1

Council Document ISRP 2000-6

Independent Scientific Review Panel

for the Northwest Power Planning Council

Review of the Northeast Oregon Hatchery

Spring Chinook Master Plan

Step One Review of the Northwest Power Planning Council’s

Three-Step Review Process

Charles C. Coutant

Daniel Goodman

Susan S. Hanna

Nancy Huntly

Dennis Lettenmaier

Lyman McDonald

Brian Riddell

William Smoker

Richard R. Whitney

Richard N. Williams

Jack Griffith, PRG

ISRP 2000-6

July 11, 2000

1

ISRP Review of the Northeast Oregon Hatchery Spring

Chinook Master Plan

Review Process

On April 21, 2000, the Northwest Power Planning Council requested that the ISRP

review the Northeast Oregon Hatchery Spring Chinook Master Plan. The review is a Step

One review under the Council’s Three Step Review Process. The ISRP’s review is

provided below in two sections: 1) Recommendations and Findings, 2) Specific ISRP

Reviewer Comments. The Specific Reviewer Comments are incorporated in the threestep review template submitted by the Nez Perce Tribe.

Section 1. Recommendations and Findings

The Northeast Oregon Hatchery Spring Chinook Master Plan is one of the better master

plans reviewed by the ISRP as part of the Three-Step Process. The report reads well and

is logically constructed. The materials submitted adequately address the technical

questions raised in the Step One Review, and the project is satisfactory to proceed to Step

Two.

However, the reviewers identified several issues that the project needs to address as it

further develops.

1. Although materials on the monitoring and evaluation conceptual framework

submitted for this stage are adequate, future submittals need to include a more

complete and detailed monitoring and evaluation plan. The plan should include long

term storage of data and meta-data with dates for release to the public. This plan

should include comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of ecological effects and

outcomes to justify concerns and assumptions about wild fish, resident fish, and

carrying capacity. The detailed monitoring and evaluation plan should also benefit

from additional peer-review after it is developed. (Attachment 1, Question 20, also 9,

14, 16; Attachment 2, Questions 5, 7; Attachment 3, Measures 7.0D, 7.1A, 7.1C,

7.1F; Attachment 5, Questions 2 and 8) 

2. The materials on limiting factors raised concerns about in-basin conditions of lower

sections of the rivers, particularly high temperatures and low flows during the late

summer. The project should show better linkage to habitat improvement projects that

address these limiting factors. (Attachment 1, Question 3; Attachment 3, Measures

7.1A and C)

3. Linked to the limiting factors recommendation were reviewer’s concerns that the late

summer high temperatures and low flows, particularly in the Lostine River, were

potentially adversely impacting a remnant late-run of adult chinook salmon (springs

or summers?; pp. 147-148 of Master Plan). This group of fish may represent an
2

important diversity component in the Grand Ronde chinook stock that is not being

adequately addressed by the Master Plan and its proposed actions.

4. We had similar concerns over the late-summer high water temperatures and low

summer and winter flows and their potential to adversely affect rearing of juvenile

chinook at the proposed Mark’s Ranch site in the lower Imnaha River. Use of ground

water may reduce the concern, but may also reduce the effectiveness of the proposed

NATURE’s strategies. Apparently, since the Master Plan was developed an

additional site upstream near the confluence of Summit Creek has been examined and

initial results suggest that further consideration of this site for the lower river culture

facility may be warranted (B. Ashe, Personal communication to R. Williams, 11 July

2000).

5. Although harvest is not an immediate factor, it is a long-term goal of the project and a

long-term plan should be developed that ensures compatibility with recovery goals.

(Attachment 1, Questions 1, 2, 4, 9, 18; Attachment 3, Measure 7.1A; Attachment 5,

Question 9)

6. It is good that the project will incorporate some elements of NATURE’s rearing such

as low fish densities, but it is not clear what other NATURE’s strategies will be

employed (e.g. predator avoidance and exercise programs were not described). Future

submittals should better describe the strategies to be used and not used. (Attachment

1, Questions 12, 15)

7. We recommend using the Imnaha Satellite (Gumboot) facility to hold, spawn, and

incubate chinook eggs to the eyed state prior to transport to a rearing site lower in the

Imnaha River basin. Eyed eggs will tolerate transport more readily than green eggs.

Egg incubation at the Imnaha Satellite facility will likely require development of a

ground water supply, however, egg incubation does not require a large water volume.

