In our initial review, the ISRP requested a response on the topics listed below:

1. Clarify goals and objectives

2. Methods for new goals and objectives

3. More detailed description of methods

4. Project evaluation and adjustment

5. Influence of take limits

6. M&E matrix – support

The ISRP thanks the proponents for their efforts to prepare the revised proposal and provide point-by-point responses. The responses and revisions to the proposal were extensive, comprehensive, and addressed all of the major and minor issues. The ISRP appreciates the detail and completeness of the responses by the proponents. The revised proposal provides much improved goals, objectives, and tasks with clearer continuity and connectivity. The revision of the Methods section to align with the objectives and tasks, along with the additional detail, improved the proposal significantly. The enhanced description of the evaluation and adjustment process clarifies the project’s adaptive management approach. The ISRP also wants to recognize the contributions and cooperation of this project with the Tucannon Programmatic Habitat Project (201007700) to produce a broader scale synthesis of M&E in the subbasins.

The ISRP offers a few suggestions for future improvements that we believe will further enhance project success. We recognize the difficulty in formulating monitoring and evaluation objectives in SMART format; however, we suggest that the proponents consider adding measurable criteria when possible. For example, Task 2 could be improved by specifying what “high level performance” represent for estimates of juvenile abundance. Moreover, for Task 4, by providing the specific types of estimates of productivity that the project produces.

Adaptive management processes occur at multiple scales from the project level to major management decisions. We encourage the proponents to consider the project’s role at all levels in the adaptive management processes.

In response to the request from the ISRP for more information on population-level analysis, the proponents removed the objective to provide analysis related to population dynamics throughout the hydrosystem and in the marine environment. The development of stock recruitment models and a life cycle model were deemed outside the scope of the project. Although we are not expecting the proponents to add this objective back into the project, we suggest that project staff consider, as time permits, ways to get assistance from and collaborate with others (e.g., AMIP Life Cycle Modeling workgroup) on the broader population-level analyses and modeling. Utilization of the extensive datasets generated by the project in these types of analyses would provide valuable information.

Preliminary ISRP report comments: response requested (Provided for context. The proponents responded to the ISRP’s questions; see response link and final review above.)

Response request comment:

This research, monitoring, and evaluation project was initiated in 2002, and the proposal continues the focus on providing viable salmonid population (VSP) data needed to assess status and trends of the ESA listed Asotin Creek steelhead population. The project provides invaluable data on aspects of the production dynamics of a summer steelhead population that experiences minimal effects from hatchery fish. Owing to high sampling effort and use of relatively advanced analytical methods, the project provides reliable estimates of natural origin escapement and emigrant (parr and smolt) abundance. Increasing use of PIT detection antennas in tributaries, combined with PIT tagging of all fish at the mainstem fence, is an innovative and robust way of estimating tributary-specific escapements, which will be helpful in evaluating benefits of habitat restoration. This project is well under way to being one of a few long-term steelhead production studies.

The information provided by the project is essential for conducting ESA status assessments that include parameters for abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. The project is soundly supported by the Subbasin Plan and NOAA Recovery Plan. The project has been successful in achieving the original basic objectives and tasks of providing baseline VSP parameter data and coordinating relationships among other projects that use the data.

The proposal characterizes past objectives and accomplishments well, including adaptive changes to field sampling and analytical approaches. The project has clearly generated useful information on steelhead.

The proponents are requested to address the following items in a revised proposal and include a brief point-by-point response to the ISRP referencing where and summarizing how the issues were addressed in the revised proposal:

1. Clarify goals and objectives. Clarify, reformulate, and make consistent the goals, objectives, and tasks of the project, including consistency with the SMART objective format.
2. Methods for new goals and objectives. Realign and expand the methods section to be consistent with the new goals, objectives, and tasks.
3. More detailed description of methods. Expand and add detail to the methods for the escapement estimates, juvenile outmigration, the validity of some of the key assumptions, and plans for developing stock-recruit relationships (see Methods section of this review for details).
4. Project evaluation and adjustment. Describe the adaptive management process more thoroughly.
5. Influence of take limits. Complete an assessment of whether take limits will impact future sampling and identify what adjustments can be made to address any identified limitations.
6. 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. We ask this project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what is being monitored by this 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 goals and objectives section is incomplete and needs revisions to be consistent with the guidance provided in the proposal form template. A goal related to population dynamics assessment (stated later in the proposal) should be added to the statement of the four goals. SMART objectives should be stated for each goal, as they describe the elements necessary to achieve the goals.

The proposal has four stated goals for the future operations:

• maintain existing data sets for VSP ESA assessments

• develop tools that prioritize and evaluate management and restoration actions

• maximize collaboration with stakeholders and conservation partners

• use innovative methods to inform conservation and recovery.

