cbfish.org - Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Program - Proposal RMECAT-1995-063-25 - Yakima River Monitoring and Evaluation-Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP)

Proposal RMECAT-1995-063-25 - Yakima River Monitoring and Evaluation-Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP)

View the dynamic Proposal Summary

This Proposal Summary page updates dynamically to always display the latest data from the associated project and contracts. This means changes, like updating the Project Lead or other contacts, will be immediately reflected here.

Download a snapshot PDF

To view a point-in-time PDF snapshot of this page, select one of the Download links in the Proposal History section. These PDFs are created automatically by important events like submitting your proposal or responding to the ISRP. You can also create one at any time by using the PDF button, located next to the Expand All and Collapse All buttons.

Proposal History

Archive	Date	Time	Type	From	To	By
Download	7/30/2010	10:27 AM	Status	Draft	ISRP - Pending First Review	<System>
	10/15/2010	5:55 PM	Status	ISRP - Pending First Review	ISRP - Pending Response	<System>
Download	11/15/2010	4:41 PM	Status	ISRP - Pending Response	ISRP - Pending Final Review	<System>
	1/19/2011	2:44 PM	Status	ISRP - Pending Final Review	Pending Council Recommendation	<System>
	7/7/2011	3:44 PM	Status	Pending Council Recommendation	Pending BPA Response	<System>

This online form is dynamically updated with the most recent information. To view the content as reviewed by the ISRP and Council for this review cycle, download an archived PDF version using the Download link(s) above.

Basics

Proposal Number:		RMECAT-1995-063-25
Proposal Status:		Pending BPA Response
Proposal Version:		Proposal Version 1
Review:		RME / AP Category Review
Portfolio:		RM&E Cat. Review - Artificial Production
Type:		Existing Project: 1995-063-25
Primary Contact:		Bill Bosch (Inactive)
Created:		5/26/2010 by (Not yet saved)
Proponent Organizations:		Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Yakama Confederated Tribes Oncorh Consulting

Project Title:		Yakima River Monitoring and Evaluation-Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP)

Proposal Short Description:		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. M&E results guide adaptive management decisions.

Proposal Executive Summary:		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 (see YSFWPB 2004b, Chapter 2 pages 4-15 and Tables 8-22, pages 26-34). The YKFP is a joint project of the Yakama Nation (lead entity) and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and is sponsored in large part by the Bonneville Power Administration with oversight and guidance from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). The YKFP experimental design for the supplementation research and Coho reintroduction feasibility projects was developed in 1996. We propose to continue to test whether new artificial production techniques, coupled with strategic habitat actions, can be used to increase harvest and natural production of Yakima Basin spring Chinook, fall chinook, coho salmon and steelhead while maintaining the long-term genetic fitness of the population being supplemented and keeping adverse genetic and ecological interactions with non-target species or stocks within acceptable limits. We propose to evaluate the domesticating effects of supplementation, and compare the intensity of domestication incurred under supplementation as practiced in the YKFP spring chinook program to a wild control line and to that incurred under a more conventional regime of continuous hatchery culture. The experimental designs are adjusted periodically based on the results of the M&E activities. The YKFP uses Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT), All H’s Analyzer (AHA), and other modeling tools to facilitate project planning. The project is also designed to provide knowledge about supplementation so that it may be used to mitigate effects on anadromous fisheries throughout the Columbia River Basin.

Purpose:		Artificial Production
Emphasis:		RM and E
Species Benefit:		Anadromous: 100.0% Resident: 0.0% Wildlife: 0.0%
Supports 2009 NPCC Program:		Yes
Subbasin Plan:
Fish Accords:		Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama
Biological Opinions:		FCRPS 2008 (RPA 50.6, RPA 62.5, RPA 64.2, RPA 50.7, RPA 62.4)

Contacts

Contacts:

Mel Sampson (Inactive) (Supervisor)
Adrienne Wilson (Administrative Contact)
Dave Fast (Inactive) (Technical Contact)
Patricia Smith (Inactive)
Mark Johnston (Project Lead)
Peter Lofy (Supervisor)
Jamie Cleveland (Inactive)
Michael Mayer (Inactive)

Project Significance & Problem Statement

Project Significance to Regional Programs:

