FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200001700

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

Major research scope expansion (> 3 times the project for double the cost), additional objectives and tasks; three more reconditioning sites; application of initial research to system-wide scale; increase in number and scope of objectives, tasks, sites, partners and potential benefits to wild steelhead populations basin-wide.

Reason for change in scope

Unanticipated success in early years of project; unexpectedly large potential benefits, expanded scope and geographic scale to systemwide; expanded potential benefits to wild steelhead stocks in Basin

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Due to logistics of establishing three new reconditioning sites on a basin-wide scale for a three year period and associated evaluation of objectives and tasks, subcontractor budget figures may require subsequent modification.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Strengths of the proposal include a systematic investigation of various reconditioning and transportation strategies, collaboration with other projects to expand the PIT tag and radio-tag information that can be collected, and a series of replicated treatments. This is a strong proposal that merits funding support due to its solid design and to the important information it may provide on enhancing steelhead populations. Another advantage of this study, as compared to the supplementation projects, is the 1-3 year timeframe for data collection, rather than the 5-6 years required in supplementation studies due to generation time. There is good cost sharing associated with this proposal, so apparently there is strong user support for the work.

Is there adequate scientific basis for the expansion of this project from a research-oriented activity to a production prototype? The initial research does show interesting promise in development but does the degree of "unanticipated success in the early years" justify the extent and cost of expansion in 2003? The project would expand from a research-oriented program to a production prototype activity, which may simply be ahead of the research at this time. Data presented suggest an increase in rematuration efficiency of kelts over the three years of study conducted (~15% 1st yr; ~30% 2nd yr; ~80% 3rd yr). These data probably do show increases in efficiency of rematuration due to learning during the three years of the study; however, the last value is skewed as all kelts were included in the first two year's attempts at rematuration, while only those judged capable of rematuration (based on the 1st two years observation) were entered into the rematuration attempt on year 3.

Another concern is coordination between this study and the large-scale kelt reconditioning program being operated by the USACE at Lower Granite Dam. In recent years, as many as 15,000 kelts have been collected at Lower Granite Dam. This large number of kelts represents a potential resource for both experimental investigation and for population rebuilding of depressed upper basin steelhead stocks. The focus of this proposed project is on natural origin kelts only, whereas the large reconditioning and release effort by the USACE uses both natural and hatchery origin steelhead. Reconditioning work and research objectives need to be coordinated between upper basin kelt reconditioning projects, so that larger-scale questions about recovery of upper basin steelhead stocks can be addressed in a coordinated manner.

Additional questions concerning the methods are:

1. The allocation of kelts captured is uncertain in the various objectives (Section 9f). Task 1.3 refers to using the first 200 kelts for immediate transport and release, but then task 2.3 establishes allocations of the kelts based on the number captured (i.e., > or < 200 kelts). If less than 200 kelts are captured then all are used for long term monitoring ... why this bias in the study?
2. Task 3.4 suggests that from 2003-2005 a minimum of 20 kelts and 20 virgin spawners would be radio-tagged and released and monitored upstream of the most adjacent downstream hydroelectric facility. Why would these fish be transported downstream with the inherent risk of mortality as opposed to being released into the river of origin directly? Reviewers understand the value of tracking these reconditioned animals to the spawning grounds, but not the displacement downstream.
3. Task 4 is a little difficult to understand. The ISRP's understanding is that 40 virgin females will be collected and transported to the CRITFC/UI Collaborative Center for Applied Fish Science. This research will be performed as part of an MS degree research program under the supervision of salmon reproductive biologist Dr. Joseph Cloud at the University of Idaho. The females would be fertilized with cryopreserved sperm but the source of the sperm is not stated and why would cryopreserved sperm be required? If the intention is to avoid transporting males then sperm could be collected from males maintained at a local hatchery or from natural spawners. Further, in the spawning of the reconditioned female kelts, will the same males be used with each female?

