FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29007

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Reason for change in estimated budget

NA

Reason for change in scope

NA

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

A major question about this specific proposed project, as compared to the Yakima project, is the sequence of proposed events - specifically, whether it would be advisable to keep maturing adult steelhead in the hatchery, spawn them, then recondition the kelts in the hatchery, finally releasing them into Omak Creek to spawn naturally. This sequence is opposite that used in the Yakima River, where downstream migrating kelts are collected, sequestered, reconditioned, and re-released to spawn naturally.

Upon questioning during the presentation, Paul Wagner asserted that this sequence was chosen because collecting kelts during the higher flows typically experienced in the spring is problematic; however, Chris Fisher, the local fishery manager, assured the reviewers that it was quite feasible to capture out migrating kelts from Omak Creek during the spring. If this were so, then it would certainly be the favored approach, allowing the steelhead to spawn naturally in Omak Creek before collecting them for reconditioning. In turn, this sequence would obviate the need for spawning of the steelhead in the hatchery and would use the hatchery facilities solely for reconditioning purposes prior to releasing the reconditions fish back into Omak Creek for additional spawning. This sequence would also obviate the need for any development of a hatchery steelhead broodstock. Cost of this operating alternative would be lower than the proposed sequence of events. The project should focus on Omak Creek restoration more so than Salmon Creek.

For original and related kelt proposal and ISRP review see: http://www.cbfwa.org/files/awp00/projects/20141.htm#reviews

ISRP FY00 Comments

Fund for one year as an innovative project. Subsequent funding contingent on the inclusion of a more thorough assessment of ecological and genetic risks associated with implementing the reconditioning strategy. They need to include an objective to develop guidelines that address when this technique should or should not be implemented given ecological, genetic and economic costs and benefits. Comments: This a well-written and interesting proposal. Although the idea of reconditioning steelhead kelts has been discussed for many years, this is the first attempt to examine this more rigorously. The authors do a good job of identifying the fishery problem and providing the technical detail for why this proposal addresses the problem. The objectives are clearly defined and measurable, and the researchers propose using the best available scientific techniques. Although the proposal could be improved, this research could lead to a potentially valuable conservation tool. The fact that steelhead reconditioning is already being used in the basin may support scientific testing of these procedures. However, this does not decide the fundamental issue of whether this strategy overall is a good one. One important concern about the project design is the uncertainty of the prototype PIT tag detector at Bonneville and Prosser dams. The authors acknowledge that, without this detection capability, they will not be able to evaluate survival of several of the release groups. It is not clear from the proposal just how long it might take to perfect the technology at the dams even if the tag detectors are installed in 1999 or 2000. Considering the small number of fish that may be marked and released, it is difficult to evaluate whether the released fish are likely to be found again. This is clearly a critical factor for evaluating the proposed experiment. While the proposal suggests that reconditioning is a way to restore life-history diversity, it is primarily aimed at fish production. Maintenance of the repeat spawning life-history type presumably would depend indefinitely upon hatchery intervention. The proposal does not correct factors that now prevent expression of the repeat spawning behavior. Therefore, the life-history benefits are not self sustaining. Like the whole idea of supplementation, success of this effort would seem to come when it is no longer necessary. This may be one of the most critical issues for this proposal, since application of the method ultimately does not promote restoration of normative ecological processes. Important questions to be answered then are: (1) Do the benefits of the work outweigh any risks? (2) Are there any alternative approaches for restoring the capacity of the ecosystem to maintain repeat spawners? (3) Have populations reached such a low level that this program is necessary just to prevent extinction of the repeat spawning type until the limiting factors can be resolved? These issues are not fully discussed in the proposal. There is a lack of any discussion about potential risks of inbreeding, which could be considerable if reconditioning were successful in very small populations. The authors do state that they will consider the "genetic considerations of long-term reconditioning" under Scenario 3, but fail to provide any details about why this is important or how they would do this. In the analysis of expected costs and benefits that the authors propose, the investigators need to consider the genetic costs and benefits also. This is not a trivial task. The authors also fail to acknowledge that collecting enough kelts to get meaningful sample sizes is a major challenge to this study. Scenarios 1,2, and 4 are especially vulnerable because they also require a high secondary recapture rate of reconditioned kelts. Also lacking is any explanation of the analytical methods by which the investigators propose to use morphological features to develop a quick and accurate method for identifying kelts.

Current status:

MEMORANDUM

TO: Roy Beaty

FROM: Mark Fritsch

SUBJECT: Step Review for Project (#2000-017-00) - Recondition Wild Steelhead Kelts

The Council's approval on October 10, 2000 for the Recondition Wild Steelhead Kelts Project 2000-017-00 was conditioned on an independent scientific review, as it relates to the three-step review process, and that future funding will be dependent on the results of this review.

Due to the experimental approach of this study as it relates to the artificial production there is no need at this time to initiate a full Three-Step Review Process. Though this project does trigger a review by definition (i.e. planting fish in waters that they have not been planted in before) it does so in a very experimental and research orientated manner. If this project were to be expanded or changes in scope or size in the future it will be necessary to implement a full step review (e.g. master plan, etc). It is our understanding that the information collected during this phase will be used to address program areas pertaining to future activities and review process.

It is my understanding that an extensive study plan has been developed for this project and is adequate, with supporting documents, to address the technical questions asked as part of a partial type step review. The Council is anticipating the submittal of review documents by the end of the calendar year. This should provide adequate time for the completion of the review prior to the next funding and review process.

This review will include responses to technical questions relating to: (1) master planning requirements according to Section 7.4B of the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program (Attachment I), (2) questions identified in the Fiscal Year 1998 Annual Implementation Work Plan (Attachment II), (3) questions involving the Fish and Wildlife Program language identified by the Independent Scientific Review Panel (Attachment III), and questions relating to the development schedule and estimated cost expenditures and future needs of your proposed project (Attachment IV). In addition find attached the APR policies and standards (Attachment V) that need to be addressed. Part of the Council's review process will include an independent scientific review of the answers to the technical questions and responses to the APR policies.

I hope that this letter clarifies the status of your project with regard to the Council's recent decision. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Comment:

Comment:

The response adequately addresses ISRP concerns and the project sponsor's agreed to follow or implement most of the ISRP's recommendations; however, they argued that the development of a local steelhead broodstock was needed to achieve their program objectives. Their proposed handling of the kelts and of the M&E required to evaluate the program appears acceptable.

Comment:

Comments
Proposal is not RPA 109 because that action addresses Corps responsibility to improve kelt survival with a focus on Federal dam effects. If funded, NMFS strongly believes that this project should be re-designed as a research project to address the potential ecological and genetic effects of reconditioning kelts, particularly with respect to small population sizes and potential inbreeding. In addition, because genetic and environmental selection pressures likely influence the ability to kelt, it would seem a more genetically sound practice to only recondition true kelts rather than any adult spawned in the hatchery. We encourage the proposers to contact the NWFSC for additional logistical and design suggestions.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No

Comment:

Comment: