The proponents provide an excellent summary of their research and evaluation of steelhead kelt reconditioning. When the project first began in 2000, little was known about how to recondition steelhead kelts. The project’s initial research focused on how to collect kelts, and how to successfully rear them, appraise their maturation status, and when (seasonally) and where (in the Columbia River Basin) they should be released. In earlier reviews of the project, the ISRP raised four questions:

• What benefits do reconditioned kelts provide to receiving populations?

• What is the reproductive success of reconditioned kelts?

• What do we know about the physiology of kelts, and how does that knowledge inform project decisions?

• What is the homing fidelity of reconditioned kelts?

The proponents have made substantial progress in answering all these questions over the past decade.

The proposal makes it clear that possible refinements in fish husbandry and release strategies will be evaluated over the next funding period. Releases of reconditioned kelts will also continue to occur in the Snake and Yakima river subbasins. However, at this point the project is ready to shift into production mode and broader management application once additional holding facilities for kelts have been constructed. We suggest that existing genetic tools be used to identify the population origins of collected kelts. This information, particularly in the Snake subbasin, could be used to further test homing fidelity. More importantly, however, it may allow for focused kelt enhancement efforts in populations where the number and diversity of adult spawners have been persistently low and in populations where adult-to-smolt increases in productivity seem possible. Ideally, spawner-recruitment curves would be used to help identify and prioritize populations where kelt reconditioning could be most beneficial. Understanding extant spawner recruitment relationships would help alleviate possible density-dependent effects and provide the greatest benefits with the least risk of possible density-dependent effects.

Although this is a high performing project and a well-written, sound proposal, there is a need for more specificity in the goals, objectives, and methods related to transferring the kelt reconditioning technology to other populations and areas on a management scale. There were no details provided, and this is a critical step for the project that will influence its overall success.

The ISRP’s recommended Conditions are listed below. The proponents need to assist with development of an M&E Matrix during the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021) and to provide information to address the other following Conditions in future annual reports and work plans.

1. Kelt reconditioning on a management scale. Please develop a plan for this process including the co-manager entities that should be involved to ensure basinwide needs and considerations, the criteria (population status, unique life history characteristics, habitat conditions and trends, climate change resilience, etc.) to assess highest priority populations and locations for implementation, capacity scale and scope, and a timeline. Include this plan as a chapter in the next annual report.
2. M&E matrix - support. As habitat projects and monitoring projects are not presented as part of an integrated proposal or plan, the need for a crosswalk to identify the linkages between implementation and monitoring is extremely important for basins or geographic areas. The ISRP is requesting a response from the Tucannon River Programmatic Habitat Project (201007700) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Lower Snake, Tucannon, and Asotin geographic area. During the response loop, we ask this project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what is being monitored for this kelt project and where and when the monitoring occurs. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The project’s overall goal is clearly described: to investigate the potential use of reconditioned natural origin kelts to increase the abundance, diversity, productivity, and stability of steelhead populations. The overarching goal directly addresses the problem of severely depressed rates and proportions of repeat spawning steelhead in most natural steelhead populations in the Columbia River Basin that has resulted from construction and operation of dams. Repeat spawners play an important role in the population dynamics of steelhead. When the project first began, there was little known about how or if steelhead kelts could be reconditioned for release as potential future spawners or if the release of such fish would provide any benefits to receiving natural populations. The proponents created four sub-goals to guide investigations to determine if kelts could be reconditioned and to examine the potential benefits and risks of using this strategy. Under each of these subgoals, two to four general objectives were established to direct future work. Extensive progress has been made on accomplishing all the project’s general objectives. The proposal demonstrates excellent continuity and connectivity from the problem statement through the goals and objectives.

SMART objectives were not used in the proposal, and thus specifics on work planned for the next funding period and when tasks were expected to be completed were not readily apparent. Details in the Methods and Timeline portions, however, clarified the new and ongoing work being proposed. A fifth sub-goal, “Project Wrap Up” and its objectives helped identify tasks that will commence once planned facilities designed for kelt reconditioning are built. These new facilities are expected to be completed and functioning between 2023-2025.

There is a need to provide more specificity related to Goal 5, Objective 5.3, which identifies the plans for transferring kelt reconditioning technology to additional populations and subbasins. A more comprehensive description of the planning and implementation process that will be used is needed.

Q2: Methods

The methods used to achieve most of the project’s sub-goals and associated objectives are comprehensively described and scientifically valid. In a few instances – e.g., controlling fungal infections on kelts during reconditioning – new methods will be tried to determine if further improvements in kelt survival can be achieved. The methods used by the proponents to capture kelts, transport them to reconditioning facilities, recondition them, release, and evaluate post-release performance are well established and have been derived from careful comparative studies. A more complete description of the process and criteria the proponents plan to use to identify high priority populations and locations for transfer of the kelt reconditioning approach on a management scale is needed. Clearly, this will need to be a multiagency co-manager effort.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The project regularly reviews the effects of its hatchery operations on kelt survival, growth, and physiological status while the fish are undergoing reconditioning. It also performs studies that examine the post-release performance of project fish. For example, the project evaluates homing and straying rates and the relative reproductive success of reconditioned kelts.

