The ISRP has specific recommendations and comments for each of the major components. The ISRP recommends the following conditions be addressed in the next annual report and future work plans (details provided below):

• Part-1: Coho Reintroduction: Meets Scientific Review Criteria - Conditional

o Modify Objectives and Tasks

• Part-2: Spring Chinook and Steelhead Acclimation: Meets Scientific Review Criteria - Conditional

o Modify Objectives and Tasks

o Project Evaluation and Adjustment - Adaptive Management

• Part-3: Kelt Reconditioning: Meets Scientific Review Criteria

Part-1: Coho Reintroduction

In our initial review of the Upper Columbia Production Projects: Mid-Columbia Coho Reintroduction project (199604000), the ISRP requested more information on 1) the objectives and tasks planned over the next funding period, 2) the methods used to conduct M&E activities, and 3) the adaptive management process employed by the project. A revised proposal was submitted that partially addressed our requests. Some shortcomings in the proposal remain, which we have highlighted and identified as conditions.

Modify Objectives and Tasks:

Condition: In the next annual report and work plan, provide SMART objectives that describe planned tasks (implementation objectives), metrics used to evaluate their completion, and expected timelines for each task. This needs to be completed so that annual work performed by the proponents in each subbasin can be clearly delineated and assessed. We encourage the proponents to revise their proposal to include SMART objectives to provide a record of changes made.

Comment: Overall, the proponents have made impressive progress in their reintroduction efforts. They have established productive partnerships with local PUDs, private landowners, ODFW, WDFW, and the USFWS that have helped them accomplish parts of their five-phase program to reintroduce coho into the Wenatchee and Methow subbasins. The reintroduction effort in the Methow is now in the fourth or Natural Production Supplementation Phase. Efforts in the Wenatchee subbasin are not as far along. In this subbasin, it remains in the second phase (Broodstock Development Phase 2) as attempts to establish broodstock that can migrate over Tumwater Falls are still ongoing.

We requested and anticipated that the proponents would develop and use SMART objectives to identify annual tasks linked to specific goals of their overall reintroduction plans for the Wenatchee and Methow subbasins. Instead, additional information was added to Tables 3.1 (“Wenatchee Basin program overview”) and 3.2 (“Methow basin overview”) that provide further clarification on the project’s overall goals for the upcoming funding period. Goals for broodstock numbers, types of adults to collect (origin and maturation status) and collection points, abundance objectives for juvenile releases, and within subbasin release locations for the Wenatchee and Methow subbasins, for example, were included in the new text.

Although this text is informative it does not provide SMART objectives or a chronological overview of the work that the project plans to complete on an annual basis during the new funding period or over the long term. No specific or measurable outcomes are clearly articulated. Implementation objectives for the project, which were specifically requested, are missing. For instance, in the Wenatchee subbasin, it is unclear if project personnel are responsible for collecting and transporting adults collected at the Dryden Trap and at Tumwater Dam to holding areas (e.g., Peshastin Incubation Facility, Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery). Further, it is unclear if the proponents will monitor adult survival and participate in spawning and incubation work at these sites, or whether other partners will perform this work. The Master Plan indicates eggs will be incubated to the eyed stage at each adult holding site. Have fertilization and green-egg survival targets been established and if so, will the proponents be responsible for collecting these data? At the eyed stage, collected eggs are transported to lower river hatcheries (Willard NFH, Cascade Fish Hatchery) for rearing to the pre-smolt stage prior to their eventual release in the Wenatchee subbasin. The task(s) that the proponents will be responsible for during this phase should be delineated along with those linked to the release of juvenile coho into the Wenatchee subbasin.

Text added to the bottom of Table 3.1 indicates that a project goal is to establish an over-wintering acclimation site (Trinity) located on the Chiwawa River in 2023. Planned work at this site includes the installation of three above-ground circular tanks, an evaluation of water quality, a pilot rearing program, and eventual releases of coho smolts from this site. Additionally, it appears that efforts will also be expended to increase the number of acclimation sites in the Wenatchee subbasin over the next funding period (e.g., in Nason Creek, White River, and Little Wenatchee River). It is not clear, however, if the proponents will be solely responsible for this work or if partners will participate as well. Similar questions exist about what tasks the proponents will be accountable for in coho reintroduction efforts taking place in the Methow subbasin.