The proponents might also reconsider the issue of genetically effective population size with repeat spawners. These animals will increase the census population and could change the generation length (if they were a significant portion of the population), but they are likely to decrease the Ne value due to the increased contribution from a small sample of the original parental stock. This issue may come down to a trade-off between demographic risk versus genetic but the actual effect/value of kelt reconditioning should at least recognize this potential.

Note: the ISRP has not reviewed the 3-Step submittal, but hopes to provide any additional review comments by mid-August.

Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:

HARVEST AND HATCHERY SUBGROUP -- Address critical element of RPA? It has no application to RPA 182, since hatchery/wild reproductive success is not evaluated as a part of the proposal.

With respect to RPA 184, it has very limited application, since its goal is to simply use hatchery facilities as a means to "improve" the usefulness wild steelhead often found in juvenile collection facilities associated with hydro operations. This proposal fails to specifically address how conservation hatcheries can contribute to recovery. The proposal doesn't develop an argument as to kelt reconditioning constitutes a hatchery reform.

Opposing view. This could be a reform, if, for instance, a hatchery program live spawned fish and released them below Bonneville Dam or reconditioned them. Proposal may have relevance to RPA184, if it is characterized as a conservation hatchery strategy to replace current strategies.

Scope? [ESU's covered, Transferability, Species covered] Proposal targets steelhead, and may have application to steelhead throughout Columbia River system.

Study design adequate, as is, or as may be modified? Uncertain at this time.

HYDRO SUBGROUP -- Elements of this proposal involve assessing the effectiveness of certain treatments relative to hydro passage experience by kelts. For example, some kelts will be transported to below Bonneville Dam in order to evaluate potential benefits of this passage option. This type of study would be classified as action effectiveness research in the RME-vernacular of the BO. It would be instructive if the authors provided additional detail regarding projected sample sizes and the ability to detect meaningful differences in adult returns, between hydro passage options (transport vs. not).

ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:

The RME group comments on 200001700 are consistent with the ISRP's review comments. The RME group comments regarding the proposal's failure to develop an argument about how kelt reconditioning could constitute a hatchery reform and the need for the authors to provide additional detail regarding projected sample sizes and the ability to detect meaningful differences in adult returns, between hydro passage options (transport vs. not) are worth addressing in the project sponsor's response to the ISRP.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

The proposal is well written and presents a logical and justified approach to examining uncertainties associated with kelt reconditioning. The proposal builds on work in this area over the last 2-3 years by the Yakama Nation and the US Army Corps. The proposal also addresses concerns expressed by the ISRP in its FY00 review of this ongoing project.

Strengths of the proposal include a systematic investigation of various reconditioning and transportation strategies, collaboration with other projects to expand the PIT tag and radio-tag information that can be collected, and a series of replicated treatments. This is a strong proposal that merits funding support due to its solid design and to the important information it may provide on enhancing steelhead populations. Another advantage of this study, as compared to the supplementation projects, is the 1-3 year timeframe for data collection, rather than the 5-6 years required in supplementation studies due to generation time. There is good cost sharing associated with this proposal, so apparently there is strong user support for the work.

Overall the project sponsors provided an acceptable response to the ISRP preliminary comments, but some remaining concerns should be addressed prior to implementation contracting.

First, there is an issue associated with the proposed tagging and release of reconditioned kelts below dams, and the percentage of fish that would be expected to return to the natal stream. What percentage of release is it reasonable to expect to return? A fundamental issue is that not all kelts should be expected to recondition in the first year and repeat spawn. In BC, steelhead kelts frequently stay at sea for more than one year before returning. In this study then, if a radio-tagged kelt does not return, what does this tell the researchers about its fate and the efficacy of the program? A return of less than 100% represents a loss in production and a reduced efficiency of the kelt reconditioning program. To address questions related to maximizing the efficiency of the program, sponsors need to determine the relationship between the degree of reconditioning, triggers for maturation, and natal fidelity (homing). From these relationships, managers can then plan how the kelt reconditioning program could be managed to maximize the number of reconditioned adults that return to the spawning grounds.

