ISRP’s preliminary review, we requested point-by-point responses on the topics listed below. The ISRP also requested a revised proposal. Unfortunately, the responses mostly were vague and of limited utility for assessing scientific merit of the actions proposed. Moreover, the proponents did not provide a revised proposal incorporating the requested information and the original proposal remains incomplete. As a result, the original proposal and the responses to the issues raised by the ISRP’s review do not meet scientific review criteria. However, some of the information requested by the ISRP to make the project a scientifically supported project and documented in a stand-alone proposal may be found in other Umatilla subbasin project descriptions (specifically, 199000500 and 199000501, which received recommendation as Meets Scientific Review Criteria following their responses). Therefore, the ISRP recommends four conditions that the proponents of this project will need to address more comprehensively in the next annual report and work plan:

1. Proposed production
2. Project evaluation and adjustment
3. Density dependence
4. Evidence for reduced retention time

Detailed conditions and comments based on the response are provided after each topic.

1. Proposed production

Condition: Please provide a more thorough explanation of the history of production and broodstock changes for each of the species and runs produced, distributed, and released. This explanation should include the rationale and supporting scientific basis for proposed production levels to meet program goals. The proponents should examine other project proposals in the subbasin (specifically 199000500 and 199000501) and confer with those proponents to ensure consistency.

Comment: As a hatchery production (O&M) project for the Umatilla Fish Hatchery, the project’s goals and actions are part of a larger framework for producing and returning coho salmon, Chinook salmon, and steelhead to the subbasin at harvestable levels. The ISRP seeks a more specific description of this project’s role within this larger framework. For example, the proponents responded, “the Coho program was reduced by half in 2017 and the remaining production has been released on the Lostine River as agreed to by co-managers.” A number of questions need to be addressed. First, why was coho salmon production reduced in 2017? Next, why were releases shifted to the Lostine River? Had Umatilla coho populations measurably responded to alleviate the need for supplementation? Is there evidence to support the conclusion that Umatilla coho salmon are genetically compatible with Lostine populations, and how is this shift consistent with an appropriate HGMP? Finally, the “agreement by the co-managers” warrants a more expanded explanation, especially if it was part of a formal adaptive management process.

Further, the response states “[t]he fall Chinook programs have been reduced to reduce potential straying and also due to lack of rearing water.” A lack of water for fall Chinook salmon is noted in the original proposal, and for spring Chinook salmon as well. However, the concern about straying requires additional explanation with greater detail. Is there evidence for straying from the Umatilla subbasin? If so, to what other subbasins and at what rate? How does production scale (i.e., size of the program) affect straying rates?

Finally, the response states, ”[t]he summer steelhead program remains unchanged.” Yet, the original proposal indicates that the program was altered beginning in 2014 from a Segregated program to an Integrated Harvest program, at least in part due to limits on rearing space needed to maintain segregated groups. Also, the ISRP requested a response regarding a proposed shift to substitute 17 HOR females as brood to achieve production levels. Given the small number of NOR female fish required to fill this need, it is unclear why using HOR females is necessary, especially considering that studies have documented reductions in fitness caused by hatchery broodstock relative to wild brood (e.g., Christie et al. 2014). A future response to this issue and explanation of the project’s decision in an annual report will require coordination with co-managers because it is apparently under discussion.

The ISRP suggests that the proponents could examine the responses provided by projects 199000500 and 199000501 for the level of detail we seek. Those responses provide a sufficient level of detail of the ongoing discussions related to this issue. The ISRP recommends including the history of the changes along with the reasons for the changes in future annual reports.

2. Project evaluation and adjustment

Condition: Please provide a more thorough description of the evaluation and adjustment process for this project (i.e., adaptive management). As described above, the Umatilla Fish Hatchery has experienced several changes in husbandry and production throughout its history and especially over the past decade. These past and proposed modifications presumably are based on biological and/or practical operational concerns. These reasons need to be explained in one or two concise paragraphs, along with a table and linked references if warranted. Because the proponents may need to confer with co-managers, this description should be included in annual work plans or reports.

Comment: The proponents’ response does not directly address the ISRP’s request about the adaptive management decision process. ISRP requested, “a coordinated response among the proponents (at the Umatilla Fish Hatchery) and the resource co-managers explaining the decisions to abandon the natural broodstock for Chinook salmon and shift away from restoring natural production. The ISRP requests a description (or map with data) of the out-of-basin sources for brood, eggs, or young.” In the response to 1. Proposed production, the proponents indicate that local broodstock is used “when available.” The purpose of the response request is to understand the pattern of out-of-subbasin sources when local broodstock are not available.