Explanation of Methods:

Adequately addressed. The ISRP appreciates the enhanced methods section with the detailed explanations provided in the revised proposal.

Project Evaluation and Adjustment - Adaptive Management Process:

Additional text was added to further clarify the adaptive management process the project is currently using. This text indicates that annual calculations of metrics that evaluate the biological performance of project fish are routinely made and compared to project norms. For example, Recruits/Spawner for both NOR and HOR fish, SAR values, and smolt-to-smolt survival rates from a release location to various downstream locations, and so on are annually ascertained. One thing this approach does not easily do, however, is track whether yearly tasks or implementation objectives are being met and whether improvements in these protocols are needed. Adding an annual list of SMART implementation objectives as subheadings under the relevant primary objectives for the project’s work tasks, as suggested above, will provide the proponents and reviewers an opportunity to see if tasks are completed as expected or if modifications to existing protocols are needed to meet objectives.

Part-2: Spring Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Acclimation

In our original review of this portion of this project, we found that the project’s two primary objectives were clearly presented. However, linkages between these objectives and many of the qualitative desired outcomes of the project (e.g., improving VSP parameters and refining supplementation efficacy) were needed.

Modify Objectives and Tasks:

Condition: Provide a table in the next annual report showing the tasks each partner (i.e., the PUDs, WDFW and USFWS) is expected to perform under each objective or research question. This table should also be included in future project proposals.

Comment: Revised text added to the Goals and Objectives, Methods, a new detailed Timeline, and an added Appendix substantially clarifies project goals and objectives. As it is now presented, the project has three clearly defined objectives to: a) determine if short-term acclimation in rearing ponds can alter the spawning ground distribution of hatchery origin spring Chinook Salmon and steelhead, b) ascertain the proportion of acclimated fish that home back to their original rearing facility as opposed to their acclimation site, and c) compare performance metrics (growth, condition, pre- and post-release survival, and SAR values) of acclimated and reference groups of non-acclimated fish. Linkages between the project’s results and the overall goal of supplementing spring Chinook Salmon and steelhead in both the Methow and Wenatchee subbasins are clear.

The revised Timeline provides a useful overview of planned work, when it is scheduled to take place, and where it would occur. The new Appendix plus the revised text placed into the Goals and Objectives, and Methods sections of the proposal provides necessary details on data acquisition and analysis.

Project Evaluation and Adjustment - Adaptive Management:

Condition: The process being used for annual within-project reviews should be described in the next annual report. If such a review does not occur, we urge the proponents to establish such an annual process because reviews and modifications to implementation objectives and adjustments of management approaches are important parts of the adaptive management cycle.

Comment: The revised proposal indicates that Douglas, Chelan, and Grant PUDs, WDFW, USFWS, Yakama Nation, Colville Tribe, National Marine Fisheries Service with their associated Hatchery Committees (e.g., Wells and Rock Island/Rocky Reach HCP and Priest Rapids Coordinating Committee Hatchery Sub Committee) review and approve the project’s efforts and thus are providing important oversight and adaptive management services. What is missing is a brief description of how the project reviews and modifies its own implementation objectives. For example, does the project annually conduct an internal review of the protocols used by the project to gather and analyze data, identify needed improvements, or implement tasks like transporting and releasing fish into acclimation sites?

Part-3: Kelt Reconditioning

Suggestion for improvement: Consult with a statistician, internally or externally, to help design and identify a method to ensure appropriate evaluation of variables influencing kelt survival.

