The integration of this project with LSRCP (the set of projects) should be better described. The project needs to be integrated with CRHEET (Columbia River Hatchery Effect Evaluation Team and the Ad Hoc Supplementation Work Group). The major part of this project is straight-forward artificial propagation. The current production levels have been agreed to and incorporated into the U.S. v. Oregon Interim Management Agreement. In the response, the project’s purpose should be restated in terms of the population restoration or enhancement goal, not as merely production and rearing of fish. (In a forthcoming report, the HSRG advocates that the purpose of hatchery programs be described in terms of the effects that the released fish are intended to have on conservation goals.) From what was presented, the recovery goals and progress toward meeting those goals were not clear; the response should discuss those subjects. The present text contains the following: “Table 1. (revised 12/23/05) Minimum abundance thresholds by species and historical population size (spawning area) for Interior Columbia Basin stream type Chinook and steelhead populations (Table 3). Median weighted area and corresponding spawners per km (calculated as ratio with corresponding threshold) provided for populations in each size category (see attachment B).” This seems to be where the information is supposed to be located, but the information does not seem to be there. No attachment B was found in the proposal. Objective 4 should be restated to explain the purpose of the redd counts (when questioned during the oral presentation, the presenter said the purpose is to assess adult returns), rather than as simply performance of an operation (to summarize data). As the project is a long-term continuation of past operation, the proponents should in their response present a clear table or two outlining, based on redd counts, where the hatchery effort is in terms of progress toward rebuilding each stream’s population and its trajectory, and then they should present interpretations and conclusions from those tables in a discussion. This would better justify inclusion of the redd count objective in the proposal. How the redd counts translate into estimated number of total spawners should be explained. The proposal’s Problem Statement lists the 10 specific LSRCP Chinook Salmon Program objectives. The ISRP requests that the proponents describe the methods by which the project will meet each specific objective or else omit from the list those specific objectives that do not apply to the project. The Proposal Short Description and the Executive Summary indicate objectives pertaining to Catherine Creek, Lostine River, and Upper Grande Ronde River. The Problem Statement, however, states that program’s goal is “restoration of spring/summer Chinook salmon in Catherine Creek” without mentioning the other rivers. Operations for the other rivers are then described further on in the Problem Statement, together with the implication that the project will carry out 10 specific objectives of the LSRCP Chinook Salmon Program which involve all three rivers: Catherine Creek, Lostine River, and Upper Grande Ronde River. Why then, is only Catherine Creek mentioned in the project goal? The response should discuss emerging limiting factors. The proposal mentions captive broodstock phase-out. The response should indicate the time frame for phase-out and the rationale for that time frame.

See ISRP comments on the set of NEOH projects under proposal 198805301.

The ISRP makes the fundable (qualified) recommendation because scientific justification for the project depends on the funding of the M&E proposal 200713200.

As one of several projects that compose the Grande Ronde Endemic Spring Chinook Supplementation Program (GRESCSP), this project covers the ODFW role of operating the Lookingglass Hatchery and rearing a projected 900,000 smolts for release throughout the subbasin. It is the GRESCSP's production element. The proposal presents a strong case for its continuation and funding. It details operations involving fish health, spawning, rearing, transport to release raceways, and coordination with co-managers.

Also included as monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is instream monitoring for redd counts as indices of adult return. More comprehensive M&E is covered under a separate proposal for Project 200713200.

This proposal lays out its project well. Hoped-for benefits are stated. The proposal relates clearly to priorities and objectives outlined in the GRESCSP. As a "conservation" project it meets the ISRP criteria. The funds requested are solidly matched with funds from other sources. The stated objectives are operational.

Presentation of results in the narrative proposal was adequate. It is too early in the production schedule to get data on returns, although survival rates of earlier life history stages could have been reported. Data from monitoring of fish health in the hatchery are presented. Redd counts for natural spawning are shown.

The ISRP commented that the proposal should include the objective of terminating the project when M&E determines either that it is not working or that it becomes successful enough that it is no longer needed. The project is designed to provide emergency risk management of spring/summer Chinook in the subbasin and ultimately to recover self-sustaining populations as out-of-subbasin stressors are addressed. If those stressors are not remedied, the long-term viability of the spring/summer Chinook is uncertain. The ISRP requested a response, in coordination with the other GRESCSP proposals, showing a decision tree detailing criteria for termination based on results, whether positive or negative. The response to this was thorough, its content describing a decision-tree process that recognized decision-making at several administrative levels. The sponsors' presentation of the three manager-level criteria was a good effort and very satisfactory.