8. The Master Plan should better describe whether the proposed improvement to

Lookingglass Hatchery will alleviate the high risk of fish production loss due to

winter icing and heavy reliance on well TW2, with no back-up. These risks were

described as significant problems in the past, and the reviewers saw no indication that

these risks would not continue to pose major production problems. (Attachment 1,

Question 19)

9. Downstream mortalities associated with mainstem passage and other downstream

habitat constraints (e.g., ocean conditions) are potential limiting factors. The limiting

factors effect whole system concerns. The Master Plan demonstrates an awareness of

these larger-scale limiting factors, but does not tie the project goals with these factors

as closely as it should for the captive broodstock component.

While it falls beyond the responsibility of the Nez Perce Tribe and this Master Plan to

resolve these issues, they need to be addressed before captive broodstock programs

can be effective. The region needs to carefully consider the consequences of

supporting local projects that require large-scale regional supporting actions that may

or may not occur.
3

It appears from the Master Plan that the captive broodstock effort could continue for

perpetuity. However, captive broodstock strategies have inherent design constraints.

Captive brood strategies should be short-term. The longer this project proceeds, the

less likely the captive broodstock element will be a success. Further development of

the Master Plan and Stage 2 and 3 documents need to provide specific timelines to

determine success or failure of the captive broodstock strategy.
4

Section 2. Specific ISRP Reviewer Comments

This section is adapted from the NEOH Three-Step submittal: Appendix C (Independent

Scientific Review Panel Questions and Artificial Production Review Requirements).

Each Three-Step question is followed by a reference to a section of the master plan or

other supporting documents where the question is addressed. This response is followed

by the ISRP’s review comments on whether the master plan and supporting documents

adequately address the Three-Step question.

ANSWERS TO ATTACHMENT 1:

Program Language Regarding Master Planning Requirements

This information is also contained in Section 1.4 of the master plan document (see

box).

NPPC Question 1: Project goals.

Master Plan Response: See Section 3.1.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: The short-term, mid-term and long-term goals are

appropriate and clearly stated, as is their time-tiering. Redirection of project from

mitigation focus to that of conservation/restoration seems appropriate and necessary in

view of SARs over past decade. However, the fact that portions of the Grande Ronde

other than the Lostine are not directly included in the project goals and objectives might

prove to be cumbersome in future (and delay efforts to preserve/restore those other

stocks).

The ability of the project to meet the goals depends critically on actions taken elsewhere

in the Basin (which is noted in the Master Plan, in discussions of limiting factors). Thus,

support of this project, which seems quite sound in addressing factors under its direct

control, should entail a commitment to address limiting factors outside of the Grande

Ronde and Imnaha areas in support of meeting the local project goals.

NPPC Question 2: Objectives.

Master Plan Response: See Section 3.1

ISRP Reviewer Comments: The objectives are clear and apparently consistent with prior

planning efforts. The objectives support the goals, though several cannot be met through

actions of this project alone. Smolt to adult survival, in particular, appears to be a strong

and critical limiting factor that likely requires other action if this project is to succeed in

meeting its goals.
5

One long-term goal is to “utilize natural and artificial production to provide benefits

expected from the LSRCP...”; why is artificial production a long-term objective. If

preservation and restoration of stocks can be achieved, as per goals, then the long-term

goal could perhaps be met without artificial production, which would remove concern

over long-term negative impacts of the hatchery program.

The discussion of limiting factors in Chapter 6 suggests that larger system issues must be

solved for short and mid-term goals to be met, and that solving these could lead to

achievement of the long-term goals without concern over possible negative effects

(genetic, environmental, biological). A few of the goals need work to establish

compatibility: e.g., what harvest is consistent with recovery? Many genetic concerns are

addressed in detail in the two Genetic Risk Assessments, but the ultimate interface of

planned activities with harvest is not clear. That harvest is a desirable goal is clear, but

the compatibility of different hatchery operations with different harvest patterns should be

explored so that we understand clearly what harvest can be supported by what recovery

conditions and what genetic or other consequences. Harvest is not an immediate factor,

given the low numbers of fish, but the potential for this long-term goal to be realistically

achieved needs to be developed sooner, not later.

NPPC Question 3: Factors limiting production of the target species.

Master Plan Response: See Chapter 6

ISRP Reviewer Comments: In general, this section was well presented, comprehensive,

and informative. Clearly many limiting factors involve conditions outside of the two

basins of concern. Success of the project will require that at least some of these be

addressed, and that will require action from outside of the NEOH spring chinook

program.

In-basin conditions are described as very good in some areas, but it was difficult for the

reviewers to assess whether serious problems exist within the two basins that significantly

constrain fish production. For example, spawning and incubation are listed as fair to poor

for lower ten miles of the Lostine. Is this critical, or do good conditions upstream negate

the impact?