In addition to the goals that are provided in the goals and objectives section, the following goal is stated elsewhere in the proposal: (5) Evaluate population dynamics within the subbasin and in the hydropower system and ocean. However, the objectives provided appear to be primarily associated with a single combined goal that includes the individually stated goals. In addition, no clear objectives are provided for information sharing or participation in adaptive management decision processes. Also unclear was how the tributary-specific escapement estimates, in the absence of tributary-specific juvenile production estimates, will be used.

The ISRP also requests that the proponents provide details and plans for addressing a key objective of this study of developing a stock-recruit relationship to describe production dynamics for a population that is minimally affected by hatchery-origin fish. This would include estimation of adult recruit-per-spawner and smolt-per-spawner relationships (or egg deposition instead of spawner abundance given information on size/age/sex at return). The ISRP encourages the project team to begin estimating these stock-recruit relationships and more advanced versions that attempt to explain some of the variation in recruits-per-spawner by including environmental covariates (e.g., flow, water temperature, which could include metrics influenced by habitat efforts).

Q2: Methods

The methods appear sound although it is difficult for the ISRP to fully evaluate them. The methods provided for objective 1, and the associated tasks that focus on VSP parameter data, are clear. In general, the methods need additional details and need to be tailored and clearly described in relation to the revised goals and objectives. In addition to relating methods to newly formulated and clarified goals and objectives (and tasks), other issues to consider for revising the methods are:

• Escapement estimates are based on mark-recapture because fish may move upstream of the weir site prior to installation or move past the weir undetected during high water (this should be clarified in the proposal). As the ISRP understands it, the escapement estimate is based on a two-event closed mark-recapture model, where any unmarked fish are marked during upstream passage over the weir and detected as kelts during downstream passage. The proportion of kelts with a mark is used to estimate the capture probability of the weir during upstream migration. Thus, there are two unstated key assumptions of the approach: a) 100% of kelts moving downstream past the weir will be detected; and b) there is no mortality between upstream and downstream passage. Is there any data to support these assumptions, especially b)?

• A Bayesian approach is used to estimate sex-, origin-, and age-specific escapement. The latter is critical for stock-recruit analysis that depends on assigning each returning spawner to its brood year. Owing to limitations in the model description, we were unsure whether age-specific escapement estimates account for the uncertainty in age assignment. In some years, the number of scales collected can be low, and given a relatively large number of freshwater-marine age combinations, assignment error to any one total age category would be high. Clarification of the model being used to estimate outmigrant abundances and how it relates to other commonly used models would strengthen the methods and ensure comparability with other analyses.

• Additional methods should be added related to the stock-recruit analysis to estimate productivity. Only recruit-per-spawner vs time plots were provided in the proposal. Without a stock-recruit analysis, which could include covariate effects (e.g., habitat, flow, marine condition indices) the causes for variation in the relationship are not defined (density-dependent or other covariate effects). When a more formal analysis is done, a state space modeling approach (e.g., Fleischman et al. 2013, Stanton et al. 2017) should be considered to account for the uncertainty in brood year assignment.

• Addition of details about release locations and timing of releases (day or night). Key assumptions or factors should be stated. For example, confirmation that fish move past the trap within a week (assuming a diagonal version of a weekly-stratified estimator is being used) and whether fish are being released far enough away from the traps to not violate the assumption that marked and unmarked fish are fully mixed by the time they reach the trap.

• Any evidence or proposed analyses to address whether age or size significantly affects capture probability, and whether uncertainty in age assignment is propagated forward through the estimation of age-specific run sizes.

• Information on the role of strays in influencing the project outcomes.

References

Fleischman, S.J., M.J. Catalono, R.A. Clark, and D.R. Bernard. 2013. An age-structured state-space stock-recruit model for Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 70:401-414.

Stanton, B.A., M.J. Catalano, and S.J. Fleischman. 2017. From sequential to integrated Bayesian analysis: Exploring the continuum with a Pacific salmon spawner-recruit model. Fisheries Research 186: 237-247.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The project has been successful in generating basic VSP parameter data for abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity. The project team has made effective modifications and improvements to field sampling protocols and analytical approaches, shifting from spawning ground surveys to PIT-tagged adult distribution to assess spatial structure and adding Bayesian analyses to improve parameter estimates related to determining abundances. These are two good examples of adjustments that have been made within the project.

There were major elements requested in the proposal preparation guidance related to the adjustment process that were not addressed. There were no descriptions of the adaptive management process or decision framework used to evaluate outcomes, adjust goals, objectives, actions, monitoring, or methods. In addition, the proposal did not describe time frames for adaptive adjustments, who is involved, how information is shared and utilized in the process, and how adaptive decisions are documented. The project evaluation and adjustment process section needs further description.