We initially identified a concern about genetically effective population size to which the project sponsors responded. In the fourth paragraph of their response to ISRP comment 6, sponsors state that "reduction of Ne should only result from..." reduction of the population size or increased relatedness of the parents (or both). They then state that neither of these should occur. We disagree. The effect of iteroparity on the census population size (N) will vary between generations but should generally increase N. However, the inbreeding coefficient or relatedness will increase with iteroparity. The effect of these two factors though will depend on N and the degree of relatedness. Monitoring the effect will be very informative. Iteroparity is a natural trait that has been suppressed, but the size of the spawning populations has also been reduced (relative to pre-dam times). The effect of iteroparity could be very different now than in the past; we only asked the proponents to consider this when assessing the value of reconditioning and the scale at which they may want to conduct it.

The stated objectives in the proposal and descriptions of actions (in response) related to Objective 4 (University of Idaho, Hagerman reconditioning experiment) are not consistent. These need to be clarified prior to funding.

We also have concerns about the potential for domestication selection in the kelt reconditioning program that were not adequately addressed in the proposal, the response, or the 3-Step Scoping Document. The discussion of domestication in the Scoping Document (pp 18-19) assumes that domestication selection will operate at a very low level, if at all on kelts. This may or may not be true, but at this point, is an untested assumption. It is entirely possible that failure to recondition and subsequent mortality on the part of some kelts is a response to the artificial hatchery environment, meaning that within the remaining cohort of kelts, some level of artificial selection has indeed occurred.

Finally, also in the 3-step review material, but pertinent to the final project proposal review, sponsors defined carrying capacity by the size of the returning run. However, carrying capacity is defined by the habitat and not by the run size. More thought needs to be applied to this question including after the present 3-year study, incorporating natural production via reconditioned kelts back into system carrying capacity estimates, and scaling more traditional hatchery-produced steelhead juvenile releases to levels consistent with the expected increase in natural production.

Comment:

Comments
This proposal expands on previous efforts to recondition wild steelhead kelts collected in Columbia River tributaries through further evaluation of various reconditioning methods and release strategies. This research effort may provide needed insight into this potentially important life-history strategy in steelhead and an avenue for increasing the survival of wild steelhead destined to undergo rematuration. The proposal is generally scientifically sound and well written. Some areas of concern are noted below:

Reconditioned and non-reconditioned kelts will be released below Bonneville Dam. What might be the effect of this release strategy on re-homing to the stream of origin and/or straying? Presumably this will be evaluated, but no mention is made of such an analysis? What sort of numbers of fish will be used in these comparisons? Has a power analysis been conducted to determine minimal numbers needed to detect significant differences?

Is there any information on the heritability of kelting in steelhead? What effect might this have on the genetic structure of future generations if this is found to be a very successful strategy for expanding population numbers in broodstock programs etc.?

The Yakima population will serve as an important component of this study, however only 30% of the fish can be interrogated past Prosser dam on the East Fishway with video monitoring used elsewhere. Can video monitoring clearly identify kelts vs virgin steelhead? Since this is a very important interrogation site this should be clarified. Also, what are the interrogation facilities for all the other populations being studied? The <200/ >200 criterion for selecting long and short term reconditioning groups should be clarified.

Collaboration with fish health specialists is noted, but no specific groups or individuals are mentioned. This is important in light of the significant component long term reconditioning places on disease prevention treatment. Also, why are there formalin and ivermectin treatments only used for long-term fish and not short term? This is a confounding factor that must be considered when comparing the survival of short and long term reconditioned groups.

In task 4.2 various physiological factors will be compared between virgin and rematuration source progeny including survival, size, growth hormone (GH), Insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I not IL-I), and oxygen consumption. What is the rational for these comparisons? All are dependant on temperature. Will temperature be identical between groups?

This project is realistic, however, a smaller scale program focused specifically on the Yakima steelhead program may help answer many uncertainties regarding kelt reconditioning with a less significant financial commitment before expanding to the Columbia Basin level program outlined in this proposal.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

Comment:

Comments:
Project evaluation in 05 to address concerns raised by ISRP in 2002-14 (Step Review).

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website