Comment: Answers to specific questions and requests for further information were aptly addressed by the proponents. The proposal has three objectives: a) to collect and recondition steelhead kelts, b) expand the release of reconditioned kelts into the Wenatchee subbasin, and c) evaluate the importance of a suite of factors on kelt survival during the reconditioning period. The locations and collection targets for NOR kelts in the Methow and Wenatchee subbasins and mainstem Columbia were identified. The second objective of the project describes future steps that will be taken by the project to initiate the release of reconditioned NOR steelhead kelts into the Wenatchee subbasin. The proponents indicate that three conditions need to be met before this part of the project can occur. First, WDFW and Chelan County PUD must agree to live-spawn steelhead at their hatcheries. Currently, live-spawning of steelhead occurs at the Winthrop National Hatchery and NORs among these fish have become important targets of reconditioning by the project. Second, the Rocky Reach hatchery committee will need to approve the expansion of kelt reconditioning into the Wenatchee subbasin. And finally, a reconditioning facility adjacent to WDFW’s Eastbank Hatchery will need to be designed, built, and tested (2023-2026) before full project expansion can occur.

The project’s last objective is to evaluate the importance of several factors on kelt survival during the reconditioning phase: fish age, fork length, date collected, somatic body fat percentage at collection, and type of prophylaxis used to treat copepod infestations. Ideally, the potential role of these factors should be looked at simultaneously. We recommend that the proponents contact a statistician to help them design and identify a method that can be used to make such an evaluation. They also indicate that they will be evaluating when mortality occurs, and whether it arises more often during initial reconditioning (first 120 days) or more often during the last 120 days a fish is held. It is likely that some of the factors that they are examining above are also linked to when a fish may die while being reconditioned. Again, the help of a statistician is advised to determine the best way to examine this issue.

Finally, in our initial review of this project, we asked several specific questions. For example, how will the stock origin of reconditioned kelts be identified, where will the fish be released, will skip spawners be held for another year prior to release, and what might account for a recent decrease in overall survival rates during reconditioning? New text added to the proposal provides suitable answers to these questions.

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

Response request comment:

The ISRP commends the YN for its continuing efforts to reintroduce coho salmon and recover and enhance spring Chinook salmon and steelhead in the upper Columbia River Basin. This proposal encompasses this work by combining three separate proposals. One proposal describes efforts to reintroduce and create locally adapted, naturally reproducing coho populations in the Wenatchee and Methow river subbasins. Another is exploring the benefits of using acclimation ponds to expand the spawning distribution patterns of spring Chinook in the Methow and Wenatchee subbasins. And the third project is investigating whether reconditioned natural origin (NOR) steelhead kelts can be used to increase productivity in upper Columbia River steelhead populations. The overall goals, general objectives, and justifications for these projects are generally described. Additionally, results produced from each project appear promising and efforts have been made to work with regional partners for the acclimation pond and kelt reconditioning projects. The ISRP recognizes that the creation of such partnerships can be challenging and time consuming. Nevertheless, as in these two projects, they can bring about substantial biological benefits and cost savings. 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:

• Modify objectives. In all three proposals, details on the implementation objectives that are planned for future work are missing. The acclimation proposal presents multiple goals that include enhancing homing, improving VSP status of spring Chinook and steelhead, and improving efficacy of supplementation. No objectives are provided with these goals. Please modify the objectives to address the deficiencies highlighted below.

• Explanation of methods. In the coho reintroduction and acclimation projects, the methods being used in each of the monitoring and evaluation tasks need to be explained more completely.

• Project evaluation and adjustment. The adaptive management process is described generally for each project, but more information is needed on adaptive management in the coho reintroduction and acclimation pond projects. See below for further details.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

Coho Reintroduction: The overall goals, general objectives, and anticipated cultural and ecological benefits of the proponents’ efforts to reintroduce coho into the Wenatchee and Methow subbasins are clearly described. Specific escapement objectives for natural origin coho in both subbasins are presented along with desired harvest rates on project coho. Additionally, management goals and brief descriptions of the strategies used to sequentially move the project from its initial stages to a final desired biological state are presented in two tables. One for each subbasin. These tables along with descriptions of the overall goals provide a general overview of the project. Yet, connectivity between the goals and objectives is poor, and details on the objectives and tasks that are being planned for the next funding period are absent. The Timeline provided a list of in-season activities that helped add some clarity by identifying generic tasks and by indicating when they are scheduled to take place. But specifics on the implementation objectives that will be employed to accomplish these tasks are missing and need to be added to the proposal as SMART objectives.