Specifically of concern are late-season conditions in the lower reaches of several rivers,

where low flows and high water temperatures appear to be problematic. These areas

require more attention. Although many habitat improvement projects are listed as

underway, the reviewers cannot tell how well they resolve critical issues for project

success. As small as these populations are, and keeping remaining diversity a critical

point in these populations, reviewers expected more in the Master Plan on those critical

habitat bottlenecks.

Of particular concern are the late-returning adults that are mentioned several times

throughout the Master Plan documents and appear to be an important genetic component

of the populations. It looks like they are presently being hit very hard by these late

summer ecological conditions. The Master Plan does not adequately address the status of
6

this group of fish, the impacts of the lower river ecological conditions at the time of adult

return, or the actions that might be taken to manage this group of fish and their habitats.

NPPC Question 4: Expected project benefits (e.g., gene conservation, preservation

of biological diversity, fishery enhancement and/or new information).

Master Plan Response: See Section 1.2. See also Section 10 permit applications

(BIA 1998, ODFW 1996, ODFW 1998b in Appendix A).

ISRP Reviewer Comments: Clear and appropriate, but it seems unfortunate that these

proposed benefits are not being extended to other stocks in the Grande Ronde. As

mentioned above, the plans for and compatibility of long-term harvest need to be

developed.

NPPC Question 5: Alternatives for resolving the resource problem.

Master Plan Response: See Section 3.3.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: The preferred alternative is well justified in the plan and

associated materials.

NPPC Question 6: Rationale for the proposed project.

Master Plan Response: See Chapters 2 and 3.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: OK. As above.

NPPC Question 7: How the proposed production project will maintain or sustain

increases in production.

Master Plan Response: See Sections 4.1.12 and 4.2.11.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: OK. Rationale is clearly given. It should be evaluated as the

project develops. It will be critical to evaluate whether smolt-adult survival is improved

by the techniques to be adopted. For Imnaha, broodstock would no longer be transported

3-4 hr to Lookingglass Hatchery, a major improvement. Use of that hatchery for rearing,

with its major winter icing problems, will be now avoided for supplementation fish but

not for captive broodstock program fish.
7

NPPC Question 8: The historical and current status of anadromous and resident fish

in the subbasin.

Master Plan Response: See Section 2.1.1 and Chapter 5.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: Well-described. Lots of interesting information here. It

appears that most of the problem is external to the basins. For example, spring chinook

runs in both Lostine and Imnaha have precipitously declined, with very low SAR's in last

two decades despite little identified decline in spawning and rearing conditions within the

watersheds. This suggests that more outside action is needed very soon to support this

project.

NPPC Question 9: The current (and planned) management of anadromous and

resident fish in the subbasin.

Master Plan Response: See Chapters 4, 5, and 6.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: Clearly presented for anadromous fish. Management under

LSRCP to date has not successfully been able to maintain SARs even close to a

sustaining level. There is very little mention of resident fishes, except for mention of bull

trout in Catherine Creek. The project needs more attention over the long run to other

species and to harvest.

NPPC Question 10: Consistency of proposed project with Council policies,

National Marine Fisheries Service recovery plans, other fishery management plans,

watershed plans and activities.

Master Plan Response: See Table 1-1, and Table 1-3 and Chapter 6.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: Well-described in Master Plan and in M&E Conceptual

Framework (Appendix D); inconsistencies were not evident.

NPPC Question 11: Potential impact of other recovery activities on project

outcome.

Master Plan Response: See Table 1-3 and Chapter 6.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: The reviewers did not find this discussed directly, though

discussions of limiting factors and notes of needed smolt-to-adult survival rates suggest

that mainstem passage must be improved for this project to meet any but its short-term

goals.
8

NPPC Question 12: Production objectives, methods and strategies.

Master Plan Response: See Chapter 4.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: A combination of supplementation, using proposed new

facilities and Lookingglass Hatchery, and captive broodstock, using Lookingglass,

Bonneville, Manchester hatcheries. It is not clear what elements of the full complement of

NATURE’s strategies they will employ (e.g. predator avoidance and exercise programs

were not described).

NPPC Question 13: Broodstock selection and acquisition strategies.

Master Plan Response: See Chapter 4.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: OK. Many considerations are developed in the Genetic Risk

Assessments. If collection weirs are redesigned to collect adults from early portion of

run, broodstock will be more representatively collected. Only endemic stock should be

used.

NPPC Question 14: Rationale for the number and life-history stage of the fish to be

stocked, particularly as they relate to the carrying capacity of the target stream and

potential impact on other species.

