Local or MSRT Comments: See Washington guidance

The first step of the ISRP’s review identified a number of uncertainties, unanswered questions, and suggested improvements that have not yet been received. The next round of review in the process is anticipated in Fall 2006.

Ultimately, the response provides little direct or additional scientific content to satisfy concerns with issues of science. The sponsors indicate that M&E is intended to be developed and presented in Step Three. M&E and early inclusion of these concerns need to be accommodated early in design. Moreover, confidence that such a plan will be rigorous and robust would be greatly elevated if a basic framework with specific kinds of informational gathering (with some justification) were specifically provided in a response.

Another important consideration for the sponsors to address remains the proof in concept for supplementation at assisting with recovery of naturally reproducing salmon. For example, returns of Chinook to the Similkameen Pond is given as a sufficient pilot project and proof of concept. It is not a sufficiently complete or robust test of the broader hypothesis. No evidence is provided from an M&E basis that the population is self-sustaining and that recruits per spawner are >1. Moreover, there were questions regarding whether the proposed integrated recovery program can/will co-exist in harmony with the integrated harvest (mitigation) program. ISRP recommended some presentation of evidence or a model (e.g., AHA modeling results) of how this coexistence might work relative to other alternatives.

Much of the critique and comments provided by ISRP during the Three-Step Master Review of the Master Plan remain in place and largely unaddressed -- see ISRP 2005-2, www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2005-2.htm. ISRP highly recommends linking the project proposal to the review comments in the Three-Step Review in order to further evaluate a funding recommendation.

In fact, the budget requested in the out years assumes passing of the review and is substantial for facility construction. As such it is rather premature because supplementation remains an unproven strategy for rebuilding naturally producing populations.

While Sponsors have begun to address longer term M&E needs by identifying that an M&E plan is needed and will be developed, we anticipated this component to be completed, but it is not yet there. Moreover, reviewers remain somewhat uncertain as to how the brood collection in the future will occur so as not to impinge on natural production as well as how future artificial production and presumed improved natural production will occur together.

Technical and scientific background: The Chief Joseph Hatchery Program described in this ongoing proposal has received a considerable amount of scrutiny from ISRP through the first step of the Master Plan Three-Step Review process. The motivation for this project is to address undelivered mitigation promises from the construction and operation of the Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams. The project addresses basinwide issues with the summer/fall Upper Columbia Chinook ESU. Also, the project addresses the degradation of the historical ceremonial and subsistence fisheries to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CCT) by those (and downstream) dams. Lastly, the project may provide a means to assist with the Upper Columbia Spring Chinook ESU, which is severely depressed or perhaps extinct.

The proposal specifically seeks funding and authority to move to the next steps in the Three-Step Review process, construction, and implementation.

Ultimately, we find a proposal ($30M) to build a hatchery to "rebuild" a fish population practically eliminated by hydro facilities downstream. The ISRP Step 1 comments on scientific merit remain to be addressed before we can competently review this proposal. Ultimately, we recommend that pilot studies precede the massive construction project, which will consume a significant portion of the Fish and Wildlife Program budget without a significant level of population and natural production response. Lastly, do the predictive models indicate that successful supplementation would have a favorable response to the local natural populations or merely provide augmentation for harvest?

Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The proposal is consistent with the Fish and Wildlife Program and is related to specific objectives of the Okanogan Subbasin Plan at a very general level.

The Okanogan Subbasin Plan has a goal for a "Columbia River ecosystem that sustains an abundant, productive, and diverse community of fish and wildlife." Moreover, "Recovery of the fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation of the hydrosystem that are listed under the Endangered Species Act" depends on maintaining natural productivity. This will only be possible if the sponsors and local authorities first establish why spring Chinook are not there now - possibly because they can no longer sustain themselves at current smolt-to-adult survival conditions due to ocean conditions, the stress of navigating nine dams, and harvest rates.

Relationships to other projects: The proposal is superficially linked through a more thorough and detailed discussion in the Master Plan and Okanogan Subbasin Plan. Ultimately, it is not sufficiently linked to ongoing habitat work, M&E, and outreach.

Project history: The project's history is documented. While there remain some uncertainties (especially in regard to downstream influences), the project sponsors have been actively working to confront these uncertainties. One area that would benefit from a clear presentation of results is the potential conflicts from producing summer/fall Chinook as a supplementation exercise aimed at increasing natural production and the surplus artificial production for ceremonial and subsistence harvest. Do hatchery fish provide reasonable returns and wild progeny?

EDT has shown that density-dependent limitations are not likely to cause an immediate conflict, but as the proportions and numbers of naturally produced salmon rises, carrying capacity limitations may become an important hazard (ecological and genetic) to natural salmon from continued artificial production.

Objectives, work elements, and monitoring and evaluation: The non-biological objectives (Master Planning, construction, and operation) are relatively clear. Several biological objectives are developed such as the self-sustaining nature of the salmon population and fishery (including the goal for enhanced ceremonial, subsistence, and recreational fisheries). However, these objectives and methods remain experimental.

The work elements are fairly detailed, especially in regard to the master planning and construction aspects. Some elements such as developing a suitable M&E plan are less well described.

Monitoring and evaluation will be conducted under an M&E Plan to be developed. While this is not yet fully developed, there are activities (including some research on collection methods, etc.) ongoing that will be amenable to M&E. Regardless, this missing component will be a necessary and critical component for ISRP to review from a scientific perspective.

Facilities, equipment, and personnel: A main hatchery facility and several satellite acclimation sites are proposed. These are appropriate only if demonstrated (with smaller scale pilot studies) that the approach will achieve success.

Information transfer is not well addressed.

Benefits to focal and non-focal species: The project will focus on UC Summer/Fall Chinook ESU for supplementation and Spring Chinook for reintroduction. The project will address straying impacts through marking consistent with elsewhere in the basin. No other non-focal species impacts were considered or addressed specifically.

The ISRP believes addressing these concerns is necessary to ensure a successful project outcome.