Steelhead & Spring Chinook Acclimation: The proposal presents multiple goals that include enhancing homing, improving VSP status of spring Chinook and steelhead, and improving efficacy of supplementation. The project’s two objectives – to test whether several salmonid species can be simultaneously held and reared in acclimation sites without impacting their growth and survival, and to determine if acclimation sites can be used to expand the spawning ground distribution of returning adults – are clearly presented. Yet, they do not address many of the qualitative desired outcomes presented in the project’s goal statements, especially those for improving VSP parameters and supplementation efficacy. Additional objectives are clearly needed. The Methods Section describes how both objectives will be evaluated, but annual implementation objectives are also needed that include specific quantitative desired outcomes and timelines as well as an indication of where and when acclimation research will occur during the project’s new funding period. It appears, for example, that work will continue at the Goat Wall acclimation site (Methow subbasin) and that similar efforts will also take place in the Wenatchee subbasin and in other sites in both subbasins.

Access to fish and acclimation sites depend on partnerships and agreements between the project, local PUDs, the USFWS, and WDFW. Consequently, some uncertainty may exist on where new work will occur. Nevertheless, for completeness, the sites where work is currently planned need to be identified in the proposal. The ISRP recognizes that additional sites may be added, or some may be dropped as the project progresses.

Kelt Reconditioning: The project’s overall goal of reconditioning natural origin kelts to help recover depressed populations of steelhead in the upper Columbia River is clearly presented. Justification for the proposed work is satisfactorily presented. Background material, for example, indicates that naturally breeding populations of steelhead in the upper Columbia are not self-sustaining and may face extinction unless substantial increases in productivity can be achieved. The proponents are investigating whether reconditioned kelts can be used to increase productivity in naturally spawning populations of steelhead. The project’s general objectives have evolved. Initially work was directed toward determining how best to recondition kelts and to collaborate with other projects to assess the breeding success of naturally spawning reconditioned kelts. In this proposal, three additional objectives have been added. One of them meets SMART objective criteria in that it provides a measurable and time-bound objective. With some additional thought, the other two objectives, to expand the reconditioning project into the Wenatchee subbasin, and to continue performing research on reconditioning methods, could be recast as SMART objectives. In addition, the three research questions need to be revised as specific hypotheses to be tested or specific monitoring questions. As stated, they do not provide clear enough direction to guide the studies or evaluate success. We recommend that these proposal modifications be done as it will help the project’s adaptive management process and provide structure to annual work plans and actions.

Q2: Methods

Coho Reintroduction: A succinct overview of the M&E objectives of the project is provided in the table that lists M&E activities/tasks, what they are measuring, when they are expected to occur, and whether other programs or agencies will participate. The methods used to carry out each M&E activity, however, are not fully described or explained. Instead, key words like PIT tags, predation control, etc. are used to represent the strategy or approach that will be used to carry out the M&E activity. For completeness and clarity, clear and detailed descriptions of the methods being used to accomplish each M&E objective and task are needed to ensure that valid methods are being employed. There is little information provided to understand the spatial and temporal scale of the monitoring, the metrics, field collection methods, or statistical analytical approaches. If final protocols are published in Monitoring Resources, they should be cited.

Steelhead & Spring Chinook Acclimation: General descriptions of the methods that will be used to evaluate the effects of an acclimation period on juvenile and adult performance are provided. Null hypotheses and the statistical procedures used to test them were also shared. The approaches taken for these two objectives appear to be appropriate. There are no methods provided for assessing project success in improving VSP status or efficacy of supplementation. We do offer one suggestion for the proponents to consider when comparing the spawner distributions of adults originating from hatchery and acclimation site releases. A two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test can be used to detect differences in location (central tendency) dispersion, and skewness. The test could be used on redd as well as female carcass locations.