Response: See Sections 4.1.12 and 4.2.11.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: Smolt release seems appropriate. Target level of numbers

released, adjusted in future as necessary, also seems reasonable. Ecological effects and

outcomes need careful M&E to justify concerns and assumptions about wild fish, resident

fish, and carrying capacity.

NPPC Question 15: Production profiles and release strategies.

Master Plan Response: See Chapter 4.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: OK. In general the move to more natural conditions and local

release of smolts is well justified. Rearing would be conducted at low fish densities but

other more natural rearing activities are incompletely described on p 75 & 79.
9

NPPC Question 16: Production policies and procedures.

Master Plan Response: See Chapter 4.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: OK. Proposed policy to return adult carcasses to the upper

watershed of both streams is a positive change. Again, M&E will tell over the long run.

NPPC Question 17: Production management structure and process.

Master Plan Response: Section 3.4.3.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: Pretty sketchy description in this section. Details of the

process were not presented and will need to be developed, if they are not already in place.

There needs to be good cooperation and coordination between NPT and ODFW,

something that has recently been problematic, at least at higher administrative levels.

NPPC Question 18: Related harvest plans.

Master Plan Response: See Sections 4.1.1 and 4.2.1.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: Incorrect section references given here. The harvest plan is

not described in much detail, but looks reasonable. However, the numbers of returning

adults are so low that any harvest may have a significant impact. Plans to make harvest

compatible with other recovery and conservation goals should be developed so that earlier

actions are compatible with long-term plans or that irresolvable inconsistencies are

recognized and accepted early.

NPPC Question 19: Constraints and uncertainties, including genetic and ecological

risk assessments and cumulative impacts.

Master Plan Response: See Support documents, Neeley et al. 1993 and Neeley et al.

1994, Section 10 Permit applications in Appendix A, LSRCP Biological Assessment

(USFWS 1998), NMFS Biological Opinion (NMFS 2000), and conceptual framework for

monitoring and evaluation plan in Appendix D.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: How would proposed use of Lookingglass Hatchery compare

with current use? Is there not a high risk of fish production loss due to winter icing and

heavy reliance on well TW2, with no back-up? These risks were described as significant

problems in the past. Reviewers see no indication that that these risks would not continue

to pose major production problems. It is not evident that the proposed improvements will

adequately address those problems.
10

NPPC Question 20: Monitoring and evaluation plans, including a genetics

monitoring program.

Master Plan Response: See Sections 4.1.13 and 4.2.12 and Appendix D.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: Neely et al 1993 (cited several time sin Master Plan)

described adult migration patterns that extended throughout the summer and into the fall,

probably reflecting the presence of a somewhat continuous migration from spring to

summer to fall chinook. Neely et al. and Thompson and Haas (1960) describe these later

returning fish in the Grande Ronde and the possibility that more than one genetic

subpopulation exists. However, surveys by Ken Witty et al. in the mid-1960s, were

unable to locate them.

M&E plans did not include an attempt to assess the status of late returning adults in the

basin at present. First-winter survival and knowledge of wintering locations used by wild

fish also appear critical but are not strongly addressed in M&E plan.

The list of M&E activities are appropriate, but the methods of their M&E activities are

not described in enough detail to evaluate scientifically. The M&E specifics need to be

developed and reviewed. The reports in Appendix (e.g., Section 10 applications) and

Genetic Risk Assessment documents suggest useful monitoring and evaluation is being

done and information needs are being developed and considered.

NPPC Question 21: Conceptual design of the proposed production and monitoring

facilities, including an assessment of the availability and utility of existing facilities.

Master Plan Response: See Chapter 3.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: Generally OK. However, the SRT 1999 (cite this way rather

than as Brannon et al. 1999) placed significant emphasis on supplementation facilities

needing to mimic ambient stream conditions (water quality, temperature, etc.) as a way to

maintain ecological adaptation in the hatchery-reared fish. Clearly the simplest method to

achieve this is to use ozone-treated surface water at the incubation and rearing facilities.

In periods of low summer flows and elevated stream temperatures, the surface water

might be mixed with ground wellwater to achieve the necessary aquacultural conditions.

This comment applies particularly to the Lundquist site in the Lostine subbasin.

NPPC Question 22: Cost estimates for various components, such as fish culture,

facility design and construction, monitoring and evaluation, and operation and

maintenance.

Master Plan Response: See Sections 3.4.1.2 and 3.4.2.2.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: Did not judge.
11

ANSWERS TO ATTACHMENT 2:

Questions Identified in the September 1997 Council Policy Document

for FY98 Project Funding

NPPC Question 1: Has the project been the subject of appropriate independent

scientific review in the past? If so, how has the project responded to the results of

independent review?

