We judge the overall implementation of the project to be adequate, but the Yes (Qualified) rating does not represent ISRP endorsement of the interpretations of data and results.

Qualification 1: Specifically, we recommend that in the future the project use standardized calculations/metrics for determining impacts of supplementation, as presented in the Ad Hoc Supplementation Work Group reports and ISRP supplementation reports (e.g., incorrectly using total number of redds before and after supplementation efforts, rather than number of redds from wild spawned returning adults before and after treatment). The project needs to really assess response to supplementation of the wild population...and to do that, the calculations will need to include a method of estimating proportions of wild to hatchery fish in reference versus treatment streams.

Qualification 2: We also acknowledge that because of the sheer size and complexity of this project, it is not possible for any single reviewer to get his/her arms around it. As a group we wholeheartedly support the idea that future ISRP review efforts should be conducted in conjunction with the annual Yakama Nations' Fisheries Program Review, thereby taking advantage of that meeting's presentations and discussions.

The project team's response does, however, provide additional information and clarification when available for some ISRP concerns and further justification of constraints and future plans for other ISRP concerns when a current resolution is not available. As such, it helps move along the dialogue regarding the role of supplementation efforts in the subbasin.

The response includes good discussion of the specific items raised in the review. It is clear that much improved understanding is needed regarding factors that impact pre-smolt survival of natural- and (post-release) hatchery-origin. As seen in other watersheds as well, there appears to be a pattern emerging of poor natural-origin fish survival in the months prior to smolting that contrasts with better survival of hatchery-origin fish. More study is needed.

The comments on this proposal, 199506325, apply to all three YKFP projects. This is an immense proposal that covers a lot of territory, with varying levels of detail. Most of the real RM&E activity is housed under this project, with more WDFW administration under 199506425, and more hatchery Operations under 199701325. The proposal and especially the presentation were both well-organized and very informative. We agree with Dave Fast’s suggestion at the presentation, that the next review of this project would be best coordinated with their annual coordination meeting. This strategy would help the better understand coordination efforts and how all of the pieces fit together. Some general questions exist, and a response is requested: As presented in more detail below, results reported the total number of redds per year, what are the results when returns are adjusted for presence of hatchery fish? It is recognized that because of hatchery limitations, out-of-basin coho smolts are still being brought into the basin. Why can’t they collect the broodstock and rear them offsite? If NO fish start out-performing HO fish, will there be a transition to NOs and local brood? 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives This project is characterized as an “Umbrella proposal for monitoring and evaluation of natural production, harvest, ecological and genetic impacts for spring Chinook, fall Chinook, and coho fisheries enhancement projects in the Yakima Basin.” As such it is quite complex in its nature. The overall purpose is summarized as follows: “To restore sustainable and harvestable populations of salmon, steelhead and other at-risk species, the YKFP is evaluating all stocks historically present in the Yakima subbasin and, using principles of adaptive management, is applying a combination of habitat protection and restoration, as well as hatchery supplementation or reintroduction strategies to address limiting factors....” There are four very broad research focal topics listed as objectives: Ecological Interactions, Genetics, Harvest, Natural Production, with little real objectives type statements; instead these objectives are accompanied by a list of metrics/methods – but these are very terse descriptors. The authors do, however, provide the following set of four research questions that the project is addressing: 1. Can integrated hatchery programs be used to increase long-term natural production? 2. Can integrated hatchery programs limit genetic impacts to non-target Chinook populations? 3. Can integrated hatchery programs limit ecological impacts to non-target populations? 4. Does supplementation increase harvest opportunities? 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management There is a brief set-up as a problem statement. The scope of the proposal, however, is so vast, that no introduction of a reasonable length could cover it all. That said, a nice review of YKFP history and background is provided. The project’s lengthy list of accomplishments, including a commendable number of scientific publications, is highlighted. There is a strong discussion of adaptive management. Work to date on ecological interactions has been extremely strong, extensive in scope, and well published. Certain results, however, continue to portray results in a way that does not reflect the true goals of a supplementation project. Specifically, results presented in the proposal and in the presentation to the review group reported the total number of redds per year, a number that was not adjusted for presence of hatchery fish. Results need to be reformatted to provide sufficient data to determine the project’s status on demonstrating the efficacy of its experimental design as well as how well it is really accomplishing its supplementation objectives. We want a paragraph or two and tables containing the correct analyses. Authors should coordinate with WDFW on this response, specifically including results that Todd Pearsons presented at the AHSWG. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) As an umbrella project, this proposal does a good job of tying the myriad aspects together in a reasonable description of the vast network of inter-relationships of this project with other groups. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Deliverables were less than specifically identified, although the work elements were laid out in great detail in the boxes with tasks etc, along with methods and metrics. Bottom Line – this is such a huge project, providing the level of detail given by other proposals would be impossible.

Yakima-Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP)

Response to Preliminary ISRP Review of RME/AP Category

For projects:  199506325, 199506425, and 199701325

The ISRP reviewed the three YKFP projects as a set and requested a response to the following questions.

ISRP question:  Results reported the total number of redds per year.  What are the results when returns are adjusted for presence of hatchery fish? … Certain results, however, continue to portray results in a way that does not reflect the true goals of a supplementation project. Specifically, results presented in the proposal and in the presentation to the review group reported the total number of redds per year, a number that was not adjusted for presence of hatchery fish. Results need to be reformatted to provide sufficient data to determine the project’s status on demonstrating the efficacy of its experimental design as well as how well it is really accomplishing its supplementation objectives. We want a paragraph or two and tables containing the correct analyses. Authors should coordinate with WDFW on this response, specifically including results that Todd Pearsons presented at the AHSWG.

Proponent response:

The Regional Assessment of Supplementation Project (RASP 1992) defined supplementation as “the use of artificial propagation in an attempt to maintain or increase natural production while maintaining the long term fitness of the target population, and keeping the ecological and genetic impacts on nontarget populations within specified limits”.  We begin our response with this widely accepted and cited definition as a reminder that supplementation is "an attempt to maintain or increase natural production".  Supplementation was not designed or intended to increase productivity, i.e., supplementation can NOT fix problems such as passage, water management, and other issues that may be preventing redds and their juvenile offspring from converting to natural origin adult returns -- it is only habitat actions that can do this.  The "true goals of a supplementation project" should be stated in, and measured against, the accepted standard definition of supplementation (RASP 1992).  The project is adjusting for the “presence of hatchery fish” by way of modifications to the experimental design which now includes methods such as: comparing results from the supplemented Upper Yakima with the unsupplemented control population in the Naches system, and a “whole river” pedigree study using DNA samples of adults collected at Roza Dam which will evaluate the long-term relative reproductive success of single-generation hatchery- and natural-origin fish spawning together in the natural environment.

We include the following as a brief review of project results achieved to date relative to the RASP definition.  We have demonstrated that spring Chinook supplementation in the Upper Yakima has increased total adult return abundance by about 115% on average annually relative to what we estimate it would be without the supplementation project (figure 1).  In addition to enhancing fisheries (one stated project objective not at issue here), increased abundance of fish on the spawning grounds has resulted in an average annual increase in redd abundance of about 245% relative to the pre-supplementation period in the upper Yakima.  This increase in redd abundance is about 85% greater than that observed in the unsupplemented Naches control system (figure 2) indicating that supplementation increased redd abundance in the upper Yakima beyond the natural increases associated with improved ocean survival.  Schroder et al (2008) documented that eggs deposited by CESRF females survived to the fry stage at about 94% the rate of wild females in a controlled environment.  We are still evaluating survival to various life stages of hatchery- and natural-origin crosses in the natural environment (e.g. a “whole river” pedigree analysis using DNA samples of adults collected at Roza Dam is in progress).  We have observed an apparent decline in natural-origin returns post-supplementation in the control Naches system whereas the supplemented Upper Yakima system is unchanged from the pre-supplementation period (figure 3).  However, the difference in pre- versus post-supplementation natural-origin returns is not significant in either the upper Yakima or the Naches system, probably due to the fact that we only have 6 years of post-supplementation data so far.  We estimate that two to three more generations of returns are needed before we can draw any definite conclusions from these data.  Still, these preliminary data suggest that natural populations in the unsupplemented Naches system are not replacing themselves, while supplementation may be helping to maintain natural populations in the Upper Yakima.  The number of redds and natural origin spawners has increased in the targeted Teanaway River indicating this approach may be successful for reintroduction of salmonids into underutilized habitat (Figure 4).  To review additional information and citations from recent studies and publications about the effectiveness of supplementation relative to the RASP definition, see http://www.nwcouncil.org/news/2010/11/3.pdf.

Project proponents are aware of Dr.  Pearsons’ presentation and data regarding productivity of Upper Yakima Spring Chinook salmon before and during supplementation.  To illustrate potential density-dependence issues, Dr. Pearsons presented a comparison of Ricker curves describing the number of fall parr produced per redd in the upper Yakima River (figure 5) which appears to show a reduction in natural productivity (fall parr per km) after supplementation began (the “During” period) relative to the “Before” supplementation period (see Todd  Pearsons’ presentation).  However, like many other spring chinook systems, the Yakima juveniles migrate out of the upper reaches into the lower reaches of the river in the fall.  Thus, observations from upper reaches could give an inaccurate or incomplete picture of overall production. The potential reduction in productivity documented by Pearsons could be due to changes in spawning and rearing habitat, changes in the use of these habitats (e.g. migration of fall parr to areas other than monitored reaches), competition between hatchery and wild spring Chinook, predation on naturally produced spring Chinook, and/or a reduction in the quality of naturally spawning spring Chinook (e.g. reduced adult body size, gamete quality, or changes in behavioral traits associated with reproductive success) that coincided with the beginning of supplementation.  Whatever factors changed between the “Before” and “During” periods, they appear to have diminished in the last two years (2008 and 2009) as these points fall adjacent to the “Before” Ricker curve.  This may indicate that environmental conditions or fish quality are now more similar to those of the “Before” period resulting in similar productivity rates.  Continued monitoring of these trends will help the project better understand these issues and determine if any adaptive management action is required.