3. Density dependence

Condition: The proponents suggest other projects (e.g., Umatilla Hatchery M&E #199000500, for example) are better suited to address the issue. The ISRP requests this project coordinate with those project proponents and summarize a response in the next annual work plan and annual report.

Comment: This ISRP request and the proponents’ response highlight the rationale for requesting the M&E matrix to allow understanding the overarching framework for work being done in a subbasin. In cases where the proponents of this project suggest that other projects are better suited to address the issues, the ISRP requests that proponents of this proposal consult and coordinate with proponents of the other projects to provide a summary. The ISRP recognizes and has previously recommended that other project proponents were better positioned than the Umatilla Fish Hatchery staff for performing M&E and providing the key inputs for adaptive management (e.g., ISRP 2007-15). However, the proponents should still be able to provide a summary of details through a consultation with associated projects.

4. Evidence for reduced retention time

Condition: The proponents suggest another project (the Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration project) is better suited to address the issue. The ISRP requests that proponents of this project coordinate with proponents of the other project to develop a summary response to our information request in the next annual work plan and annual report.

Comment: Similar to Conditions 2 and 3, other projects may provide the information; however, a summary is needed to allow ISRP reviewers to understand this project and its linkages to those other projects.

5. Funding period. The proponents are correct. The instructions specify “3-5 years of projections.” The proponent provided 3 years of projections, so they satisfied the proposal request.

Preliminary ISRP report comments: response requested

Response request comment:

This longstanding project is part of a set aimed at hatchery production, rearing, and M&E in the Umatilla Subbasin (Projects 198903500, 198343500,199000500). The ISRP observed the project’s operational objectives, although not entirely fitting the SMART format, were appropriate and clear for an O&M project. The operational methods provided were also sufficiently clear. The figure on page 13 was appreciated, showing the responsibilities of each project and how they fit together. This figure, along with Table 2 in Proposal 198902401, should be included in all proposals for the Umatilla suite of projects.

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. Proposed production. The Umatilla Hatchery has experienced several shifts in production number, species produced, and broodstock/egg sources in response to several ongoing or emerging challenges. The pathway or scientific criteria leading to the proposed production should be explained more thoroughly. For example, is the pathway consistent with latest HSRG recommendations along with the most up-to-date HGMP? During the presentation, we were provided with a link to a 2017 revision of the HGMP for steelhead (https://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/hgmp/docs/2017/ Umatilla%20River%20Summer%20Steelhead%20to%20NOAA%205-2-17%20with%20updates.pdf). This needs to be appended to the proposal to complete the project record.

The ISRP requests a comprehensive discussion of changes to the program relative to long-term goals. Please provide a crosswalk of production characteristics to relevant hatchery operation guidance documents. For example, the ISRP requests proponents to provide justification for the switch in 2014 to include more HORs in the steelhead broodstock. The shift appears to substitute 17 NOR females with HOR females (to achieve production levels). Given the small number of NOR fish required to fill this need, it is unclear why using HOR females is necessary given what we know about reductions in fitness caused by hatchery broodstock relative to wild brood (e.g., Christie et al. 2014). Moreover, the shift in 2014 and thereafter appears to be a switch from an “integrated” restoration program to a “segregated” harvest production program.

This request reiterates Qualifications from previous reviews (2010 RME/AP). “The management plan for Conservation and Harvest groups should be more fully developed and tested and presented at the next ISRP review. The fate of Spring Chinook Natural Origin Returns (NOR), released upstream or taken upstream, should be described, as well as the fate of NOR Fall Chinook. The use of NOR in the Conservation broodstock might be limited such that it does not inhibit natural development of a self-sustaining population, if this is the goal, by establishing a minimum required escapement. A decision tree on the use of NOR returns for hatchery broodstock and natural spawning is needed in the management plan.”

2. Project evaluation and adjustment. Related to the request above, what is the decision process and who makes the decisions about shifts in production (i.e., numbers, brood, or egg source when local sources do not reach target levels, and so on)? For example, project goals include preserving native and/or sustaining natural salmon, but specific objectives to pursue these goals are not included. Do these goals remain, or have goals shifted towards increasing harvest at a possible cost to restoring natural production? The ISRP requests a coordinated response among the proponents (at the Umatilla Fish Hatchery) and the resource co-managers explaining the decisions to abandon the natural broodstock for Chinook and shift away from restoring natural production. The ISRP requests a description (or map with data) of the out-of-basin sources for brood, eggs, or young.

3. Density dependence. The ISAB produced a report (ISAB 2015-1) that addresses how hatchery supplementation affects natural populations of salmon and steelhead through density dependence. The proponents should share information they have on impacts or potential impacts to naturally produced native fish populations given that well over a million salmonid smolts are released annually into the Umatilla River. What information is available and what monitoring is conducted to determine if release of large numbers of smolts conflict with goals to restore natural production and native fish populations? Do any current management plans consider the effects of density dependence at the subbasin or larger scales? Does project 199000500 Umatilla Hatchery M&E gather, evaluate, and share some of this information with this project?