Master Plan Response: See Sections 4.1 and 4.2.

SEE FY2000 ISRP Review Comments attached at end

ISRP Reviewer Comment: The project has had substantial review and has responded

thoughtfully to that review. The project Master Plan and M&E Conceptual Plan also

reflect familiarity with the literature, controversies, and uncertainties associated with

supplementation as discussed in other major reviews and documents (e.g., RASP 1992

and Return to the River).

NPPC Question 2: Have Project sponsors demonstrated adequately at earlier stages

that the project is consistent with the Council’s policies on artificial/natural production in

Section 7 (the specific concern of the Panel)? If not, can these points be demonstrated

now?

Master Plan Response: See responses to Attachment 5, Table 1-3, and Chapters 3

and 4.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: Adequately addressed.

NPPC Question 3: Is the final design of the project consistent with any master plan

and preliminary design?

Master Plan Response: This question is not applicable. This master plan submittal

is to fulfill Step 1 (conceptual planning). Final design will not occur until after the master

plan document is approved, and preliminary design and NEPA phase is completed and

approved.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: Not applicable.

NPPC Question 4: If not, do the changes raise any underlying scientific questions

for further review?

Master Plan Response: Not applicable.
12

ISRP Reviewer Comment: Not applicable.

NPPC Question 5: Has information about the project or its purposes changed in

such a way to raise new scientific concerns?

Master Plan Response: No new information about the project or its purposes has

developed to raise new scientific concerns.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: The data on salmon populations and salmon recovery,

resident fish, salmon genetics, captive brood technology, and hatchery practices is very

dynamic and new scientific concerns will frequently arise and need consideration. The

project should be prepared for this and should incorporate the idea actively into their

M&E.

NPPC Question 6: Has the underlying science or the way it is understood changed

so as to raise new scientific issues?

Master Plan Response: No.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: Same as above.

NPPC Question 7: How technically appropriate are the monitoring and evaluation

elements of the project?

Master Plan Response: Ongoing monitoring and evaluation activities are described

in Sections 4.1.13 and 4.2.12. Technical details of these activities are contained in Lower

Snake River Compensation Plan annual statements of work (Carmichael et al. 2000).

These activities are also described in ESA Section 10 Permit applications (BIA 1998,

ODFW 1996, ODFW 1998b) contained in Appendix A. The conceptual framework for

the monitoring and evaluation program for the proposed alternative can be found in

Appendix D.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: The supporting materials and appendices suggest these are

very good, but specific M&E is not clearly presented in itself. The conceptual framework

for the monitoring and evaluation program for the proposed alternative (found in

Appendix D) describes much future work that will be critical to determining success (or

failure) of the NEOH program. Specifics of the M&E activities will benefit from peer

review as they are developed.
13

NPPC Question 8: Are there ways to obtain the same production benefits with

facilities that are lower in cost or less permanent, should monitoring and evaluation later

indicate that the effort be abandoned?

Master Plan Response: Chapter 3 summarizes the potential to utilize other facilities

to accomplish this program. The preferred alternative is the only alternative capable of

providing facilities that meet the production criteria established by co-managers for these

ESA listed populations. This program is being managed under the adaptive management

philosophy, with extensive monitoring and evaluation. As M&E results indicate a need

for program and facility changes, we will be making adjustments to the program.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: The preferred alternative looks good, though it seems quite

possible that actions taken to support achievement of the mid and long-term goals (e.g.,

improved mainstem conditions and passage, improved local habitat) might allow the

production benefits without continuing operation of the facilities or with their use at

much lower levels.

As described in the Master Plan, lower cost alternatives do not appear to be feasible. The

only point in the plan where a lower cost alternative was discussed, was for the Lundqist

site facility in the Lostine, where elimination of the ozone water treatment package was

mentioned as a way to cut costs. As noted above, we recommend that the primary water

source for this site be surface water, rather than ground well water, so the ozone treatment

will be required in order to provide pathogen-free water to the facility.
14

ANSWERS TO ATTACHMENT 3:

Program Language Identified by the ISRP

Measure 7.0D: Comprehensive environmental analysis assessing the impacts on

naturally produced salmon of hatchery produced anadromous fish.

NPPC Question: Measure 7.0D of the Council’s 1994 Fish and

Wildlife Program calls for a comprehensive environmental analysis

assessing the impacts on naturally produced salmon of hatchery

produced anadromous fish. The primary question we would like to have

addressed is, does the environmental assessment adequately deal with

the question of interactions of hatchery-produced salmonids and naturally

spawning salmonids and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin? If so,

how? If not, what are the potential or posited interactions and impacts?