Dr. Pearsons summarized this work in an unpublished report as follows:

Human population growth and development have resulted in substantial declines in the salmonid carrying capacities of systems throughout the Columbia Basin from historical levels.  Understanding the factors limiting a system’s carrying capacity can be a valuable management asset.  Estimation of carrying capacity, the factors limiting carrying capacity, and the life-stage most limiting carrying capacity of spring Chinook salmon is important to the evaluation and planning of the Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) [and the project is continuing monitoring and evaluation of these factors].  Estimates of carrying capacity under differing environmental conditions can be helpful in assessing the potential natural production that can be expected from a supplementation program, evaluating treatments and controls by correcting for density, and determining appropriate levels of harvest.  Knowledge about the factors that limit carrying capacity and the life-stages that are most critical can be used to prioritize habitat enhancement efforts and management strategies (e.g., flow management).  However, determining a point estimate of current carrying capacity for anadromous fish species is complicated by wide natural variability in limiting factors such as flow, temperature, predator and prey abundance and location, and ocean productivity cycles.  In addition, human decisions about how natural resources are managed also have the ability to dramatically affect limiting factors.  We also found significant amounts of variation in the redd-to-smolt or redd-redd models, suggesting that our model results should be interpreted with caution.  The Yakima Basin’s natural resource managers recently collaborated to develop Subbasin Planning and Salmon Recovery documents that include strategies to address factors limiting carrying capacity in the Basin.  It is possible that substantial improvements to the Yakima Basin’s carrying capacity may occur as these strategies are implemented in the future. 

 

 Figure 1.

 

 Figure 2. Red line denotes pre- and post-supplementation periods.

 

 Figure 3. Red line denotes pre- and post-supplementation periods.

 

 Figure 4. Blue line denotes pre- and post-supplementation periods.

 

 Figure 5. “RK Before” and “RK During” denote pre- and post-supplementation periods, respectively, with 2008 and 2009 (post-supplementation) data points shown separately.

 

ISRP question:  It is recognized that because of hatchery limitations, out-of-basin coho smolts are still being brought into the basin. Why can’t they collect the broodstock and rear them offsite? 

Proponent response:  We agree that this is the direction the project should move in and we are taking action in that regard.  However there are still some policy considerations as well as some physical constraints at the Prosser Hatchery that may prevent us from achieving our goal of using 100% in-basin brood stock for this program.  Adults collected at Prosser cannot be transferred out-of-basin due to disease transfer policies and require infrastructure at the Prosser Hatchery to rear to the green or eyed egg stage until fish health certification of parents is received. In addition, water quality (temperature) issues prevent holding fish at Prosser Hatchery prior to about October 1.  A large number of coho can pass upstream at Prosser before the date when brood fish can be collected and held at the hatchery.  Once brood can be collected, our first priority is to fill the local brood program.  This may mean that not enough local brood source fish are available in some years (e.g. when fish were already passed upstream or were needed for the local brood program) to fully supply the Eagle Creek portion of the program.  Therefore, some fish from Eagle Creek NFH may still be required in some years to meet program objectives.  When this occurs, these fish will be reared and released from Prosser as a spatially segregated program, well downstream of local brood acclimation and release sites.  Some of the above issues may be resolved during the three step process for the construction of a dedicated coho hatchery.  However, to fully meet mitigation obligations and for other policy reasons, a segregated program using some out-of-basin brood source fish may continue indefinitely.

In 2009, we took wild male milt to Eagle Creek NFH to spawn with eggs from Eagle Creek females.  The resulting 300,000 fish will be transferred back to the Yakima Basin for final rearing and release.  In 2010, our goal is to transfer 500,000 eyed eggs to Eagle Creek NFH for incubation and early rearing. 

ISRP question:  If NO fish start out-performing HO fish, will there be a transition to NOs and local brood?

Proponent response:  We assume this question is directed at the coho program and the answer is yes.  We are currently using as many natural-origin (NO) fish as we can get our hands on for the local brood program.  However, current passage of NO fish through the denil ladder at Prosser is not sufficient to meet all program needs.  Our long-term goal, with completion of the Master Plan and construction of an upriver coho spawning and rearing facility is to collect NO fish for brood at upper basin trapping and sampling facilities, e.g., Roza on the Upper Yakima and Wapatox on the Naches.