Kelt Reconditioning: Adequate descriptions of the methods being used to capture, recondition, and evaluate both in-hatchery and post-release performance are provided. In addition, details describing how reconditioned kelts were compared with maiden NOR spawners were well described. The methods being employed are scientifically appropriate.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

Coho Reintroduction: The M&E activities of the project have been split into three categories, “project performance,” “species interactions,” and “genetic adaptability.” Project performance activities are used to examine how well introduced coho are surviving, ascertain whether hatchery protocols should be modified, and assess the impacts of harvest. Those examining species interactions evaluate the impact of introduced coho on native fishes. Genetic adaptability will be monitored to determine if a local broodstock has been created, one that is distinct from lower Columbia River stocks. Past monitoring and evaluation results have been used to adjust project methods, objectives, and goals. Project objectives are scheduled to be reviewed every six years (or two coho generations). This is a well thought out approach. Some description of the adaptive management process being followed, however, is needed. How, for example are decisions to make changes made, who makes them, and how is new work proposed and approved.

Steelhead & Spring Chinook Acclimation: The proponents have successfully compared physiological, morphological, and behavioral performance of fish reared and released from acclimation sites to that of fish released directly from hatchery locations or direct plantings. Results from these comparisons have been used to adjust future work. It became clear, for example, that large differences in size-at-release targets for steelhead (57-75 g), coho (25-28g), and Chinook (25-28 g) juveniles made it impractical to co-mingle these species at acclimation sites. Because of the project’s monitoring tasks, information from future work is well suited for an adaptive management process. It is unclear, however, if a regularly occurring adaptive management cycle occurs, and if so, who might participate in the process. The proposal indicates that a review of project results over the past five years will occur in 2021. Will project partners, e.g., Grant, Douglas, and Chelan PUDs and other parties participate in this review process? Additionally, no information is provided on how the project reviews its own methods and determines if changes are warranted. Both processes should be briefly described.

Kelt Reconditioning: The proponents provide an acceptable description of how within project actions are examined on an annual basis and modified if needed. They also participate in biannual meetings with other regional kelt reconditioning projects where findings are shared and refinements to existing methods are discussed. In combination these procedures provide the project with an appropriate adaptive management cycle.

One of the key information needs of the project is estimating the reproductive success of reconditioned kelts. This was beyond the scope of the project, so the proponents partnered with a WDFW project that is comparing the reproductive success of NOR, HOR, and reconditioned kelts in the Twisp River. The ISRP commends the proponents of both projects as these types of arrangements reduce redundancies and costs while maximizing information gains.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

Coho Reintroduction: The proposal provides a summary of the progress made on efforts to reintroduce coho to the Wenatchee and Methow subbasins. One key accomplishment has been the continuing development of a locally adapted broodstock. Coho had been extirpated from the Wenatchee and Methow subbasins. Consequently, lower Columbia River coho were originally used as broodstock, but fish originating from the project have become numerous enough so that it has been possible to exclusively use coho returning to both subbasins as broodstock. It is unclear, however, if separate broodstocks, one for each subbasin, are being developed. The creation and use of basin-specific broodstocks would likely speed up local adaptations and move the project more rapidly toward its abundance goals. Coho have successfully spawned in both subbasins and their spatial distribution within the subbasins has been expanding. Studies that looked at possible losses of juvenile spring Chinook and sockeye due to coho predation were completed and indicate that predation on both species is limited. Superimposition of coho redds on spring Chinook salmon redds was also evaluated and found to be insignificant.

One challenge the project has faced in the Wenatchee subbasin is getting naturally spawning coho through the Wenatchee Canyon and over Tumwater Falls. Substantial amounts of rearing habitat are available above the falls, and thus this portion of the Wenatchee subbasin is an important colonization target. Currently, a selective breeding program is underway that is designed to produce coho adults that can reach Tumwater Falls and spawn naturally in that part of the subbasin.

In general, the project is meeting its objectives and providing cultural, harvest, and ecological benefits. It was assumed that the lower river hatchery coho stock used as the founding population had enough genetic variation for successful adaptation to very novel conditions. This appears to be true. However, to maximize long-term project benefits it is important to be patient and allow natural selection to operate separately on the fish returning to the two subbasins.

