Monitoring, evaluation, and research of the Snake River fall Chinook population and hatchery programs is a cooperative effort among the proponents and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), Idaho Power Company (IPC), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).

This project provides important implementation and compliance monitoring of released fish under the Fall Chinook Acclimation Project (FCAP). It will also facilitate collaboratively generated annual run-reconstruction estimates of fall Chinook escapement to the Snake River Basin that enables status and trend and hatchery effectiveness assessments. It is a broad proposal involving administrative, coordination, and participation activities in addition to collection of data for monitoring the FCAP. They help evaluate the performance of the FCAP program in contributing to natural spawning, progress towards meeting ESA delisting criteria and management goals.

Proponents indicate that their activities include:

1. PIT tagging 2-3 thousand fish per release group for juvenile survival and emigration timing.
2. Prerelease sampling for size, condition, and mark retention (CWT) and tag loss (PIT).
3. Redd surveys in the Grande Ronde, Imnaha and Salmon Rivers.
4. Facilitate and lead annual run reconstruction estimates and reporting.
5. Assist with adult sampling at LGD, Lyons Ferry Hatchery and Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery to recover FCAP CWT data.
6. Assist project 198335003 with juvenile seining and tagging in the Clearwater River to assess post release behavior and growth of FCAP fish.
7. Collaborate with project 199102900 on analyses associated with population performance and behavior.

The proposal clearly identifies the value of these activities. The significance of these activities to the regional production activities is explained well.

Methods for the objectives, which are mostly long-term efforts (except for portions of Objectives 4 and 7), are presented sketchily, in general sufficiently to indicate their appropriateness, but not in great detail. There is not a great deal of scientific content (hypotheses, details of methods, etc.) that make it especially amenable to scientific review. One issue of the adequacy of condition factor as a performance indicator (from the past ISRP review) still does not seem to have been addressed.

In addition to their identified long-term activities, the proponents intend in this proposal period to take a more active role in leading run reconstruction activities (Objective 4), which to this point appear not to have proceeded along a regular and well-defined process each year. In their words, “Currently, run-reconstruction (RR) is done in an ad hoc manner by the WDFW, NPT, USFWS, and CRITFC staff. This ad hoc effort is laudable but hampered by a lack of funding to support statistical consultation, individual participant workloads and priorities, and insufficient staffing. This has lead to delayed generation of estimates, inadequate reporting of methods, and no centralized posting of data. In the past this project has assisted with the ad hoc RR effort. In this proposal, we are expanding our RR involvement to: 1) lead the RR collaboration (facilitation), 2) subcontract for statistical consultation, and 3) fund staff participation by key entities.” They also intend to collaborate on analyses with Project 199102900 on analysis assessing the status of the Snake River fall Chinook in relation to the FCAP (Objective 7). Proposed activities under Objective 7 are closely linked with activities under proposal 199102900 (but do not duplicate them) such that the proponents will be much more involved participants in the run reconstruction and analysis of data for the FCAP.

Although the proponents acknowledged the need for statistical consultation in this added effort, they did not present any specific scientific analysis that they were planning to lead or conduct, or any hypothesis they might test, in an analysis of population performance under the FCAP. In contrast, the reconstruction activities under 199102900 included a presentation of models to be used (e.g., stock recruitment models) and some specific hypotheses about carrying capacity and the possibility (at least) of closeness to full seeding (density dependence associated with carrying capacity), an important consideration in fall Chinook recovery. None of these ideas, nor any other topics to be evaluated, were mentioned in this proposal. They only note that quantitative people will be hired or recruited and oversight will occur. Nevertheless, the additional activities listed under Objectives 4 and 7 are welcome additions. In a previous ISRP review, it was noted that a more active role in biological interpretation/information synthesis was needed for this project. This proposal responds to that need.