The Northwest Power Act directs the NPCC to develop a program to: “protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife”. The Council’s FWP is one of the largest regional efforts in the nation to recover, rebuild, and mitigate impacts of hydropower dams on fish and wildlife. The FWP must also be consistent with treaty rights. The 2000 FWP (Council document 2000-19) establishes a basinwide vision for fish and wildlife along with four overarching biological objectives: 
1. A Columbia River ecosystem that sustains an abundant, productive, and diverse community of fish and wildlife. 
2. Mitigation across the basin for the adverse effects to fish and wildlife caused by the development and operation of the hydrosystem. 
3. Sufficient populations of fish and wildlife providing abundant opportunities for tribal trust and treaty right harvest and for non-tribal harvest.
4. Recovery of the fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation of the hydrosystem that are listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Long-term federal mitigation and Treaty trust responsibilities are major reasons why an extensive hatchery system for Pacific salmon and steelhead has been developed over the past 100 years and why hatchery supplementation is being pursued as a key strategy for achieving regional objectives (Galbreath et al. 2008; HSRG 2005). However, it is now recognized that hatchery programs must have well-defined goals, be scientifically defensible, and respond to new information (HSRG 2005) for the region to achieve its long-term goals for the Columbia Basin.  Research, monitoring and evaluation activities and an adaptive management framework are necessary to develop information to make decisions regarding salmon and steelhead stock protection and restoration objectives throughout the Columbia River Basin (CBFWA 2010; NOAA 2010; NPCC 2009, 2010). The YKFP is using adaptive management to guide Project decisions. Adaptive management requires the development and analysis of information regarding performance of strategies and methods (HSRG 2005; Salafsky et al. 2001; YSFWPB 2004a).
 
As defined by RASP (1992), supplementation is “the use of artificial propagation in an attempt to maintain or increase natural production while maintaining long-term fitness of the target population and keeping ecological and genetic impacts to non-target species within specified limits”. The Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP 2005-15) stated, “The critical uncertainties are whether supplementation provides a demographic increase in natural production (the potential benefit) and whether supplementation leads to decreased natural-spawning fitness (the potential harm) in the integrated population. Supplementation entails demographic, genetic (fitness), ecological, and disease risks.” This Project is evaluating these uncertainties and risks (see “Major Accomplishments” in this proposal). 

Specifically, this project and related projects in the Yakima Basin (namely 20100300, see “Project Relationships” in this proposal) are assessing:
•	annual population abundance and productivity in essentially all salmon/steelhead populations in the Yakima Basin (consistent with CBFWA 2010; Galbreath et al. 2008; NOAA 2010-RPA50; NPCC 2010)
•	long-term effects of a spring chinook hatchery program through comparisons of trends in population abundance and productivity in supplemented versus non-supplemented (‘reference’) populations (consistent with prior ISRP review 2001-8; Galbreath et al. 2008; and NOAA 2010-RPA64.2)
•	intensive monitoring to estimate RRS of hatchery-origin and natural-origin spring chinook salmon in the upper Yakima (consistent with CBFWA 2010; Galbreath et al. 2008; NOAA 2010-RPA64.1; NPCC 2010)
•	passage survival of Yakima Basin juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead through the mainstem hydrosystem and subbasin irrigation diversion dams (consistent with NOAA 2010-RPA52,54.11; NPCC 2010)
•	harvest of Yakima Basin juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead (consistent with NPCC 2010)
•	proportion of natural influence (PNI) and juvenile abundance parameters to determine whether artificial production complements resident and anadromous recovery and harvest goals within the  Columbia  River basin (consistent with CBFWA 2010; NOAA 2010-RPA50.7,63.2; NPCC 2010)
•	changes in phenotypic and genotypic diversity through long-term biological and DNA sampling of migrating fish at Prosser and Roza dams on the Yakima River (consistent with CBFWA 2010)
•	changes in spatial distribution in salmon/steelhead populations in the Yakima River Basin using redd surveys, PIT tag arrays and radio telemetry (consistent with CBFWA 2010; NOAA 2010-RPA55.9)
•	ecological interactions through intensive small-scale studies designed to elucidate various biological mechanisms by which introduction of hatchery-produced fish may influence natural population productivity (consistent with CBFWA 2010; NPCC 2010)
•	predation on adult and juvenile fish by fish and avian predators (consistent with NOAA 2010-RPA54.8,68,70; NPCC 2010)
•	whether YKFP hatchery programs are consistent with hatchery reform principles (HSRG 2005) in that they: operate within the context of the Yakima Basin ecosystem; are appropriately sized; have productive habitat to return to; emphasize quality over quantity in fish releases; use in-basin rearing and locally adapted, representative broodstocks; use spawning protocols that maximize diversity and minimize artificial selection risks; and minimize genetic and ecological risks to natural populations (consistent with NOAA 2010-RPA63.2)
•	whether properly designed intervention programs using artificial production make a net positive contribution to recovery of salmon populations (consistent with NOAA 2010-RPA64.2)