Another issue is the question of how some sampling methods may be impacted by take limits. We were unclear whether take issues would affect the number of fish that can be measured, scaled, and marked, or will it also limit the period of operations for the weir or RST. Given the potential for this issue to seriously impact this project, a more detailed discussion and perhaps planning for contingencies is warranted.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The project has provided extensive results that address the basic original objectives and tasks. An excellent summary of the data related to VSP parameters for abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity was provided. The results produced to date have been valuable and essential for completion of the Asotin Creek steelhead population viability assessments. For example, the project results showed a recent decline in spawner abundance and recruits-per-spawner since 2016 that have remained low. There was no presentation of results related to higher-level questions associated with uncertainties in parameter estimates, spawner-recruit relationships, and full life cycle population dynamics. Such analyses would expand the value and further link project outcomes to management needs.

This is an ongoing hatchery supplementation project with goals to rebuild the naturally produced steelhead population and provide adults for harvest mitigation, while also contributing to spring and fall Chinook recovery. The effort is largely a M&E effort to evaluate hatchery performance and assess the contribution of the hatchery to natural production.

The proposal provides data and an informative discussion about limitations for increasing the abundance of NOR steelhead from the current supplementation/conservation program, which was fully implemented more than a decade ago (2010) and replaced the Lyons Ferry stock harvest mitigation program. Owing to a high proportion of out-of-basin strays to the Tucannon River, including unmarked fish, the natal source of natural broodstock used for hatchery production in the new program is uncertain. This may limit the ability of the current program to rebuild natural production. The proposal also outlines issues with smolt quality and residualism and relates them to use of non-domesticated broodstock, though rearing differences (relative to Lyons Ferry) could also cause be causing these problems. Nevertheless, problems with smolt quality and residualism limit the effective production from the hatchery and could have impacts on natural production of steelhead and survival of hatchery-produced Chinook. While the outcomes from the hatchery effort have been disappointing, this project has been very effective in documenting these limitations, providing decision-makers with valuable information they could use to make adjustments. At this point in time, the data suggests that the hatchery program is not meeting its conservation or harvest mitigation objectives and significant changes may be needed to achieve the management goals.

As stated in the proposal, it is difficult to evaluate the improvement in productivity of NOR steelhead resulting from hatchery efforts relative to the original Lyons Ferry supplementation program given the large number of out-of-basin strays. This is a fundamental limitation to the effectiveness of the project, and the proponents discuss using an exclusion fence (which is likely costly) to partially mitigate this problem (at least for HOR strays, requiring marking of all HOR fish from all hatcheries in the Snake River Basin and beyond). However, the ISRP thinks it is still worth estimating NOR productivity from this project's data even though the effects of straying, hatchery broodstock changes, and habitat actions cannot be separated. It would be helpful for investigators to see if productivity is increasing or declining even if the cause for any change cannot be determined. More years of data are required to build-up the sample size to estimate informative spawner-smolt stock-recruitment models, especially if they allow for time-varying productivity or capacity terms via state-space modelling approaches.

The ISRP was glad to see the proposed effort to estimate the abundance of the residualized O. mykiss from HOR steelhead releases. These fish could have a substantive negative effect on NOR productivity by reducing survival rates of steelhead and Chinook fry and parr.

The proposal clearly describes links to other projects in the area. In regard to habitat restoration efforts, which began in the 1990s, the proponents note, "determining a fish response from these habitat restoration activities is a common request of project personnel but determining such relationships is challenging and not possible in all cases given the current scope of funding directed at the collection of the biological data." Nevertheless, the ISRP encourages the proponents to continue to improve upon high level metrics such as size-at-age of steelhead smolts, smolts-per-spawner in relation to spawning escapement (to the extent possible), water temperature, and other metrics that might be used to help evaluate fish responses to habitat restoration actions.

Although the proposal meets scientific criteria, we suggest that the proponents provide support in development of an M&E matrix for the Tucannon River.

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 (September 24 to November 22, 2021), we ask this project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what is being monitored by this 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 goals and objectives are well stated, and we appreciate the proponent’s clarification that their goal of evaluating the efficacy of the hatchery program for increasing the productivity of NOR steelhead is unlikely to be achieved due to high levels of out-of-basin straying. Fundamentally then, the program is unlikely to meet its key objective. We agree with the proponents that the data being collected is useful, especially if straying rates are reduced in future. The data being collected from this project serves as a baseline to evaluate changes resulting from future actions.