Monitoring, evaluation, and research of the Snake River fall Chinook population and hatchery programs is a cooperative effort among the proponents and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), Idaho Power Company (IPC), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). This project provides important implementation and compliance monitoring of released fish under the Fall Chinook Acclimation Project (FCAP). It will also facilitate collaboratively generated annual run-reconstruction estimates of fall Chinook escapement to the Snake River Basin that enables status and trend and hatchery effectiveness assessments. It is a broad proposal involving administrative, coordination, and participation activities in addition to collection of data for monitoring the FCAP. They help evaluate the performance of the FCAP program in contributing to natural spawning, progress towards meeting ESA delisting criteria and management goals. Proponents indicate that their activities include: 1. PIT tagging 2-3 thousand fish per release group for juvenile survival and emigration timing. 2. Prerelease sampling for size, condition, and mark retention (CWT) and tag loss (PIT). 3. Redd surveys in the Grande Ronde, Imnaha and Salmon Rivers. 4. Facilitate and lead annual run reconstruction estimates and reporting. 5. Assist with adult sampling at LGD, Lyons Ferry Hatchery and Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery to recover FCAP CWT data. 6. Assist project 198335003 with juvenile seining and tagging in the Clearwater River to assess post release behavior and growth of FCAP fish. 7. Collaborate with project 199102900 on analyses associated with population performance and behavior. The proposal clearly identifies the value of these activities. The significance of these activities to the regional production activities is explained well. Methods for the objectives, which are mostly long-term efforts (except for portions of Objectives 4 and 7), are presented sketchily, in general sufficiently to indicate their appropriateness, but not in great detail. There is not a great deal of scientific content (hypotheses, details of methods, etc.) that make it especially amenable to scientific review. One issue of the adequacy of condition factor as a performance indicator (from the past ISRP review) still does not seem to have been addressed. In addition to their identified long-term activities, the proponents intend in this proposal period to take a more active role in leading run reconstruction activities (Objective 4), which to this point appear not to have proceeded along a regular and well-defined process each year. In their words, “Currently, run-reconstruction (RR) is done in an ad hoc manner by the WDFW, NPT, USFWS, and CRITFC staff. This ad hoc effort is laudable but hampered by a lack of funding to support statistical consultation, individual participant workloads and priorities, and insufficient staffing. This has lead to delayed generation of estimates, inadequate reporting of methods, and no centralized posting of data. In the past this project has assisted with the ad hoc RR effort. In this proposal, we are expanding our RR involvement to: 1) lead the RR collaboration (facilitation), 2) subcontract for statistical consultation, and 3) fund staff participation by key entities.” They also intend to collaborate on analyses with Project 199102900 on analysis assessing the status of the Snake River fall Chinook in relation to the FCAP (Objective 7). Proposed activities under Objective 7 are closely linked with activities under proposal 199102900 (but do not duplicate them) such that the proponents will be much more involved participants in the run reconstruction and analysis of data for the FCAP. Although the proponents acknowledged the need for statistical consultation in this added effort, they did not present any specific scientific analysis that they were planning to lead or conduct, or any hypothesis they might test, in an analysis of population performance under the FCAP. In contrast, the reconstruction activities under 199102900 included a presentation of models to be used (e.g., stock recruitment models) and some specific hypotheses about carrying capacity and the possibility (at least) of closeness to full seeding (density dependence associated with carrying capacity), an important consideration in fall Chinook recovery. None of these ideas, nor any other topics to be evaluated, were mentioned in this proposal. They only note that quantitative people will be hired or recruited and oversight will occur. Nevertheless, the additional activities listed under Objectives 4 and 7 are welcome additions. In a previous ISRP review, it was noted that a more active role in biological interpretation/information synthesis was needed for this project. This proposal responds to that need.

Although the ISRP continues to recognize the need for a good M&E program to be in place to assess the effectiveness of these Snake River Fall Chinook Acclimation Facilities, we recommend (again) that this program should not be funded until an adequate proposal/response be received from the authors explaining how that would occur. It is clear that some data collection is occurring; what is not clear is whether or not adequate evaluation of those data is being accomplished. We qualify our recommendation simply because we realize that an adequate M&E component needs to be functioning.

The following three issues were contained in our original June assessment; the response received from the authors demonstrates the basis for our continued concerns.

1. The ISRP is concerned that the metrics used for evaluating fish health (e.g., condition) are not adequate. A response should consider what the best metrics are for evaluating these fish.

Unfortunately, the authors' response was basically to inform the ISRP that the "USFWS Idaho Fish Health Lab conducts all standard fish health tests for this production program. We in turn analyze, interpret, and report those results." That statement does not at all address our concerns. The authors go on to add, "We assume the description of standard fish health monitoring methods, from a certified fish health lab, are sufficiently contained in the narrative portion of the proposal." A simple statement of that assumption is inadequate response because it is irrelevant to our concerns.

2. Methods have been employed since 1996, but it is not clear what has come out of this long-term effort. What has been learned? Sponsors report actions, but not the biological results. A response needs to summarize the results/synthesis of the data collected to date.
The authors responded simply by saying that all needed information was included in the original proposal - but their last sentence enforces our continued concerns, "Along with the summary tables text described the basic statistical test used to analyze data." Nowhere was there the "results/synthesis of the data collected to date" that we had requested.

3. Objectives for a project like this need to be in biological outcomes, rather than tasks accomplished. The objectives listed are really tasks, not objectives. A response needs to describe how the different objectives and tasks integrate with each other.
If the project is designed simply to generate data - for someone else to analyze and interpret or not - then their response would be adequate, a simple statement that their original objectives met their mark. If, however, the objective is to evaluate not just the numbers, but their biological significance in a framework of biological hypotheses, then what is needed are some clearly stated hypotheses to test what relationship is expected between size or condition and survival, SARS, migration timing, etc. Such an effort is not present in this proposal. Because there has been a repeated call by the ISRP for biological interpretation/information synthesis, their response is inadequate.