However, as noted in the Yakima Subbasin Management Supplement (YSFWPB 2004b, p. 36), the use of supplementation will not, by itself, create a sustainable, naturally-producing population of salmonids in a watershed where the indigenous wild population has been diminished or extirpated. Habitat quality is the sole determinant of natural population productivity and sustainability. If supplementation ceases without changing the underlying habitat conditions that required its use in the first place, the remaining, unsupplemented, naturally-producing population will be expected to resume the decline that was apparent before the application of supplementation. Only adequate habitat quality can ensure the long-term viability of unsupplemented, naturally-producing populations. The related YKFP Management, Data, and Habitat project (198812025) and YSFWPB 2004a discuss limiting factors and include objectives and strategies for addressing them. Projects 198812025, 199603501, 199206200, and YBFWRB 2010 document some of the progress toward addressing identified habitat limiting factors in the Yakima Basin. Habitat restoration projects will continue in the Yakima Basin, but project proponents do not anticipate any irrigation dams in the Basin nor hydropower projects in the Columbia Basin migration corridor being removed in the foreseeable future. Therefore, some major habitat limiting factors are likely to persist well into the future and require continued mitigation to meet regional policy and legal obligations.

Finally, the project has been heavily engaged in regional collaboration (NOAA 2010-RPA51) and data sharing/management (NOAA 2010-RPA71,72) efforts including CSMEP, PNAMP, NED, and the recent regional workshops to develop a coordinated anadromous monitoring strategy (summarized in CBFWA 2010).  Project data, methods, or results are shared broadly through the portals identified under “Types of Work/RM&E” in this proposal.  Examples of collaboration with scientists throughout the region include:  Central Washington University (ecological interactions, behavior studies, annual project review), Eastern Washington University (coho restoration), University of Washington (DART enhancements, spawning site selection and egg-to-fry survival studies), University of Idaho (radio telemetry / passage evaluation studies), University of British Columbia (POST-coastal acoustic array study), NOAA fisheries science center (homing, spatial distribution, precocial maturation, hatchery effectiveness evaluation), WDFW (selective fishery evaluations), and CRITFC (tribal data management, supplementation workshops and studies).

Problem Statement:

Before the ocean and lower Columbia exploitation of salmon and steelhead in the late l9th century and early 20th century, and before the Columbia Basin and Yakima River valley were developed, the Yakima Subbasin supported large runs of spring, summer and fall Chinook, summer steelhead, coho and sockeye. Historic spring Chinook returns to the Yakima were likely in the range of 202,500 (Mullan 1983) to approximately 250,000 fish (Smoker 1956). Historic adult fall and summer Chinook production in the Yakima Subbasin was likely within a similar range (Mullan 1983; Smoker 1956). Historical returns of coho to the Yakima River Basin have been estimated in the range of 44,000 (Kreeger and McNeil 1993) to more than 100,000 fish annually (YN et al. 1990). Historic steelhead returns to the Yakima were estimated at about 100,000 fish (Smoker 1956; Mullan 1983). Estimation of the historic magnitude of the sockeye run is difficult, as the run was eliminated before counting stations were established. However, data from Mullan (1986) suggest an estimated historic run size of between 103,000 and 211,000 adult sockeye salmon. Cumulative effects from the disruption of ecosystem functions and processes (both in and outside of the Yakima Basin), high harvest rates, and other factors resulted in a significant decline of fish and wildlife abundance from historic levels (NRC 1996; Williams et al. 1999). In the 1980s, during the initial planning phase of the YKFP, adult salmon and steelhead returns to the Yakima River were approximately two orders of magnitude lower than estimated historic returns (DART). Summer Chinook and Sockeye were extirpated from the Yakima Subbasin.