Steelhead & Spring Chinook Acclimation: The project’s evaluations of acclimation ponds as tools to enhance homing fidelity and guide returning adults to favorable spawning areas will be of interest to many across the entire Columbia River Basin. Initial results indicate that two species can be held in the same acclimation sites without adverse effects if rearing and growth patterns can be coordinated. Size differences can be accommodated if rearing areas in the same acclimation pond can be segregated. Because acclimation sites are a limited commodity, the practice of rearing two or more species simultaneously in the same pond helps increase rearing opportunities without the need for additional facilities. Early results of the project have prompted other agencies in the upper Columbia to co-mingle species in their acclimation programs. The project has used fish per pound (fpp) as a metric to compare growth rates between acclimated juveniles and juveniles reared in hatchery ponds. This is a poor metric that should not be used to compare growth. A change of 6 fpp for fish that are 20 fpp represents a much different growth rate than a change of 6 fpp for fish that are 10 fpp. Use grams per fish when assessing and comparing growth rates.

Short-term holding in acclimation sites also appears to affect subsequent adult spawning areas. Preliminary results from fish acclimated at the Goat Wall acclimation site have led spring Chinook to spawn in more favorable habitat than those released from the Winthrop and Methow hatcheries. In summary, the project results are helping to emphasize the conservation, recovery, and potential harvest benefits that can be realized by using suitably sited and managed acclimation sites.

Kelt Reconditioning: Study findings showed that kelts leaving upper Columbia River subbasins had extremely low return rates (~1%) as spawners. Conversely, approximately 50% of the kelts undergoing reconditioning survived and approximately half of these released fish were detected during the spring spawning season. The decreasing trend in survival and maturation from 2013 to 2020 is not discussed in the proposal. What are the causes of this decreased performance? Measurements made on the fish prior to release showed that the project’s reconditioned kelts had greater condition factors (K) and fat levels than maiden NORs. It is hypothesized that these differences may provide reconditioned kelts with higher over-winter survival rates than maiden NORs. Additionally, levels of estradiol in reconditioned kelts and maiden NORs were not statistically different suggesting that both were in similar stages of maturation six to seven months prior to the spawning season. Recent breeding success results produced from the Twisp River project showed reconditioned kelts had produced offspring at a rate equal to or slightly greater than maiden NORs and HOR females. These results show the promise and potential benefits that the reconditioning program may offer to steelhead populations in the upper Columbia River.

The proposal indicates that a next step for the project is to begin a reconditioning program for the Wenatchee subbasin. Kelts intercepted at Rock Island Dam will apparently be targeted for this effort. Since this work is planned for the next funding period, the proposal should address the following questions: How will the stock origin of the intercepted kelts be determined? They could be from the Wenatchee subbasin, but they could also come from other subbasins above the dam. Where will these fish be released? If they are released in the reservoir above Rock Island Dam, the fish will likely home to their spawning areas. Some of these fish will undoubtedly be skip spawners. It is not clear when skip spawners are released by the project. Are they held for an additional year?

Based on the results-to-date from kelt reconditioning efforts, the ISRP questions whether this recovery strategy is efficacious and whether the fundamental assumptions of a benefit from kelt reconditioning are adequately reasoned. In any case, the experiments outlined in this proposal are insufficient to generally address the primary uncertainties underlying kelt reconditioning as a restoration tool, or specifically to provide a benefit in the proposed setting. Although kelt reconditioning is an inherently attractive proposition even to the reviewers, it may be time to reevaluate the effort being dedicated to this strategy. If there is empirical evidence in support of kelt reconditioning as a restoration tool that was not presented in this proposal it should be brought to the attention of the ISRP in a revision.