Master Plan Response: The environmental assessment for the proposed

alternative will be developed during Step 2. However, environmental

assessments and biological assessments have been completed for the Currently

Permitted Program (see Table 1-3).

ISRP Reviewer Comment: Not really dealt with in the Master Plan. Interactions

with wild fish (both chinook and steelhead) are extensively discussed in the

Genetic Risk Assessments for Imnaha and Grande Ronde, but not within the

NEOH master plan. Certainly it needs further consideration and development as

the M&E plan is developed.

Measure 7.1A: Evaluation of carrying capacity and limiting factors that

influence salmon survival.

NPPC Question: Measure 7.1A of the Council’s 1994 Fish and

Wildlife Program calls for a basin-wide study on the ecology, carrying

capacity, and limiting factors that influence salmon survival.

A. The primary question we would like to have addressed with regard to

this measure is how does the project intend to address the issue of

carrying capacity within the watershed(s) into which fish will be placed?

B. Do these fish originate from the most appropriate native stock?

C. Specifically, how will the artificial production which is proposed, impact

natural production?
15

D. What are the impacts on mainstem and ocean harvest? How are

these impacts addressed?

Master Plan Response:

A. See Sections 4.1.12 and 4.2.11.

B. See Sections 4.1.1.1 and 4.2.1.2.

C. We anticipate the proposed program will enhance natural production

as described in Section 1.2.

D. See Chapter 6. We believe there will be little or no impact to

mainstem and ocean fisheries because spring chinook are not

harvested at any significant level, presently. Adults produced from this

program could contribute to harvest in the future.

ISRP Reviewer Comments:

A = This issue is addressed, and it appears that hatchery production goals would

represent a fraction of theoretical natural production. Nevertheless, discussion and

consideration of carrying capacity could be more thorough.

B = OK;

C = Certainly M&E will have to carefully evaluate effects of artificial production

on natural production. The current data do not suggest that hatchery fish fail to

impact wild fish here. So far the data from the Grande Ronde and other

supplementation locations seems to indicate that hatchery fish replace, rather than

augment, wild fish.

It will be important to evaluate the genetic effects of this project, which attempts

to conserve wild fish genetic make-up in hatchery fish. Because the goal of the

program is to produce (via artificial production) fish that do not differ from wild

fish, then replacement is not seen as problematic. If wild and hatchery-reared fish

do differ, which seems to be the crux of the various tests of supplementation, then

it does matter. Carefully designed M&E will be required to meaningfully assess

this issue.

D = OK, but does not seem a concern yet as simple preservation of rapidly

disappearing stocks is the immediate issue and the likelihood of recovery is yet to

be determined as the program operates.

Measure 7.1C: Collection of population status, life history and other data on

wild and naturally spawning populations of salmon and steelhead.
16

NPPC Question: Measure 7.1C calls for the collection of population

status, life history and other data on wild and naturally spawning

populations of salmon and steelhead.

A. The primary question we would like to have addressed with regard to

this measure, especially with regard to listed species is, what biological

baseline information on naturally spawning populations of salmon and

steelhead have been collected, and what high priority populations and

“provisional population units” have been identified?

B. Does this baseline information include a profile on the genetic and

morphological characteristics of wild and naturally spawning

populations?

C. What characteristics are to be maintained by management actions?

D. What are the limiting factors for wild and naturally spawning

populations?

E. What is the natural carrying capacity for the identified populations?

F. What monitoring of identified populations of salmon and steelhead is

identified as part of the project?

G. Are these efforts being coordinated with NMFS? If so, how?

Master Plan Response:

A-B. See Chapter 5. Also natural escapement, life history, genetic, and

production baseline information can be found in (Waples, et al., 1995,

Keefe, et al., 1995, Jonasson, et al., 1996, Grande Ronde Subbasin

Plan, GRA, 1994).

C. See Chapter 4. Also refer to Captive Broodstock Section 10 permit

application, Mod Permit 1011, ODFW FY99 Captive Brood BPA

proposal, and NPT FY99 BPA Proposal.

D. Limiting factors are discussed in Chapter 6. More information can be

found in the Imnaha Subbasin Plan, the Grande Ronde Subbasin

Plan, Tribal Recovery Plan, Captive Broodstock application, Mod

Section 1011, U.S. v. Oregon Spring Chinook Production Plan, and

Grande Ronde EDT.