The original impetus for the YKFP resulted from the landmark fishing disputes of the 1970s, the ensuing legal decisions in United States versus Washington and United States versus Oregon, and the region’s realization that lost natural production needed to be mitigated in upriver areas where these losses primarily occurred. The YKFP was first identified in the NPCC’s 1982 Fish and Wildlife Program (FWP) and supported in the U.S. v Oregon 1988 Columbia River Fish Management Plan (CRFMP). A draft Master Plan was presented to the NPCC in 1987 and the Preliminary Design Report was presented in 1990. In both circumstances, the NPCC instructed the Yakama Nation, WDFW and BPA to carry out planning functions that addressed uncertainties in regard to the adequacy of hatchery supplementation for meeting production objectives and limiting adverse ecological and genetic impacts. At the same time, the NPCC underscored the importance of using adaptive management principles to manage the direction of the Project. The 1994 FWP reiterated the importance of proceeding with the YKFP because of the added production and learning potential the project would provide. A final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was completed in 1996 and the YKFP was authorized under the NPCC’s Fish and Wildlife Program with the stated purpose being “to test the assumption that new artificial production can be used to increase harvest and natural production while maintaining the long-term genetic fitness of the fish population being supplemented and keeping adverse genetic and ecological interactions with non-target species or stocks within acceptable limits” (BPA 1996). Thus, the four major questions this project is working to answer are:

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?

Although the main focus of this proposal is monitoring and evaluation of fishery restoration actions using hatchery-origin fish, the YKFP recognizes that hatchery supplementation will not result in long-term sustainable natural populations without concurrent efforts to restore habitats the fish require. Habitat limiting factors and strategies to address them were discussed and developed through the regional subbasin planning process which resulted in the Yakima Subbasin Plan (YSFWPB 2004a). At the most general levels, the main habitat factors in focal species’ decline within the Yakima subbasin were identified as the loss of key habitat quantity, quality, and diversity. Habitat restoration and preservation projects identified in the Subbasin Plan were prioritized using the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment model (EDT; protocol and results were presented in Tables 17 and 30, Appendix M, EDT_Product_Interpretation of the Subbasin Plan). In addition to YKFP habitat activities discussed in this and related YKFP proposals, a number of habitat restoration projects sponsored by other entities are being implemented (e.g. YBFWRB 2010). Thus the YKFP is now working with subbasin stakeholders to implement a series of complimentary habitat restoration and supplementation/reintroduction projects targeting all species historically present in the subbasin.

Hatchery supplementation (RASP 1992; Cuenco et al. 1993) is a cornerstone of efforts to rebuild salmon and steelhead runs throughout the Columbia Basin (CRITFC 1995; Galbreath et al. 2008). As documented by the ISAB (2003), supplementation entails risks and benefits. Risks associated with hatchery programs are well documented. For examples, see ISAB 2003, Currens and Busack 1995, Waples and Drake 2002, our 2007-2009 proposal and their associated references. However, many of the studies cited in these risk assessments (e.g., Reisenbichler and McIntyre 1977; Chilcote et al. 1986; and Leider et al. 1990) used hatchery stocks which were incompatible with the natural systems in which they were introduced (Brannon et al. 2004) using current standards and recommendations for integrated programs (Araki 2008; HSRG 2005). In fact, many hatchery steelhead programs are purposely designed to be incompatible with wild fish in the systems where they are released (Mackey et al. 2001). In contrast, YKFP programs were explicitly designed or are being re-programmed to meet standards and recommendations for integrated programs (e.g., Araki 2008; HSRG 2005).

Benefits of hatchery supplementation programs can be assessed by evaluating the effects of these programs on viable salmon population parameters: abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity (McElhany et al. 2000). Empirical studies of hatchery supplementation programs that have documented increases in abundance or real or potential increases in production from natural-origin spawners include: Cle Elum Supplementation and Research Facility (CESRF) spring Chinook (Sampson et al. 2009); Tucannon spring Chinook (Gallinat and Ross 2007); Yakima Basin coho (Bosch et al. 2007); mid-Columbia Basin coho (Yakama Nation 2005); N. Umpqua R. coho (Cramer et al. 2005); Snake River fall Chinook (Plumb et al. 2009); Araki et al. 2007; Baumsteiger et al. 2008; Berejikian et al. 2008; Kassler et al. 2008; Phillips et al. 2000; Sharma et al. 2006; and Steffensen et al. 2010. Empirical studies of hatchery supplementation programs that have documented increases in spatial structure of natural-origin spawners include: CESRF spring Chinook (Dittman et al. 2010); Yakima Basin coho (Bosch et al. 2007); mid-Columbia Basin coho (Yakama Nation 2005); and Snake River fall Chinook (Nez Perce Tribe, unpublished data). Empirical studies of hatchery supplementation programs that have documented minimal adverse (or in some cases positive) impacts to reproductive fitness parameters, genetic or ecological diversity include: Araki et al. 2007; Berejikian et al. 2008; Fraser 2008 (review of empirical studies); Hedrick et al. 2005; Heggenes et al. 2006; Kassler et al. 2008; Knudsen et al. 2008; Pearsons and Temple 2007; Schroder et al. 2008; Schroder et al. 2010; and Sharma et al. 2006. Empirical studies of hatchery supplementation programs that have documented that any potential adverse phenotypic effects of domestication due to long-term hatchery influence can be reversed in relatively short order with re-introduced wild influence include: Bosch et al. 2007; Tymchuk et al. 2006; and Yakama Nation 2005. Conover et al. (2009) also recently documented that fish populations “have an intrinsic capacity to recover genetically” and can reverse potentially harmful evolutionary changes caused by external forces.