Q2: Methods

Methods for each task are summarized in the proposal. Additional details are provided in the recent project report and online links provided in the proposal. The project has been applying the same methodology for many years. WDFW recognizes issues with estimating the spawning escapement of steelhead associated with the very high stray rate of out-of-basin natural and hatchery origin fish, and the problem of Tucannon River fish bypassing the river and migrating above Lower Granite Dam. WDFW suggests that a trap in the lower river could help solve the out-of-basin problem, but additional funds would be needed.

The proponents show that steelhead smolt size has steadily declined since 2000, and they suggest possible reasons for this decline. To better understand whether this decline is related to growth or age at migration, we suggest that the proponents examine length at age, i.e., for age-1, age-2, and age-3 smolts.

The proponents propose a new effort to examine residualism in hatchery steelhead using a hook and line capture mark-release approach. Data on unmarked presumably natural origin trout should also be documented and related to estimates of hatchery steelhead abundance. Natural origin steelhead in the Tucannon River are known to produce microjacks and presumably many natural trout also reside in the river.

The number of PIT-tagged NOR returns at the fence must be very low given that only 3000 are PIT-tagged as smolts and that the current smolt-adult survival is < 0.5% (i.e., < 10 returning PIT-tagged NOR adults would be captured at the fence). Thus, determining the distribution of NOR fish with PIT antennas upstream of the fence must be very uncertain, which is a significant problem given the objective of this project. It may be worth PIT tagging NOR fish at the fence to increase sample size to get a better understanding of their distribution.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The proponents provided a comprehensive and useful M&E report that incorporates relatively long time series of data. Adaptive management in response to quantitative objectives and project results has occurred over the years. The proponents state that nearly all changes have been directed at improving hatchery smolt quality at release, and/or release locations and timing. Also, given continued difficulties with rearing fish that originate from NOR parents (high CV’s, high K-factors), which can lead to high rates of residualism, the proponents have proposed residualism surveys in the Tucannon River beginning after the 2022 release.

A previous radio telemetry study by the Corps of Engineers at Lower Granite Dam aimed to better understand the overshoot of Tucannon River steelhead, but it did not address the problem as fish had already passed the Tucannon. To answer the question, WDFW recognizes that Tucannon River steelhead should be radio tagged at some location below the mouth of the Tucannon River, so their migratory routes can be observed as they pass the mouth of the Tucannon River. This study, while not yet proposed here, could help identify environmental and/or behavioral mechanisms involved with straying above Lower Granite Dam.

Adjustments to this project are based, in part, on metrics for steelhead smolt quality, and the residualism study that is proposed is a good addition to evaluate potential impacts of supplementation- and conservation-focused stocking. A fundamental limitation of the evaluation process is the inability to determine if unmarked steelhead returning to the Tucannon River originated in this system or were NOR strays or unmarked HOR strays from other systems. Is there any way of separating the Tucannon NOR component via genetic sampling and analysis? This may not be possible due to the long history of using out-of-basin broodstock and high levels of out-of-basin straying into the Tucannon, but perhaps this could be accomplished from microchemistry of otoliths collected from NOR carcasses. Some exploration of alternate approaches to tracking the Tucannon NOR component of NOR returns seems warranted.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The proposal is clear on the project accomplishments and limitations. To date, the project has been particularly useful in quantifying total escapement and spawning escapement, the contributions of HOR and NOR fish including contributions of HOR fish from other basins, smolt production, and smolt-adult survival. The proposal also includes a new project that begins to evaluate impacts of hatchery releases by estimating the size of the residualized population. The proposal is very clear about the challenges in evaluating potential benefits of increasing use of in-basin broodstock given high levels of out-of-basin strays.

The proposal and the recent project report provide a comprehensive summary of project results and conclusions. The general findings include:

• Substantial numbers of Tucannon River steelhead (both hatchery and wild origin) continue to bypass the Tucannon River and overshoot to locations above Lower Granite Dam.

• Large numbers of hatchery and other natural origin summer steelhead from other populations/programs outside the Tucannon River spawn in the Tucannon River. Many of these “stray” steelhead have overshot their intended return location (Mid-Columbia River populations) and end up in the Tucannon River to spawn as a last resort.

• To date WDFW has only been able to estimate the number of steelhead escaping into the Tucannon River based on in-stream PIT tag detections. Accurately determining how many steelhead are spawning has not been possible because many of the assumptions used to estimate the number of spawners have not been validated.

• Some type of adult trapping near the mouth of the Tucannon River is desired for the long-term management of this population. Managing steelhead straying and/or hatchery fish entering the Tucannon River that do not belong is difficult when relying on harvest efforts alone to control the number of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds.