E. See Sections 4.1.12 and 4.2.11.

F. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation activities are described in Sections

4.1.13 and 4.2.12. The conceptual framework for the monitoring and

evaluation plan for the proposed alternative is in Appendix D.
17

G. The production program described in this master plan is for spring

chinook salmon listed as threatened under the Endangered Species

Act. Activities involving artificial propagation and monitoring and

evaluation are described in ESA Section 10 permits.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: All items either addressed in Master Plan or

identified in earlier reviewer comments, except as noted above that specifics in

the M&E plan have yet to be developed. Peer review should play a role in their

development (e.g. subsequent Step reveiws).

Specifically:

A, B: OK

C: OK, but only longer-term operation with M&E will show what is maintained.

D: OK, but continuing attention needed to mainstem processes which appear to be

critical limiting factors

E: Very limited info and varied estimates. Should be looked at more carefully.

F: OK, but needs to be subject to continuing development with peer review.

Measure 7.1F: Systemwide and cumulative impacts of existing and

proposed artificial production projects on the ecology, genetics and other

important characteristics of the Columbia River Basin anadromous and resident

fish.

NPPC Question: Measure 7.1F calls for a study to address the

system wide and cumulative impacts of existing and proposed artificial

production activities on the ecology, genetics and other important

characteristics of Columbia River Basin anadromous and resident fish.

This study is to be coordinated with the genetic impact assessment of

Columbia River Basin hatcheries called for in measure 7.2A.2 of the

Council’s program.

A. How does the projects environmental assessment address the direct,

indirect and cumulative effects of the proposed production activities on

anadromous and resident fish?

B. Have those effects commonly associated with cumulative hatchery

releases -- density dependent, competition, predation, disease

transmission and genetic effects on other fish in the mainstem and

oceanic environments been addressed? If so how?

C. Have the genetic effects of the project on fish within and outside the

Columbia River Basin been specifically addressed?
18

Master Plan Response:

A. Not applicable. An environmental assessment of the proposed

alternative will be developed during Step 2 of the 3-Step process.

B. The affects of fish releases from the production has been evaluated

through the development of Section 10 Permit applications (see

Appendix A). An assessment of effects associated with cumulative

hatchery releases are contained in the LSRCP Biological Assessment

(USFWS 1998).

C. Regarding genetic effects, see response to questions under Measure

7.1A. Based on our previous experience with supplementation in the

Imnaha Basin and the plan to acclimate all smolts prior to release, we

do not expect out-of-basin straying to be a significant problem.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: Adequate at this stage. More detail needed on interactions

with other species or stocks over the longer run as part of M&E.
19

Attachment 5: Policies of the Artificial Production

Review, Report and Recommendations

(Document 99-15)

1. The manner of use and the value of artificial production must be considered in the

context of the environment in which it will be used.

Master Plan Response: See Chapter 2

ISRP Reviewer Comment: Adequate.

2. Artificial production must be implemented within an experimental, adaptive

management design that includes an aggressive program to evaluate benefits and

address scientific uncertainties.

Master Plan Response: See Appendix D for the monitoring and evaluation

conceptual framework.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: So far so good – M&E plan needs further development

beyond the conceptual stage.

3. Hatcheries must be operated in a manner that recognizes that they exist within

ecological systems whose behavior is constrained by larger-scale basin, regional and

global factors.

Master Plan Response: See Chapter 6.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: Master Plan shows an awareness of this – how could they

not with the SARs average 0.15, rather than the predicted 0.65. This seems to be the

biggest hurdle for project success, but the project itself does not control it and is aware of

larger-scale limiting factors/problems. The overall Columbia Basin FWP needs to

carefully consider this in supporting projects that require outside supporting actions.

4. A diversity of life history types and species needs to be maintained in order to sustain

a system of populations in the face of environmental variation.

Master Plan Response: See Chapter 2

ISRP Reviewer Comment: OK; diversity of types seems to be a major project goal.

Diversity of species is minimally considered to date and does not apply very well as the

Master Plan is for Spring Chinook. Some discussion of summer chinook and the

relationship with spring chinook was included in the Master Plan. Reviewers had

concerns about the lack of attention in the Master Plan to late-returning adults in the

Lostine system, and to the alleged multiple chinook life histories in the Grande Ronde

and Imnaha (suggested by Neely et al 1993 in Genetic Risk Assessment).
20

5. Naturally selected populations should provide the model for successful artificially

reared populations, in regard to population structure, mating protocol, behavior,

growth, morphology, nutrient cycling, and other biological characteristics.

Master Plan Response: See Chapters 4 and 5.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: OK for now and considered in design, though minimizing

artificial selection for domestication will be tricky with long-term and large-scale

hatchery inputs. Natural populations are so low in abundance and so much in jeopardy,

that their current characteristics and attributes may not fully represent their potential, or

even recent historic characteristics and attributes. Thus, they may not be entirely

appropriate as the models by which to measure supplementation effects or benefits.