As documented in Busack et al. 1997, Busack et al. 2006, and in “Project Significance” and “RME metrics” in this proposal, rigorous protocols are in place to monitor key parameters and assess performance of YKFP programs relative to the four questions identified above as well as regional questions and uncertainties about hatchery program effectiveness (consistent with CBFWA 2010; Galbreath et al. 2008; NOAA 2010-RPA50; NPCC 2010). Recent findings of the project relative to these key questions and uncertainties are summarized in this proposal under “Major Accomplishments”. A master plan documenting objectives, strategies, methods, and risks has been developed for Yakima coho (Hubble et al. 2004; update pending) and a similar plan for fall Chinook is in progress. Funding limitations may preclude explicit evaluation of every potential issue for other Yakima stocks. Monitoring plans for other stocks will entail extrapolation from spring Chinook findings. Where appropriate, facility sharing (e.g., smolt and adult counting facilities) and an emphasis on performance and risk monitoring will occur. Historical reports related to the project are given under “Project Documents & Reports” and “Project References or Citations” in this proposal.

Objectives

Objectives:

Ecological Interactions (OBJ-1)

Monitor and evaluate ecological impacts of supplementation on non-target taxa, and impacts of strong interactor taxa on productivity of targeted stocks.

Genetics (OBJ-2)

Monitor and evaluate genetic change due to domestication and potential genetic change due to in-basin and out-of-basin stray rates.

Harvest (OBJ-3)

Monitor and evaluate changes in harvest of YKFP targeted stocks.

Natural Production (OBJ-4)

Determine if supplementation and habitat actions increase natural production. Evaluate changes in natural production with specified statistical power.

Project History

Financials

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Expense	SOY Budget	Working Budget	Expenditures *
FY2019		$4,727,881	$5,047,753

Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama		$4,727,881	$5,047,753

FY2020	$5,352,905	$5,162,219	$4,702,704

Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama		$5,162,219	$4,702,704

FY2021	$5,716,740	$5,707,573	$5,641,034

Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama		$5,707,573	$5,641,034

FY2022	$5,636,028	$5,623,356	$4,375,774

Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama		$5,623,356	$4,375,774

FY2023	$5,591,315	$5,591,315	$3,665,846

Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama		$5,591,315	$3,665,846

FY2024	$5,731,098	$5,860,386	$5,411,634

Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama		$5,860,386	$5,411,634

FY2025	$5,874,375	$5,874,375	$2,134,233

Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama		$5,874,375	$2,134,233

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Mar-2025

Actual Project Cost Share

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Current Fiscal Year — 2025 DRAFT

Cost Share Partner	Total Proposed Contribution	Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.

Previous Fiscal Years

Fiscal Year	Total Contributions		% of Budget
2024	$230,000	(Draft)	4%	(Draft)
2023	$230,000		4%
2022	$150,000		3%
2021	$230,000		4%
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007

Explanation of Recent Financial Performance:

see above and/or Pisces

Explanation of Financial History:

Since 1999 the Yakama Nation and WDF&W have been funded under the YKFP Umbrella with the M&E project #1995-063-25. Annual funding for this project was:

- $4,100,251
- $4,100,251
- $4,087,921
- $3,965,426
- $3,922,712
- $3,765,986
- $4,314,291
- $4,146,053

From 1988 through 1998 the YKFP was funded under a task order system that involved up to 11 different task orders.  Conversations with current BPA COTR have determined that acquiring previous funding numbers and assigning costs associated with previous tasks to current projects is too cumbersome for programs before 1999.