Modified by Thomas Ono on 4/7/2023 2:37:04 PM.

The response is complete and addresses ISRP comments. A better description of M&E procedures and progress to date is provided. The response places Asotin Creek as an IMW within the context of ISEMP and CHaMP. It describes past data collected and the project plan for provision of new data. Data will be used to establish a baseline against which trends in productivity, abundance, distribution, and diversity of Asotin Creek steelhead populations can be assessed.

Methods to monitor adult escapement, redd counts and juvenile outmigration are now described in detail. Methods of genetic sampling are also well described. Data from field sampling are summarized in graphs and tables. An impressive amount of data has been collected considering the relatively short period of time the project has been in operation and it is evident that the proponents are proceeding expeditiously with their analyses.

The proponents are focusing on determining status and trends of VSP criteria, that is, collecting baseline data rather than testing hypotheses. This approach seems appropriate at this stage of the work. They agree that formulating testable hypotheses is desirable and propose to undertake this effort in the future. The ISRP concurs with the proponents that the Asotin would be a good reference basin for these studies. The project should form an important component of an experimental management network once the complete design among sites is formed. We encourage this approach.

Given the importance and uniqueness of the Asotin population, as the project progresses the ISRP strongly suggests that the proponents consider publishing their results in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

The goal of this RM&E project is to develop an index system for status and trends of a wild steelhead population by estimating abundance, distribution, productivity and life-stage survival rates of anadromous adult and juvenile steelhead in Asotin Creek and mainstem. The Asotin summer-run steelhead population has been identified as the primary population for status monitoring within the lower Snake steelhead Major Population Group. The population is somewhat unique in that it is unsupplemented and maintains a relatively large population of naturally spawning steelhead even though it lies above eight mainstem dams. It could serve as a valuable reference stream within the IMW program. For these reasons, continued monitoring of this population should be a high priority. The ISRP seeks a more thorough presentation and interpretation of work and results to date and as planned, toward a comparative experimental approach to recruitment analyses. The project is consistent with the Asotin Subbasin Plan, MERR, the NPCC Research Plan, NOAA Fisheries “Guidance for Monitoring Recovery of Pacific Northwest Salmon and Steelhead Populations” and the Washington Statewide Steelhead Management Plan. It addresses several RPAs in the 2008 Biological Opinion. This project is closely tied to regional programs. It serves as a supplementation reference stream and collects data for management of ESA-listed steelhead stocks. It collaborates with other projects and is a part of the Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program (ISEMP.) A clear technical background is provided. The project states five objectives (which are really tasks): 1. Estimate escapement and spawner abundance of wild and hatchery steelhead in Asotin Creek 2. Estimate adults per redd in the Asotin Creek mainstem 3. Document juvenile steelhead and Chinook salmon life history patterns, survival rates, and estimate emigrant production in the Asotin Creek mainstem 4. Collect DNA samples for future genetic characterization 5. Disseminate data This project seems organized and very worthwhile, with potential value to an array of regional recovery needs. However, more detail needs to be provided on procedures of monitoring and evaluation, as well as more evaluation of progress to date. The proposal should place past activities and accomplishments in the context of the project’s and the subbasin’s objectives, evaluating strengths and weaknesses and showing how they will strategically affect the conduct and direction of the project. This project received a favorable rating in the last ISRP projects review, and there remain several favorable traits. That is, there is good justification for continued funding. Asotin steelhead are a relatively viable, unsupplemented population occurring above eight mainstem dams and so would have value as a reference stream for IMW work and in maintaining viability of Lower Snake steelhead. The proponents appear to have made progress in evaluating status and trends of Asotin steelhead. Nonetheless, a more thorough presentation of results is needed. Also, more detail is needed on methods for data collection and analytical methods particularly for objectives 1-3 (Deliverables 2 and 4). In addition, there is a need to briefly summarize their results from annual reports (which were well-written, but separate documents). This is an opportunity to compare with other basins and programs utilizing the CHaMP protocols; however, preliminary characteristics and differences should at least be listed. They also should compare recruitment results to the Tucannon and Walla Walla rivers (and others) and develop testable hypotheses from the recruitment analyses, toward an adaptive management experimental approach. The goal is to provide data toward understanding the biology and recruitment of wild, unsupplemented summer-run steelhead in this lower Snake River tributary, as an index of status and trends, but little or no information on results is provided. In addition, the proponents suggest the site will provide information on habitat restoration and serve as the wild control for evaluation of supplementation. However, details of these evaluations were lacking. Adult PIT tagging efforts incorporate ISEMP methodology, and there is mention of genetic monitoring (SNPs) but, again, details are needed. No recruitment analyses were attempted, albeit they are working with somewhat preliminary data (trapping commenced in 2004). The list of accomplishments is substantive, but the proponents need to provide a more thorough presentation of results. Results should be presented in graphs and/or tables, with explanation, interpretation, and general conclusions drawn. Returns of both hatchery (strays) and naturally spawning fish should be provided, and in comparison to elsewhere. The results should be organized according to past project objectives to allow the reviewer to determine if the project is progressing satisfactorily toward accomplishment of its objectives. Given these caveats, this site should form an important contribution to the evolving IMW network.