6. The entities authorizing or managing a artificial production facility or program should

explicitly identify whether the artificial propagation product is intended for the

purpose of augmentation, mitigation, restoration, preservation, research, or some

combination of those purposes for each population of fish addressed.

Master Plan Response: See Chapter 3.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: Adequate

7. Decisions on the use of the artificial production tool need to be made in the context of

deciding on fish and wildlife goals, objectives and strategies at the subbasin and

province levels.

Master Plan Response: See Table 1-3 and Chapter 6.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: Adequate at the project level. Needs consideration from the

larger scale view, as the project depends on mainstem conditions.

8. Appropriate risk management needs to be maintained in using the tool of artificial

propagation.

Master Plan Response: See Chapter 4 for discussions on genetic risk

management, See Chapter 3 for discussion about facility backup planning, and see

Appendix D for conceptual framework of the monitoring and evaluation plan.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: Adequate; further development with specific protocols to be

developed in the M&E plan.

9. Production for harvest is a legitimate management objective of artificial production,

but to minimize adverse impacts on natural populations associated with harvest
21

management of artificially produced populations, harvest rates and practices must be

dictated by the requirements to sustain naturally spawning populations.

Master Plan Response: See Chapter 4.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: Adequate for now. Harvest is low (tribal subsistence) or nonexistent (sport or commercial) within-basin. Lower river harvest may have some impact,

while ocean harvest is thought to be very small. Needs development of long-term plans.

10. Federal and other legal mandates and obligations for fish protection, mitigation, and

enhancement must be fully addressed.

Master Plan Response: See Table 1-3 and Chapter 2.

ISRP Reviewer Comment: OK; Master Plan provided detailed comments on these

relationships.
22

ISRP FY2000 Comments

ProjectID: 8805301

Northeast Oregon Hatchery Master Plan

Nez Perce Tribe

Short Description: Plan and develop conservation production facilities in the Imnaha

and Grande Ronde rivers necessary to implement salmon recovery programs for native,

ESA listed, steelhead, spring and fall chinook and reintroduction of coho and sockeye

salmon.

Sponsor Funding Request = $1,217,017 / CBFWA Funding Recommendation =

$1,217,017

ISRP Response Evaluation:

These two proposals, 8805301 and 8805305, are for participation in the same set of

programs by two groups. Their strengths and shortcomings are shared and we provide a

single response to the two.

Fund in part. Fund the spring chinook Grande Ronde and Imnaha objectives, which

involve some capital modifications to Lookingglass Hatchery. Do not fund the

reintroduction efforts or efforts to use local endangered stocks to support harvest.

The response clarifies that part of the requested funding is needed to support the Grande

Ronde Endemic Spring Chinook Program, which was presented in several other proposals

and recommended by the ISRP as a reasonable test program for captive broodstock

approaches to conservation and remediation for threatened or endangered native stocks.

The original proposals were criticized for failing to clearly develop a rationale for their

goals and objectives (many of the latter were in fact simply tasks, not biological

objectives) which were very broad and general. Most remain vaguely presented and

justified. Because alternatives to development of proposed facilities will be addressed in

the master plan document, it is impossible to evaluate the scientific merit of the various

alternatives until the document is available for review. The Fish and Wildlife Plan does

not constitute scientific justification for planning and development for coho and sockeye

salmon reintroduction and steelhead supplementation.

Reviewers judged the combination of hatcheries intended to preserve native stocks with

supplementation for harvest to be scientifically unjustified and unsound. Current

scientific understanding would dictate that genetic conservation of stocks and mass

rearing to support harvest are incompatible goals. These stocks should not be used to

support harvest, but rather should be used to recover endangered stocks.

The proposed reintroduction efforts also are not scientifically justified, given the presence

of the other overriding limiting factors, which are acknowledged in the proposal to be

continuing problems. The respondents note that previous research suggests that the

prospect for successful introduction are good, but passage mortality and harvest rates

under current conditions are too high for natural production to be self-sustaining. This

information suggests that if the goal of the proposal is to implement salmon recovery, a
23

captive brood program will not be successful until the other critical factors affecting

salmon persistence are addressed. Stating that a study says that reintroduction has a good

chance of “working”, given continuing supplementation, does not remove this concern.

Further, the continuing weakness of native stocks in the rivers of concern is likely to be

worsened by increasing numbers of hatchery fish of other species.

________________________________________

w:\em\ww\isrp\1 final isrp reports\isrp 2000-6 neoh 3-step mp.doc