Reporting & Contracted Deliverables Performance

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):	50
Completed:	45
On time:	45

Status Reports
Completed:	198
On time:	119
Avg Days Late:	6

								Count of Contract Deliverables
Earliest Contract	Subsequent Contracts	Title	Contractor	Earliest Start	Latest End	Latest Status	Accepted Reports	Complete	Green	Yellow	Red	Total	% Green and Complete	Canceled
5881	13769, 17635, 22449, 27798, 35037, 37822, 42445, 54321, 56662 REL 22, 56662 REL 68, 56662 REL 85, 56662 REL 108, 56662 REL 135, 56662 REL 160, 56662 REL 185, 56662 REL 214, 56662 REL 238, 56662 REL 263, 56662 REL 287, 94738	1995-063-25 EXP YAKIMA RIVER M&E - YKFP	Yakama Confederated Tribes	04/01/2001	04/30/2025	Issued	98	401	13	0	4	418	99.04%	0
13756	17478, 22370, 27871, 34450, 37649, 42861, 53279, 61480, 65604, 69084, 72482, 75796, 74314 REL 34, 74314 REL 67, 74314 REL 101, 74314 REL 131, 84042 REL 2, 84042 REL 35, 84042 REL 67	1995-063-25 EXP YAKIMA RIVER M&E - WDFW	Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)	05/01/2003	04/30/2025	Issued	96	239	12	0	4	255	98.43%	0
22096	26603	199506325 EXP YKFP M&E - USFWS MARKING	US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)	04/01/2005	09/30/2006	Closed	4	10	2	0	0	12	100.00%	0
BPA-3716		PIT Tags - YKFP - Monitoring And Evaluati	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2006	09/30/2007	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-4334		PIT Tags - YKFP Monitoring & Evaluation	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2007	09/30/2008	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-4580		PIT Tags - Yakima River M&E	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2008	09/30/2009	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-4581		PIT Tags - Yakima River M&E	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2009	09/30/2010	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-5709		PIT Tags - Yakima River M&E	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2010	09/30/2011	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-5923		PIT Tags - Yakima River M&E	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2011	09/30/2012	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-6944		PIT Tags - Yakima River M&E	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2012	09/30/2013	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-7660		PIT Tags - Yakima River M&E	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2013	09/30/2014	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-8387		PIT Tags - Yakima River M&E	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2014	09/30/2015	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-9108		PIT Tags - Yakima River M&E	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2015	09/30/2016	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-9527		PIT Tags - Yakima River M&E	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2016	09/30/2017	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-10056		PIT Tags - Yakima River M&E	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2017	09/30/2018	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-10726		PIT Tags - Yakima River M&E	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2018	09/30/2019	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-11702		PIT Tags - Yakima River M&E	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2019	09/30/2020	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-12068		FY21 PIT Tags	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2020	09/30/2021	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-13317		FY23 PIT Tags	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2022	09/30/2023	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-13731		FY24 PIT Tags	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2023	09/30/2024	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-14185		FY25 PIT Tags	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2024	09/30/2025	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
96777		1995-063-25 EXP YAKIMA RIVER M&E - YKFP	Yakama Confederated Tribes	05/01/2025	04/30/2026	Signature	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
84042 REL 101		1995-063-25 EXP YAKIMA RIVER M&E - WDFW	Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)	05/01/2025	04/30/2026	Issued	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
Project Totals							198	650	27	0	8	685	98.83%	0

Selected Contracted Deliverables in CBFish (2004 to present)

The contracted deliverables listed below have been selected by the proponent as demonstrative of this project's major accomplishments.

Projects that are the product of merges and/or splits from other projects may not have the complete list of historical deliverables included below. If you wish to highlight deliverables that are not listed, please refer to Pisces to determine the complete list and describe the missing deliverables in the Major Accomplishments section.

Contract	WE Ref	Contracted Deliverable Title	Due	Completed
27798	G: 132	M&E annual report completed	7/31/2006	7/31/2006
27871	F: 183	Peer reviewed publications completed.	4/30/2007	4/30/2007
27798	H: 183	produce/submit scientific reports	5/31/2007	5/31/2007
35037	P: 132	M&E annual report completed- posting will occur under next contract	7/31/2007	7/31/2007
34450	F: 132	Reports 2006-2007 completed.	8/23/2007	8/23/2007
34450	H: 183	Peer reviewed publications completed.	4/23/2008	4/23/2008
35037	Q: 183	Produce/submit scientific reports	4/30/2008	4/30/2008
37822	T: 132	M&E annual report completed- posting will occur under next contract	7/31/2008	7/31/2008
37649	F: 132	Reports 2007-2008 completed.	8/28/2008	8/28/2008
37822	U: 183	Produce/submit scientific reports	4/30/2009	4/30/2009
37649	H: 183	Peer reviewed publications completed.	4/30/2009	4/30/2009
42445	S: 132	M&E annual report for [May 08 to Apr 09) completed- posting will occur under next contrac	8/4/2009	8/4/2009
42861	F: 132	Reports 2008-2009 completed.	11/9/2009	11/9/2009