Qualification: This project should be included in the CRHEET supplementation evaluation umbrella.

This is a proposal for tagging and data collection for evaluation of a steelhead supplementation program in the Tucannon River that is implemented under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan.

The monitoring is essential to evaluate the conversion of hatchery steelhead production in the Tucannon River from the release of out-of-subbasin Lyons Ferry production stock to an endemic (local) stock primarily reared and released in the Tucannon River subbasin. The transition is an effort to maintain mitigation fisheries under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan and US v. Oregon while protecting the native population in the Tucannon River. There are complicated circumstances (i.e., apparently half the returning hatchery and natural-origin steelhead bypass the Tucannon and enter other Snake River tributaries, and others spawn below a hatchery weir) that may compromise this effort to obtain data that will provide meaningful analysis. The proponents, however, have a good track record of evaluating hatchery programs.

If there is expansion of LSRCP hatchery facilities, it would be reasonable to have those reviewed through the Three-Step Process used in the Fish and Wildlife Program, since the LSRCP is BPA funded, and reviewed as part of the “reimbursable” program.

Although the proposed data collection is essential for the supplementation to be evaluated, the description of the actual field data collection methodology, vital statistic estimation, and supplementation evaluation is not yet detailed enough for scientific review.

1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

As stated, “The primary goal of this project is to monitor and evaluate the status and trends of both natural and hatchery origin summer steelhead in the Tucannon River.”


In addition, there are four main objectives for this proposal:
1. Document change in productivity of steelhead above the Tucannon Weir
2. Estimate total adult steelhead returns to the Tucannon River
3. Estimate distribution of hatchery and wild spawners in Tucannon River
4. Document in-hatchery survival performance of supplementation steelhead.

Although these were all clearly laid out in a logical progression, it is not clear how a system can be designed for supplementation in the Tucannon that is restricted to the area above the hatchery, when the population above and below the weir are not clearly independent. The objectives for monitoring, to evaluate adult and juvenile abundance, and ultimately estimate adult-to-adult productivity, are the correct essential data to collect. It is not clear from the proposal how well this can be accomplished. The evaluation of supplementation requires using these essential data in statistical comparisons of before/after and control/reference or perhaps some other design. These evaluations need to be carefully assessed. It is not clear from the presentation how the comparisons will be made.

Significance to regional programs is amply described; the relationship to LSRCP, the BiOp, US v. Oregon, etc. is succinct.

Technical background: The current status of steelhead in the Tucannon River is not described, and the anticipated system capacity, goals of the hatchery program, and performance of the hatchery fish in the system are not clearly described. A discussion of supplementation of other steelhead in the Columbia River Basin is not presented. There is or has been supplementation of steelhead in the Hood River, Umatilla, and Imnaha rivers, and the performance of those programs was not included in the technical background.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

There is a general discussion of past history of using Lyons Ferry steelhead in the Tucannon to develop a harvest program for steelhead. The results of using local fish beginning in 2000 is only briefly presented, and not in a fashion that is interpretable in terms of whether the feasibility stage yielded performance justifying the proposed project’s moving to an expanded pilot stage.

Throughout the proposal there are some troubling statements, e.g., that the BiOp expects supplementation to improve productivity of steelhead. Supplementation may increase abundance, but there is not a conceptual foundation for supplementation that it will increase productivity. Under supplementation, productivity is likely to decrease owing to both density dependence and fitness effects. The ISRP is under the impression that preliminary analyses from a number of systems demonstrate that natural productivity is reduced in the presence of hatchery fish. There is a lack of attention to the need for objectives for natural-origin steelhead abundance (although mention is made of 285 fish). Supplementation has as its primary objective the goal of maintaining or increasing the abundance of natural-origin adults. This increase in generation 0+1 is to be achieved by increasing total abundance in generation 0 by permitting hatchery-origin adults to spawn naturally. This phenomenon has not yet been demonstrated (see CRHEET proposal).

