FY07-09 proposal 198805301

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: None Selected / None Selected

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs: This project will have ongoing operation and maintenance costs for the Lostine River Hatchery at approximately $800,000 a year (not accounting for inflation or increases in energy costs) for the foreseeable future. We anticipate operataion and maintenance of this hatchery facility as long as the Snake River dams are in place.

Termination date: Ongoing
Comments: We anticipate construction of the hatchery to begin in 2006 and be completed by 2009. Operation and maintence costs would begin in 2009. Production occurring at the proposed facilities is authorized under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan program which is mitigation for the construction and operatio of the four lower Snake River dams. We anticipate operataion and maintenance of these hatchery facilities as long as the Snake River dams are in place.

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: General Comments on the NEOH Program: These general comments apply to the suite of NEOH projects (198805301, 200713200, 198805305). The sponsors for these proposals should develop a coordinated response to these general comments and address specific comments on individual proposals. We direct sponsors to our report on the need and role for supplementation research, monitoring and evaluation (ISRP & ISAB 2005-15; Monitoring and Evaluation of Supplementation Projects), which concludes with the following statements. “Monitoring and evaluation of supplementation projects is critically important. For the monitoring to be effective, a very rigorous design is needed, and the scale and logistics of implementation will carry costs that are significant. The scientific issues underlying the definitions of performance metrics and the necessary controls in the design are genuinely complicated. Some of the scientific tools for measuring performance are new, and involve a level of knowledge of population and molecular genetics which until recently has not been part of the standard fisheries curriculum. The consequences of not conducting these studies and continuing to assume no deleterious impacts from supplementation, and being wrong, are much greater than short-term changes in salmon abundance. The natural populations that may be lost if supplementation actually decreases their fitness are irreplaceable. On the other hand, if supplementation proves an aid to natural population during distress, further application may be warranted. Both outcomes remain uncertain without adequate monitoring and evaluation, which will likewise guide best management practice and cost effectiveness.” We also direct sponsors to the ISAB’s Supplementation Report (ISAB 2003-3) for further presentation on the general absence of supporting data for the approach. Much of the comment and concern raised in the most recent review of the Master Plan (ISRP 2004-10) remain relevant through this and related proposals (including the specific M&E proposal): * more thorough prioritization of monitoring and evaluation efforts – what are the key uncertainties requiring monitoring both before and after ramp up of the proposed construction and supplementation program? * further scoping of the power and resolution that can be expected for the metrics that are to be measured, given constraints of sampling and inherent variance, and use of this information to inform decisions as to sampling intensity and the priority of evaluation metrics. If the population responds, are the measurements sufficiently sensitive to detect this? * consideration of full use of the suite of descriptors of outcomes (e.g., reports of primary data and thorough statistical description of derived summary metrics), rather than simply hypothesis tests at p = 0.05; * assurance that sample sizes are adequate for the metrics that comprise the core evaluation of the final Plan; * development of a clear plan for integrating evaluation metrics into adaptive management of the program, including a decision tree or other representation of clearly stated decision triggers and actions that would result in program modification (or even termination, if warranted); * development of procedures and protocols for implementing the plan ISRP also recommends that the broader NEOH program be the subject of an organized two to three day site visit and program review within the next two years. The project describes a five-year horizon before a workshop or symposium on the data would be undertaken; this needs to be sooner. Comments specific to this proposal: The sponsors should note the general ISRP comments above on the NEOH projects, as they apply to all NEOH projects. The remaining comments below are specific to this proposal. This proposal deals specifically with the construction of new propagation facilities. The short description of this proposal indicates that it would focus on the development and planning for the Endemic Spring Chinook Salmon Program for the Grande Ronde and Imnaha associated with the NEOH. As one of several project proposals tiered to the NEOH, much of our detailed comments regarding the science behind the NEOH programs are identified within the associated M&E proposal for the Grande Ronde Endemic Spring Chinook Salmon Program and the NEOH Master Plan Three-step Reviews, especially in regard to supplementation and captive brood approaches. In our judgment the proposal does not provide a compelling logic path or set of evidence that it is justified in terms of benefit to the targeted endemic spring Chinook populations. Ultimately, the ISRP does not judge that construction of yet another facility in the basin is warranted until some of the data and evaluation demonstrate that supplementation can achieve its objectives at rebuilding wild production. The proposal fails to do this. Technical and scientific background: Grande Ronde/Imnaha Endemic Spring Chinook Supplementation (NEOH) project is proposed to address the decline in and restoration and recovery of spring Chinook salmon endemic (locally native and ESA-listed) to the Grande Ronde and Imnaha subbasins through increased capacity for release of artificially propagated smolts. As this proposal is specifically a capital construction project (then shifting to O&M), it is not really amenable to scientific review, per se. This is probably best suited to continue within the context of the Master Plan 3 Step Review process, where all of the pieces of the program are considered together. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The sponsors need to provide considerably more clarity in regard to the rationale for embarking on this program and constructing a facility that will require long-term O&M support. While not unique to this proposal or the NEOH in general, a repeated theme throughout the Columbia Basin is how supplementation could achieve restoration goals without creating other problems and risk. Here specifically, sponsors indicate that declines in the ESU are largely the result of downstream variables and mortality. While we do not quibble with the gravity of the declines or the mitigation requirements for lost populations, it is not transparent as to how supplementation can overcome such downriver effects. For example, Figure 36 indicates no increases in wild escapement that could be attributed to hatchery releases. Wild and hatchery fish abundances appear to vary according to out-of-basin factors (see Fig. 44). Juvenile densities of wild fish also appear relatively high already, and recruits per spawner are >1. These and other data suggest that while an expanded program might well lead to greater absolute numbers of returning adults (depending on the nuances of downriver and oceanic variables), there is little relationship of returning adults with future natural production. Relationships to other projects: Grande Ronde/Imnaha Endemic Spring Chinook Supplementation (NEOH) is a large component of the broader NEOH spring Chinook Master Plan along with NEOH Outplanting facilities, operations, and M&E projects. The effort is collaborative among Nez Perce and Umatilla tribal authorities, State of Oregon, and the federal managers. Largely, it is a construction project to build/add breeding, rearing, and releasing facilities. There are some linkages discussed regarding local efforts to secure and repair important habitats, but much of negative impacts to the salmon comes from downstream sources beyond the scope of the projects. Project history: The Grande Ronde/Imnaha Endemic Spring Chinook Supplementation (NEOH) history and evolving focus are described. As a construction project, the past actions are not described within the context of the program's goals and objectives. The success or outcome of previous fish releases is not overtly described as to generate a realistic prediction that the broader supplementation program will succeed or fail. While an anticipated and enhanced M&E project will occur hand-in-hand with the project to address these critical uncertainties, there are data available to realistically, robustly, and objectively evaluate program performance. Also, the original justification and need for the project is tied to captive broodstock development, which is in direct conflict with the proposed supplementation goal. Further explanation of broodstock plans is required, surely there are no plans to try and rebuild wild fish abundance and productivity based on a domestic brood stock or a small endemic stock. Objectives: On a broader scale, the larger Grande Ronde/Imnaha Endemic Spring Chinook Supplementation (and NEOH) program has potentially measurable outcomes; however, because this specific project is a construction and O&M project, biological objectives are not quite possible. Broader project objectives are linked to the Grande Ronde and Imnaha subbasin plans. Objectives of the broader program are to return several hundred spring Chinook to the basin by first increasing hatchery releases and then through natural production. An additional goal is to ultimately provide a sufficient production surplus to provide for harvest. While much of the goals and predictions (on p 15 of the narrative) regarding abundance and productivity are expressed as point values, in reality, what we see are salmon populations fluctuating markedly. The statements of objectives should be altered to take expected fluctuation into account by presenting ranges of values, rather than point values. The proposal also does not include an objective regarding terminating the project if and when M&E determines either that it is successful enough that it is no longer needed or that it is not meeting its intended targets. Tasks (work elements) and methods: Grande Ronde/Imnaha Endemic Spring Chinook Supplementation (NEOH) is a construction project that is not amenable to scientific review. The broader and resulting projects have the capacity to have a scientific basis if implementation integrates a strong M&E basis (as described in the NEOH Supplementation M&E project). The ISRP compliments the authors for being among the first to bring the modern EMAP probabilistic sampling procedures into the Columbia Basin. For example, in so far as we are aware, this plan is to be the first use in the Columbia Basin of a rotating panel design to balance the needs of status (more random sites) and trend (more repeat sites) monitoring. The ISRP strongly endorses the authors’ development of the EMAP-type probabilistic sampling scheme for redd counts to complement current surveys. The plan appropriately calls for selection of random sites outside the traditional survey areas to be surveyed for redds in each subbasin. In summary, although the ISRP raises several yet-to-be-fully-resolved issues and offers other comments for consideration, this Plan provides a good example of a monitoring program that could be used as a model for program development throughout the basin. Monitoring and evaluation: The bulk of M&E is integrated and extensive through NEOH Monitoring and Evaluation Implementation project #200713200. The longer term effectiveness of the project will need to be addressed in the future following completion of construction (~5 to 10 years hence). While the description here lists M&E as a component, the entire budget reflects only construction and the O&M costs. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: Facilities will be modified or constructed to increase production capacities. Staff and equipment are available already or are accessible. Information transfer: Described in NEOH M&E Implementation Benefits to focal and non-focal species: Project will focus on spring Chinook salmon as a targeted focal species. There is no real discussion of impacts or benefits to non-focal species either within Subbasin or out.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable in part