View full Project Summary report (lists all Contracted Deliverables and Quantitative Metrics)

Explanation of Performance:

Stellar.  See Pisces.

Results: Reporting, Accomplishments, and Impact

Please do the following to help the ISRP and Council assess project performance:
List important activities and then report results.
List each objective and summarize accomplishments and results for each one, including the projects previous objectives. If the objectives were not met, were changed, or dropped, please explain why. For research projects, list hypotheses that have been and will be tested.
Whenever possible, describe results in terms of the quantifiable biological and physical habitat objectives of the Fish and Wildlife Program, i.e., benefit to fish and wildlife or to the ecosystems that sustain them. Include summary tables and graphs of key metrics showing trends. Summarize and cite (with links when available) your annual reports, peer reviewed papers, and other technical documents. If another project tracks physical habitat or biological information related to your project’s actions please summarize and expand on, as necessary, the results and evaluation conducted under that project that apply to your project, and cite that project briefly here and fully in the Relationships section below. Research or M&E projects that have existed for a significant period should, besides showing accumulated data, also present statistical analyses and conclusions based on those data. Also, summarize the project’s influence on resource management and other economic or social benefits. Expand as needed in the Adaptive Management section below. The ISRP will use this information in its Retrospective Review of prior year results. If your proposal is for continuation of work, your proposal should focus on updating this section. If yours is an umbrella project, click here for additional instructions. Clearly report the impacts of your project, what you have learned, not just what you did.

All Proposals:

Umbrella Proposals:

The following is a brief summary of past accomplishments and current YKFP activities by species. A list of recent peer-reviewed publications documenting these results follows at the end of this section. Technical reports generated by the project are listed under “Project Documents & Reports” in this proposal. Additional references or citations are given under “Project References or Citations” in this proposal.

Spring Chinook

Important milestones of the YKFP spring Chinook program.

Year	Milestones
1982-1999	Significant amount of baseline data collected
1997	First adult fish taken for broodstock at Roza Dam and transferred to CESRF
1999	First CESRF smolts released from acclimation sites
2000	First CESRF jacks return and spawn in the river, first wild adults placed into experimental spawning channel
2001	First CESRF age 4 fish return and spawn in the river
2002	Hatchery control line initiated (hatchery x hatchery cross)
2004	Wild control line initiated (Naches Basin wild x wild cross)
2004	First hatchery control line smolts released
2005	First age-4 returns from supplementation and wild fish spawning in the river
2005	First hatchery control line jacks return
2006	First hatchery control line age 4 fish return
2009	Second generation age-4 returns from supplementation and wild fish spawning in the river

The Cle Elum Supplementation and Research Facility (CESRF) collected its first spring Chinook brood stock in 1997, released its first fish in 1999, and age-4 adults have been returning since 2001, with the second F2 generation (offspring of CESRF and wild fish spawning in the wild) returning as adults in 2009. In these initial years of CESRF operation, recruitment of hatchery origin fish has exceeded that of fish spawning in the natural environment (BPA annual reports). Preliminary results indicate that significant differences have been detected among hatchery and natural origin fish in about half of the traits measured in our monitoring plan and that these differences can be attributed to both environmental and genetic causes. For example, we have detected differences in hatchery and natural origin fish after only one generation of hatchery exposure for the following variables measured on adults: age composition, size-at-age, sex ratio, spawning timing, fecundity, egg weight, and adult morphology at spawning (Busack et al. 2007; Knudsen et al. 2006, 2008). With respect to spawning success, no differences were detected in the egg deposition rates of wild and hatchery origin females, but pedigree assignments based on microsatellite DNA showed that the eggs deposited by wild females survived to the fry stage at a 5.6% higher rate than those spawned by hatchery-origin females (Schroder et al. 2008); behavior and breeding success of wild and hatchery-origin males were found to be comparable (Schroder et al. 2010). Significant differences in juvenile traits have also been detected: food conversion efficiency, fry length-weight relationships, agonistic competitive behavior, predator avoidance, and incidence of precocious maturation (BPA annual reports; Larsen et al. 2004, 2006). Most of the differences have been 10% or less.