So, the project needs a better description and basis for adaptive management in the Tucannon itself, and adaptive management systemwide for steelhead supplementation. The ISRP does appreciate and acknowledge the discussion of transitioning from using the Lyons Ferry hatchery steelhead to provide harvest mitigation to conservation. Discussion in various areas of the proposal to suggest that harvest of a significant portion of the “endemic” production is anticipated. That “other” hatchery programs could be implemented (including supplementation) following the cessation of supplementation above the hatchery weir appears to conflict with guidance in the Fish and Wildlife Program.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

The relationships with other projects are explained adequately.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The set of expected deliverables is reasonable. The workplan was laid out clearly, but a better description is needed of the subbasin layout, where the new PIT tag array will be, and how various data will be collected and then evaluated.

Qualification: This project should be included in the CRHEET supplementation evaluation umbrella. This is a proposal for tagging and data collection for evaluation of a steelhead supplementation program in the Tucannon River that is implemented under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan. The monitoring is essential to evaluate the conversion of hatchery steelhead production in the Tucannon River from the release of out-of-subbasin Lyons Ferry production stock to an endemic (local) stock primarily reared and released in the Tucannon River subbasin. The transition is an effort to maintain mitigation fisheries under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan and US v. Oregon while protecting the native population in the Tucannon River. There are complicated circumstances (i.e., apparently half the returning hatchery and natural-origin steelhead bypass the Tucannon and enter other Snake River tributaries, and others spawn below a hatchery weir) that may compromise this effort to obtain data that will provide meaningful analysis. The proponents, however, have a good track record of evaluating hatchery programs. If there is expansion of LSRCP hatchery facilities, it would be reasonable to have those reviewed through the Three-Step Process used in the Fish and Wildlife Program, since the LSRCP is BPA funded, and reviewed as part of the “reimbursable” program. Although the proposed data collection is essential for the supplementation to be evaluated, the description of the actual field data collection methodology, vital statistic estimation, and supplementation evaluation is not yet detailed enough for scientific review. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives As stated, “The primary goal of this project is to monitor and evaluate the status and trends of both natural and hatchery origin summer steelhead in the Tucannon River.” In addition, there are four main objectives for this proposal: 1. Document change in productivity of steelhead above the Tucannon Weir 2. Estimate total adult steelhead returns to the Tucannon River 3. Estimate distribution of hatchery and wild spawners in Tucannon River 4. Document in-hatchery survival performance of supplementation steelhead. Although these were all clearly laid out in a logical progression, it is not clear how a system can be designed for supplementation in the Tucannon that is restricted to the area above the hatchery, when the population above and below the weir are not clearly independent. The objectives for monitoring, to evaluate adult and juvenile abundance, and ultimately estimate adult-to-adult productivity, are the correct essential data to collect. It is not clear from the proposal how well this can be accomplished. The evaluation of supplementation requires using these essential data in statistical comparisons of before/after and control/reference or perhaps some other design. These evaluations need to be carefully assessed. It is not clear from the presentation how the comparisons will be made. Significance to regional programs is amply described; the relationship to LSRCP, the BiOp, US v. Oregon, etc. is succinct. Technical background: The current status of steelhead in the Tucannon River is not described, and the anticipated system capacity, goals of the hatchery program, and performance of the hatchery fish in the system are not clearly described. A discussion of supplementation of other steelhead in the Columbia River Basin is not presented. There is or has been supplementation of steelhead in the Hood River, Umatilla, and Imnaha rivers, and the performance of those programs was not included in the technical background. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management There is a general discussion of past history of using Lyons Ferry steelhead in the Tucannon to develop a harvest program for steelhead. The results of using local fish beginning in 2000 is only briefly presented, and not in a fashion that is interpretable in terms of whether the feasibility stage yielded performance justifying the proposed project’s moving to an expanded pilot stage. Throughout the proposal there are some troubling statements, e.g., that the BiOp expects supplementation to improve productivity of steelhead. Supplementation may increase abundance, but there is not a conceptual foundation for supplementation that it will increase productivity. Under supplementation, productivity is likely to decrease owing to both density dependence and fitness effects. The ISRP is under the impression that preliminary analyses from a number of systems demonstrate that natural productivity is reduced in the presence of hatchery fish. There is a lack of attention to the need for objectives for natural-origin steelhead abundance (although mention is made of 285 fish). Supplementation has as its primary objective the goal of maintaining or increasing the abundance of natural-origin adults. This increase in generation 0+1 is to be achieved by increasing total abundance in generation 0 by permitting hatchery-origin adults to spawn naturally. This phenomenon has not yet been demonstrated (see CRHEET proposal). So, the project needs a better description and basis for adaptive management in the Tucannon itself, and adaptive management systemwide for steelhead supplementation. The ISRP does appreciate and acknowledge the discussion of transitioning from using the Lyons Ferry hatchery steelhead to provide harvest mitigation to conservation. Discussion in various areas of the proposal to suggest that harvest of a significant portion of the “endemic” production is anticipated. That “other” hatchery programs could be implemented (including supplementation) following the cessation of supplementation above the hatchery weir appears to conflict with guidance in the Fish and Wildlife Program. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) The relationships with other projects are explained adequately. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods The set of expected deliverables is reasonable. The workplan was laid out clearly, but a better description is needed of the subbasin layout, where the new PIT tag array will be, and how various data will be collected and then evaluated.