The proposal is to add an unspecified number of acclimation ponds for long-term rearing (but not full-term rearing) of spring Chinook and summer steelhead in the Wenatchee and Methow subbasins. One objective of the proposal is to develop a plan for the addition of these ponds (facilities). The proposal narrative was sufficient to understand the intent of the sponsor, but not enough detail was provided to fully appraise any likely benefits to fish and wildlife. Since the first objective is to produce a plan, it should probably be a Master Plan, although the scale is such it would not necessarily require the full implementation of a three-step process. Any plan should: 1. fully document the current status of the resource (spring Chinook and summer steelhead) in the two subbasins; 2. establish clear improvements to the VSP parameters for these focal species as a consequence of using long-term acclimation ponds; 3. craft a monitoring design to evaluate any success (especially since the sponsor acknowledges not much is known about whether this strategy will improve the status of the species); and 4. integrate the principles from the Council’s 2009 program, the HSRG findings, the Upper Columbia River Chinook and Steelhead recovery plan, the 2008 BiOp, and impending hatchery biological opinions. The qualifications are covered by the four points above. The spring Chinook and steelhead ESUs are endangered (or threatened) so any artificial production needs to be carefully directed at improving the status of these species, not harvest, to be consistent with the Upper Columbia recovery plan and the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program. Any program that has the purpose of putting hatchery fish on the natural spawning grounds needs to be fully consistent with best management practices that are reflected in the HSRG guidelines for PNI, pHOS, pNOB, and limitations of the number of generations of supplementation reflected in the Council’s 2009 Fish and Wildlife Program. Without a more complete analysis, it is not possible to determine whether the use of the long-term acclimation strategy will be an improvement over the status quo, detrimental, or neutral. The hope appears to be that the long-term acclimation will distribute spawning hatchery fish broadly across the subbasins. However, the HSRG report states that spring Chinook released from the acclimation ponds in the Chiwawa River in the Wenatchee subbasin are found straying all over within the subbasin. So it is not clear how the additional ponds will add to the spawning distribution. Without knowing where the current hatchery steelhead spawn, it is not possible to know whether there are reaches that have suitable habitat but are underseeded. At this time the PNI for each of these programs is very small, and there is a need to progress toward larger proportions of natural fish on the spawning grounds and in any artificial production. So it is not clear that there is a need or desire to substantially expand the natural spawning by hatchery-origin adults.

Our data will be electronically availbable when data becomes available.  We have yet to recondition a single kelt as we continue to work out major kelt reconditioning facility issues.  Presently, we are looking at finally building a facilty next summer (2011) with initial collections beginning in spring, 2012.

The sponsors responded sufficiently to the queries posed in the ISRP preliminary review of the project. Most of the questions are dealt with in greater detail in the ISRP Step One Review. For completeness, brief ISRP responses to this follow-up are provided here.

The sponsors responded to the ISRP recommendation for Fundable-in-part, for completing the Three-Step process, by identifying that funding for 07/09 was for continued feasibility level fish culture operations and completing the Three-Step process. No funds for construction or expanded fish culture operations are in the FY 07/09 budget. The ISRP thanks the sponsors for this clarification. The final funding level is a matter for Council and BPA, but the ISRP notes that the ISRP's preliminary Fundable in Part recommendation in fact includes all the activities that they are requesting support for.

The ISRP recommended in the preliminary proposal review, and in the Master Plan Step One Review that sponsors alter the primary biological objective from "biologically sustainable" to "naturally self-sustaining population." The sponsors provide an adequate summary of the history of the development of the primary objective and use of the term "biologically sustainable." They provide their rationale for using the term:

"Our use of "biologically sustainable" does not make any assumptions about whether future hatchery supplementation will be required. Very early versions of the Master Plan included the term "self-sustaining" in the vision statement. The term was eliminated after much consideration by the Mid-Columbia Coho Technical Work Group because no other species of anadromous salmonid within the upper Columbia currently is self-sustaining. All other species of salmon and steelhead receive supplementation of some kind. Inclusion of the term "self-sustaining" may unintentionally predispose the project for failure in terms of whether or not a realistic vision is achieved."

This rationale is exactly the reason the ISRP continues to recommend changing "biologically sustainable" to "naturally self-sustaining." The ISRP recognized that biologically sustainable could be interpreted to mean "supported indefinitely by hatchery-origin adults." In the present case, however, the project proponents have clearly designed a program that implies it is going to proceed to entirely natural production. It is the hedges that appear occasionally in the Master Plan and in this reply that back away from the schedule to attain self-sustaining status that is of concern to the ISRP. It is worth attempting to reintroduce coho and achieve self-sustaining status. If that is the goal, a production and habitat restoration plan needs to be designed to accomplish that task. If it does not work, then the program can be altered at the end of the experimental phase. This might be a harvest augmentation program, as the sponsors identify in the Master Plan, or it might be some other integrated hatchery program.