No description of a broader scale formal adaptive management process is given, but opportunities for project adjustments occur on a regular basis. Twice-yearly meetings among collaborators, for example, are used to report progress and to propose changes in methods or protocols. Additionally, CRITFC commissioners receive project updates, review the project’s annual work plan, and provide advice on project goals and objectives. During 2008-2019, RPA Action (#33) required the Corps of Engineers and BPA to produce annual Snake River Kelt Management Plans in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries. The proponents provided project data and assisted in the development of these plans, which included an adaptive management component that guided future work and anticipated infrastructure needs during those years. The project has many lessons learned that have been used to make important project adjustments.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

Since the advent of the kelt reconditioning program in the Yakima subbasin, adult productivity is trending upward relative to other steelhead populations located above Bonneville Dam. The proponents acknowledge this could be due to their kelt program, to ongoing habitat restoration, or a combination of these factors. What is likely, though, is that the kelt reconditioning efforts in the Yakima and Snake River subbasins have increased the number and life-history diversity of adult steelhead spawning naturally. Evaluations of the reproductive success of reconditioned kelts released into the Yakima subbasin showed that they produced progeny under natural conditions and that their lifetime-reproductive success was generally higher than that achieved by fish that had just one spawning season. The proponents also evaluated the homing fidelity of reconditioned steelhead to their natal subbasins and to spawning locations within a subbasin. Stray rates were less than 1% (5/948) for subbasin homing and no within-subbasin strays (0/137) were detected. Consequently, judicious releases of reconditioned kelts are expected to provide conservation benefits by enhancing spawner abundance, increasing genetic diversity, and promoting population stability. Additionally, the proponent’s comprehensive physiological assessments made on kelts and rainbow trout helped develop protocols that are now being used to capture, rear, recover, and successfully release reconditioned steelhead kelts.

The broader recovery, conservation implications, and potential application of kelt reconditioning are well described. The project has a strong record of information sharing as illustrated by numerous publications and professional presentations. The decision to construct new facilities and to expand the implementation of this approach are strong demonstration of the project’s accomplishments and relevance.

Before proceeding with additional kelt reconditioning feasibility and physiology research the Basin co-managers need to establish a well defined kelt management master plan. This master plan needs to use modeling to estimate the benefit of kelt reconditioning to VSP status of steelhead at the independent population, MPG, ESU, and Basin levels at various rates of survival for each of the kelt management alternatives – passage improvements, transport, short-term reconditioning, and long-term reconditioning. With this guidance on the expected benefit from kelt management strategies the co-managers can first determine whether even under the best of outcomes kelt management yields a meaningful improvement in steelhead status. If the conclusion is affirmative, an effective adaptive management experiment is needed to determine whether the benchmark survival thresholds can be achieved. And a decision framework should be developed to outline (1) the success required to justify expanding feasibility experiments to the pilot stage or (2) when levels of performance indicate the program should be discontinued.

A recommendation from the ISRP is that a thorough quantitative analysis of anticipated benefits to steelhead VSP parameters is needed as a foundation for pursuing steelhead kelt reconditioning as part of a kelt management effort. The ISRP appreciates that this modeling effort is a basinwide requirement probably beyond the scope of this project. But it is required as a foundation to expand and implement kelt reconditioning as an element of steelhead conservation and recovery. The project proponents direct the ISRP to the accomplishments section as a source of information on benefits of kelt reconditioning.

The accomplishments section provides survival benefits for individual steelhead kelts. This is not the type of analysis that the ISRP believes needs to be conducted. The ISRP believes it is necessary to provide an analysis of improvement in the risk status of steelhead under reasonable conditions of "success" for steelhead kelt reconditioning. If kelt reconditioning is successful how much will the time period to recovery be shortened? How much will extirpation (extinction?) risk in specific time periods be reduced? It is not clear to the ISRP that even under a robust definition of success for kelt reconditioning that the status of steelhead will be meaningfully improved. In the supplemental BiOp assessment, NOAA Fisheries estimated a 6% increase in B-run steelhead may be realized in the Snake River basin. No estimates have been developed for other steelhead ESUs (MPGs). How does a 6% increase in abundance translate into improved natural productivity and abundance following the spawning of these fish? That is, spawner abundance has been increased by 6%, but after the progeny from these fish emerge from the gravel how much additional benefit is anticipated? Will density dependence in tributaries, the estuary and ocean, and hydrosystem losses essentially eliminate any benefit?

Page 7 of the 2009-2010 Kelt Management Plan states: "The perspective kelt reconditioning program is likely to increase the number of spawning MCR steelhead, but it is not possible to estimate a survival change at this time because of uncertainty regarding the percentage of the run that can be collected." Page 13 of the 2009-2010 Kelt Management Plan states: "However, total capacity constraints for the short- and long-term reconditioning scenarios are highly probable. Given that up to 30,000 to 40,000 kelt steelhead could potentially return to Lower Granite Dam in 2010 as a result of high steelhead escapement in 2009; there is a high likelihood that there will be too many kelts to place them all in a single or multiple reconditioning facilities. Even with the grandest plans in place for kelt reconditioning, the capacity will realistically be capped around a few thousand individuals.

It is not clear to the ISRP that the region has fully grasped the facility and logistical infrastructure needed to implement kelt reconditioning on a scale required to improve steelhead status.

The ISRP requested a description of "success" for the kelt reconditioning efforts. This was not provided. Along with a modeling effort that will help the region understand the potential benefits of kelt reconditioning and the costs, a definition of success is needed, perhaps as one of the conclusions of the modeling exercise. Certainly this should be established ahead of expanding the geographic replication of reconditioning experiments. A decision framework is needed to guide expansion of geographic replication and justification for construction of additional facilities. The results presented in the Kelt Management Plan suggest to the ISRP that there is little indication of immediate or long-term benefit from the transportation only or short-term reconditioning efforts. Replicating this management strategy in other areas should be phased and use existing facilities, based on the success so far. Success for long-term conditioning needs to be defined and used to justify expanded geographic replication.

The proponents state that this study is needed to evaluate the "feasibility of reestablishing this life history strategy that has been suppressed by the hydrosystem." It was not immediately clear what evidence was present to indicate what the upriver rates of kelt survival were historically.

The ISRP requests a response providing a revised description of the objectives, experiments, and deliverables. There is not an adequate presentation of methods used to complete an evaluation of each proposal objective. A thorough presentation is needed for each of the components of the research. There are methodologies to be employed in this project for which the details are not yet established, including nutritional and physiological aspects. These facets of the research are not presented in sufficient detail for reviewers to evaluate the sufficiency of the experimental design, methods, and hypotheses to be evaluated. Summary: This project is an experimental approach to potentially enhancing steelhead abundance in the entire mid and upper Columbia River Basin, including the Snake River. However, the proposed large magnitude and duration of this project (it is a large and rather costly undertaking) calls for a preliminary, well articulated quantitative evaluation of the potential and projected benefits of the project. None of the narrative of this proposal is as clear as is the discussion put forth in the 2009-2010 Kelt Plan Final Draft developed by the action agencies. The 2009-2010 kelt plan from the action agencies provides sufficient justification for the basic trials, but not the reproductive physiology. The essential need now is to produce a proposal that provides a clear statement of what “success” is, an adequate description of the experiments, so there is reasonable likelihood they will provide interpretable results, and a time table for execution, analysis, and interpretation. Studies of endocrinology and physiology were not well justified and lacked sufficient detail. Likewise, the evaluation of possible management scenarios requires further development, as does the evaluation of reproductive success, to allow a more useful and thorough science review. There is a real need to develop and adequately present the likely benefits to steelhead abundance from kelt reconditioning. For example, some basic model of how improvement in kelt survival of some percentage would result in this many more spawners of this age, etc. Kelt reconditioning is mushrooming into a very large effort with little quantitative justification for anticipated benefits to steelhead status. The potential research seems endless. It seems that some numerical and life history benefit and cost analysis should have been done by now.

The ISRP recommends Fundable in Part to complete the experiment but not full implementation.

The sponsors responded to the ISRP request for additional information on this and companion project 200306200 in a common response. They responded to our questions about implementation and how the projects relate to each other in a satisfactory manner.

There does appear to be some promise in this approach in spite of some initial failures (in producing smolts and at these contributing to wild reproduction). The evidence of recruitment is very poor. It is important to continue the experiment (not full implementation) long enough to make certain an adequate attempt and evaluation have occurred.

Nevertheless, this takes away from the real issue that migration success of kelts is constrained by the hydrosystem, both in terms of the hydro projects and river conditions are not conducive to re-conditioning.

The ISRP recommends Fundable in Part to complete the experiment but not full implementation.

The sponsors responded to the ISRP request for additional information on this and companion project 200001700 in a common response. They responded to our questions about implementation and how the projects relate to each other in a satisfactory manner.

There does appear to be some promise in this approach in spite of some initial failures (in producing smolts and at these contributing to wild reproduction). The evidence of recruitment is very poor. It is important to continue the experiment (not full implementation) long enough to make certain an adequate attempt and evaluation have occurred.

Nevertheless, this takes away from the real issue that migration success of kelts is constrained by the hydrosystem, both in terms of the hydro projects and river conditions are not conducive to re-conditioning.