The proposal is excellent, especially the reporting of progress to date. The installation of the resistivity counter is a positive step and should help enumerate adult Chinook and steelhead escapements, particularly in combination with the juvenile PIT tag effort.

Technical and scientific background: The goal of this project is to assess the status of anadromous salmonid populations in the Asotin Creek watershed. Much of Asotin Creek and its tributaries have been straightened, diked or relocated. Many habitat restoration projects have been completed or are ongoing in the Asotin Creek watershed with state (Salmon Recovery Funding Board, Washington Conservation Commission) and federal (BPA) funding. More than $1.5 million has been spent on habitat restoration projects in the Asotin Creek Subbasin.

The data suggests that Asotin Creek - above eight FCRPS dams on the Snake and Columbia Rivers - has a highly productive and resilient population of naturally-producing summer steelhead, which may be an important nursery of the Snake River steelhead ESU.

Fish management in Asotin Creek, directed by Washington's Wild Salmonid Policy (WSP 1997), is focused on the protection and restoration of wild steelhead (lower Snake River ESU) and bull trout. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) designated the Asotin Creek Subbasin a wild steelhead refuge in 1997 and has planted no hatchery fish since 1998. Limited efforts have been made to assess the salmonid populations in the subbasin. Most of the data used by the co-managers for fish management are from limited research, monitoring, and evaluation (RM&E) activities conducted with funds from the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP).

Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: This project implements the research, monitoring and evaluation (RM&E) criteria specified in the Asotin Subbasin Plan by providing estimates of abundance, productivity, survival rates, and temporal and spatial distribution of ESA-listed species, primarily summer steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and secondarily spring Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha). The project also implements reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) 180 in the NMFS 2000 and 2004 Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Biological Opinions (BiOp) for population status monitoring and review of status change over time. This project is designed to enumerate adult salmonids entering Asotin Creek to spawn and to estimate the juvenile migrant population and emigration patterns

Relationships to other projects: As a result of the several associated projects in the Asotin subbasin, a sizeable investment has now been made toward understanding salmonids in Asotin Creek. Allowing the project to continue until relevant metrics can be described for a small system with a relatively large steelhead population has significant potential value. This is underscored by early project data that show substantially more adults and juvenile out-migrants in the system than were expected (ASP 2004, p5. 15; 45). Understanding the population dynamics of the Asotin Creek steelhead population can be instructive for understanding small-river summer steelhead biology throughout the Interior Columbia basin and the potential of these smaller systems to contribute to recovery.

Project history: A detailed and thorough recounting of project history and accomplishments is provided.

Objectives: Five objectives clearly defined and linked to Asotin Subbasin Plan

Tasks (work elements) and methods: Detailed methods with sound scientific principles and explained and referenced.

Facilities, equipment, and personnel: The basic infrastructure needed to complete the proposed work elements is already in place.

Information transfer: An Annual Report will be submitted to BPA as a deliverable work product, which will include an abstract, introduction, description, methods, results, discussion, summary, and list of expenditures, in the Pisces format. Quarterly status reports will also be submitted to BPA in Pisces. Written or oral summaries will be provided to co-managers, subbasin planners and other interested parties, as necessary/requested, for inclusion in Asotin Subbasin planning efforts. The data from this project will also be submitted to the StreamNet database, if possible.

Benefit to focal and non-focal species: For the steelhead Snake River ESU, this assessment work should provide benefits including improved knowledge of species/habitat relationship. The baseline data collected for each focal species under this project is needed to refine fish return and management goals, and to assist in the establishment of future numeric fish population goals as outlined in the Asotin Subbasin Plan (ASP 2004, p. 160). In addition, assessing the Asotin Creek steelhead population may provide a better understanding of limiting factors that affect similar or adjacent populations. Moreover, data from this project could be used to help determine if regional recovery efforts to stabilize and rebuild steelhead populations would be best spent on within-subbasin projects or out-of subbasin actions (i.e., FCRPS modifications).

Rebuilding the bull trout population and eventually reintroducing spring Chinook are goals for the Subbasin. Understanding the steelhead population trend may allow managers to initiate recovery actions directed toward these populations at the appropriate time.