The ISRP emphasizes that integrated hatchery programs that include a goal of keeping the artificial and natural components genetically similar, and adapted to the natural environment, require the natural population to be self-sustaining, require the proportion of natural-origin adults in the hatchery broodstock to exceed the proportion of hatchery-origin adults in the wild. Finally, the total number of salmon used for broodstock (NOR plus HOR) cannot exceed the natural-origin escapement that spawns in streams.

In response to the ISRP comment that the project was ambitious and it did not appear that the sponsors had given themselves much time to address unanticipated challenges, sponsors provided a verbatim copy of section 4.3.5 Contingency Plans and Decision Processes from the Master Plan. The ISRP acknowledges this contingency plan. In the ISRP Step One Review we do not explicitly address the contingency plan, but do suggest when addressing the consistency of the Master Plan with Council Artificial Production principles, that the ISRP recommends adhering to a rigid schedule of transition through the broodstock development and natural production phases of the reintroduction. The contingency plan is appropriate in that it poses questions of whether the difficulties encountered can be surmounted, but it is of concern to the ISRP that it extends the phases or exits to a harvest augmentation program fairly early in the reintroduction effort if not successful at achieving that stage's goals. In our more lengthy step review we recommend establishing a schedule of pHOS, and pNOB, and following it strictly through the generations of this experimental reintroduction. If the reintroduction is ultimately determined to be infeasible, options for a harvest augmentation program, whether integrated or segregated will not be lost. However, if this reintroduction experiment focuses on release numbers and relaxes the fish culture practices to maintain high production, then the reintroduction itself could be compromised.

The reintroduction could be compromised by the focus on a rearing and release schedule rather than on a broodstock mating protocol for pHOS and pNOB because it is this protocol that will provide the "selection" that will lead to the hoped for adaptation of the lower river stock to the mid-Columbia tributaries. In the broodstock development phase two, releasing fish in upper areas of the watershed and then use the returns of these fish for broodstock is suppose to provide the opportunity to select parents that have exhibited the stamina and other behaviors to migrate to the release sites. If these fish are spawned with individuals from families that have not exhibited those capabilities, and these fish predominate in the pool of parents, you could actually be selecting against the genotypes that you hope to increase in proportion in the population. The same rationale holds for the natural production initiation and support phases.

The sponsors indicate that they will use standard metrics to evaluate the productivity of their program. The ISRP recommended that adult replacement rate would be based on female to female, and certainly not include jacks. The ISRP points out that even the female-to-female replacement rate may not be sufficient under all circumstances, if the age structure of the female offspring differ across generations or between eggs incubated in the streams versus those incubated and then reared in a hatchery. Under these circumstances the appropriate measure would be each generation's egg production. This requires estimating the fecundity of females of different sizes and ages each generation, and estimating the proportions of females in body size (and age) categories. The data to estimate the egg production should be available since fish will be collected for hatchery spawning and fish released for natural spawning will be enumerated at weirs. Sponsors indicate that the data that is collected is sufficient to calculate the female-to-female metric. The ISRP is satisfied that these metrics can be evaluated.

Finally, the sponsors clarify the plan to construct acclimation ponds. In general the ISRP was encouraged that expanding hatchery facilities within the subbasins to produce smolts was not necessary. The ISRP thanks the sponsors for clarifying the construction schedule. The ISRP remains concerned about the environmental conditions that may develop from feed and feces that could accumulate in semi-natural acclimation ponds that are not as easily cleaned as traditional raceways. Additional discussion of the specifics of this type of fish culture issue would improve the Master Plan.

Fundable (qualified) with the qualification being that the sponsors revise the Master Plan before proceeding to Step Two, and that they fully address the ISRP concerns about clearly establishing unambiguous biological objectives.