NPCC comments: Response for NEOH Project Group including 198805301, 20071320, 199800702, 199800703, and 199800704. Recommendation: 198805301 – Fundable in part 200713200 – Fundable 199800702 – Fundable (Qualified) 199800703 – Fundable (Qualified) 199800704 – Fundable (Qualified) The ISRP has reviewed this group of projects (NEOH) within the context of a Three-Step Review as well as within this round of project reviews. The Three-Step Review for the Master Plan behind NEOH has been completed. The ISRP gave a favorable Three-Step Review based on the scientific merit of a robust and rigorous monitoring and evaluation approach to the program while recognizing there remains a basic uncertainty as to whether the supplementation can or will contribute to recovery of naturally sustaining salmon (including spring/summer Chinook in the Grande Ronde). The partial funding recommendation here for Proposal 198805301 stems from the need to amass vital data and information about supplementation before new construction of production facilities. As such, a key precursor to beginning construction on new facilities is the completion of the supplementation experiment presented in the companion M&E project (200713200 - NEOH Monitoring & Evaluation Implementation), which is supported scientifically and is recommended for funding. This project is the critical M&E component of the NEOH set of projects. The sponsors of Project 199805301sufficiently addressed issues identified by ISRP during review and provided additional clarity to the need, role, and priorities for monitoring and evaluation for NEOH. In terms of prioritizing activities to meet data needs, the sponsors articulated those that are essential, those that are recommended, and others that are of a lower priority. As an experiment, a robustly monitored supplementation program designed within NEOH should provide data answering lingering uncertainties and controversies surrounding its capacity and role as a potential recovery tool. Therefore, the fundable part of Project 198805031 is that associated with updating the weirs, which is critical to a robust and rigorous monitoring for the experiment. Construction of the acclimation and production facilities should be limited in scale and scope to that which is necessary to meet the goal(s) for testing the efficacy of supplementation. Clear and unequivocal demonstration of supplementation as an avenue to recovery of naturally sustained Chinook ought to be a condition before fully proceeding with the expanded program, including construction. Moreover, the role and goals of supplementation, which will have a specific end-point versus production as an ongoing mitigation activity remain blurred and need to be clearly articulated. Project 199800702 is Fundable (Qualified): The ISRP requested a decision tree, which would describe a path of adaptive management. For each of the project's 8 management objectives, the sponsors responded with a list of hypotheses or criteria, which they term "management assumptions." The sponsors seem to regard the resultant outline a "decision framework" for guiding the decision process of NEOH adaptive management. The array is based on the NEOH M&E Conceptual Plan (Hesse and Harbeck 2000). While this approach is reasonable, in addition to this framework of assumptions, a decision tree would require statements of reasonably foreseeable alternative adjustments of management (including project termination) that would depend on whether the assumptions are borne out. Project 199800703 is Fundable (Qualified): The ISRP requested a decision tree detailing criteria for expected termination or continuation based on monitoring data - whether positive or negative. The response clarified planned activities if the results are positive, including termination of the captive broodstock program, etc. No information was provided on the criteria for termination if the program fails to show adequate, sustained results. The sponsors indicate that such decision would be made at an administrative level above the project level and do not say how those decisions would be made. This constitutes a lack of transparency in the plan. For reviewers to be able to evaluate the plan, the proposal should contain the criteria and anticipated alternatives that this higher level of decision-making will use. Ultimately, this sizeable project has continued for several years, but the data presented on returns suggest only modest success to date, especially with regard to natural production. As captive brood fish have returned in higher numbers, natural fish have responded much less dramatically, and dropped in 2005. Even in view of the fact that short-term population fluctuations due to environmental variation may make longer-term observation necessary, the appropriateness of undertaking a decision process at this point should be discussed. Also, some of the data presented in the response are unclear. For example, some of the abbreviated column headings in Table 3a are not explained, so the material beneath them is difficult to assign meaning or context. Project 199800704 is Fundable (Qualified): The ISRP requested a response showing a decision tree detailing criteria for termination based on results, whether positive or negative. The response was through, 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. Presentation of results (original narrative) is 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 makes the Fundable (Qualified) recommendation because scientific justification for the project depends on the funding of the M&E proposal 200713200. Finally, the NEOH is presented as critical to recovery of spring/summer Chinook and, therefore, warrants rigorous evaluation of progress and meeting of objectives. The program will benefit from comprehensive programmatic review at key milestones (with site visits, presentation of preliminary data and analysis, lessons learned, etc.). ISRP comments are also provided for another NEOH proposal for Three-Step Master Planning for an NEOH Walla Walla Hatchery to produce spring Chinook salmon for release in the Walla Walla River Basin, see 200003800.