4. Evidence for reduced retention time. The proponents report that raising fish to smolt size will reduce the amount of time fish spend in the Umatilla and tributaries during downstream migration. Has this assumption been tested? Please provide a summary of the evidence for this assertion, especially for any testing completed within the subbasin. Funding period. Please clarify why the proposal requests 3 years of funding, compared to 5 for other projects. Is this a convention for hatchery O&M projects? 

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

While not entirely in the SMART format, the proposal provides a lengthy list of operational objectives (n=12) and sub-objectives. Several of these (#’s 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12) are effectively “administrative, planning or reporting” objectives, and #10 is a “maintenance” objective. The remainder (#’s 4, 7, 8, 9) are the “production” objectives. These provide sufficient information and description. The production objectives (and associated subobjectives) are directly linked with Project 198343500 Satellite Facilities for acclimation purposes.

However, there are a few places where goals, objectives, and methods are switched. For example, Method 1 (Foster and sustain opportunities for sport, commercial and Tribal anglers, consistent with the conservation of naturally produced native fish) is a goal, rather than a method. It is not presented in the goals section, with associated objectives, but should be. This comment is intended to help in preparing future proposals and reports and does not require a response.

Q2: Methods

Sufficient details are provided for production and health actions, especially given the water and space limitations of the Umatilla Hatchery. The ISRP especially appreciates the intent to adhere to Oregon’s Native Fish Conservation Policy and the Hatchery Genetic and Management Plan elements for maintaining genetic integrity (note that links should be provided in future documents). Especially critical will be how the anticipated shift to include HOR steelhead broodstock meets criteria of the Oregon Native Fish Conservation Policy and the HGMP (see Request 1 above). These are important for not only remnant summer steelhead (part of the Major Population Group for the “threatened” Mid-Columbia ESU), but also for re-establishment of viable spring Chinook in the subbasin.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

M&E for released salmonids falls to other projects within the subbasin (especially 199000500 Umatilla Hatchery M&E and others). The Figure in Section 5 illustrates how M&E fits into the broader framework of the projects within the subbasin (but see Request 3 above).

The ISRP recommends including a basic description of in-facility implementation or operational monitoring that will take place on an ongoing or periodic basis. Please see Project 198343500 for an example of this kind of basic description. The ISRP does not need to see a response on this issue, but recommends it be included in work plan, annual reports, and future proposals.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The benefits fish and wildlife demonstrate modest (albeit, lower than originally proposed) return rates for artificially produced summer steelhead and fall and spring Chinook. The HORs for each group permit harvests, and it is hoped that this harvest will minimize domestication risks. However, the ISRP is concerned that domestication will not in fact be minimized by including HOR in steelhead brood (i.e., the Araki effect), and abandoning the segregated spring Chinook program will prevent achieving key desired outcomes to fish and wildlife.

Reference

Christie MR, Ford MJ, Blouin MS. 2014. On the reproductive success of early-generation hatchery fish in the wild. Evolutionary Applications 7:883–896.

The proponents answered the ISRP’s questions satisfactorily. Mostly the questions were more appropriate for other projects, not the Operations and Maintenance project, but the proponents answered that acclimation is widely accepted as effective, that there is a plan for management of Conservation and Harvest groups, and that even if adequate harvest cannot be provided by a self sustaining natural population, harvest is a goal of artificial production.

Qualifications:
The management plan for Conservation and Harvest groups should be more fully developed and tested and presented at the next ISRP review. The fate of Spring Chinook Natural Origin Returns (NOR), released upstream or taken upstream, should be described, as well as the fate of NOR Fall Chinook. The use of NOR in the Conservation broodstock might be limited such that it does not inhibit natural development of a self sustaining population, if this is the goal, by establishing a minimum required escapement. A decision tree on the use of NOR returns for hatchery broodstock and natural spawning is needed in the management plan.

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?

The ISRP concludes that the Umatilla Program is too large and complex for a brief annual review and should receive an intensive overall review of all program elements and the progress that has been made in attaining project objectives (also see ISRP comments on Project 199000500 and on the "Umatilla Initiative" under proposal 198343600).

In general, the Program seems to be well organized but is not reaching its overall adult fish production goals. Release numbers are presented in a table but few data (text only) on adult returns and harvest are provided. Adult return goals have not been met for any of the species, a result of low smolt-to-adult survival. Some adaptive management is indicated in the spring chinook program (reductions). There is insufficient communication of program results and impacts, even if there is a separate M&E project.