Redd counts in the 2001-2009 period have increased significantly in both the supplemented Upper Yakima and unsupplemented Naches control systems relative to the pre-supplementation period (1981-2000), but the average increase in redd counts in the upper Yakima (236%) was substantially greater than that observed in the Naches system (163%; BPA annual reports). Spatial distribution of spawners has also increased as a result of acclimation site location, salmon homing fidelity and more fully seeding preferred spawning habitats (Dittman et al. 2010). Semi-natural rearing and predator avoidance training have not resulted in significant increases in survival of hatchery fish (Fast et al. 2008; BPA annual reports). Growth manipulations in the hatchery appear to reduce the number of precocious males produced by the YKFP and consequently increase the number of smolt out-migrants, however post-release survival of treated fish appears to be significantly lower than conventionally reared fish (Larsen et al. 2006; Pearsons et al. 2009; BPA annual reports). Genetic impacts to non-target populations appear to be low because of the low stray rates of YKFP fish (BPA annual reports). Ecological impacts to valued non-target taxa were generally within containment objectives, or impacts that were outside of containment objectives were not caused by supplementation activities (Pearsons et al. 2007; Pearsons and Temple 2007; BPA annual reports). Changes to rainbow trout abundance and biomass were observed in a tributary watershed where hatchery-origin fish were released, but the trout may have been simply displaced to other areas (Pearsons and Temple 2010). Fish and bird piscivores consume large numbers of salmonids in the Yakima Basin (Fritts and Pearsons 2004, 2006; Fritts et al. 2007; Major et al. 2005; BPA annual reports). Natural production of Chinook salmon in the upper Yakima Basin appears to be density dependent under current conditions and may constrain the benefits of supplementation (BPA annual reports). However, such constraints could be countered by YKFP habitat actions (see summary below). Additional habitat improvements implemented by other entities, including the Conservation Districts, counties and private interests are also continuing in the basin (e.g., YBFWRB 2010). Harvest opportunities for tribal and non-tribal fishers have also been enhanced, but are variable among years (BPA annual reports).

Summary tables and graphs showing trends for key metrics are included in Appendix A of our BPA annual reports.

Fall Chinook

The YKFP is presently studying the release of over 2.0 million Upriver Bright fall Chinook smolts annually from the Prosser and Marion Drain Hatcheries. These fish are a combination of in-basin production from brood stock collected in the vicinity of Prosser Dam plus out-of-basin Priest Rapids stock fish reared at Little White National Fish Hatchery and moved to Prosser Hatchery for final rearing and release. Marion Drain broodstock are collected from adult returns to a fishwheel in the drain. These fish contributed to the improved returns of fall Chinook to the Columbia River in recent years. The YKFP is investigating ways to improve the productivity of fish released from Prosser Hatchery and to improve in-basin natural production of fall Chinook. For example, rearing conditions designed to accelerate smoltification of Yakima Basin fall Chinook have resulted in smolt-to-smolt survival indices that exceeded those of conventionally reared fall Chinook in five of the six years for which results are available.

A Master Plan is being developed that proposes to: 1) transition out-of-basin brood source releases from the Little White Salmon National Fish Hatchery to Priest Rapids Hatchery (consistent with USFWS and HSRG hatchery program review recommendations) and release these fish from acclimation sites in the lower Yakima River below Horn Rapids Dam, 2) continue development of an integrated production program above Prosser Dam using locally collected brood stock, 3) re-establish a summer-run component using an appropriate founder stock, and 4) upgrade existing brood collection, production and acclimation facilities to accommodate changes in production strategies. These strategies are consistent with the NRC's "Upstream" report (NRC 1996) which concluded that “maintaining a metapopulation structure with good geographic distribution should be a top management priority to sustain salmon populations over the long term.” The total number of fish released would remain similar to existing levels. The Master Plan is expected to be submitted to the NPCC’s three-step review process within the next 1-2 years.

Summary tables and graphs showing trends for key metrics are included in our HGMP.

Coho

The YKFP is presently studying the release of over 1.0 million coho smolts annually from acclimation sites in the Naches and Upper Yakima subbasins. These fish are a combination of in-basin production from brood stock collected in the vicinity of Prosser Dam plus out-of-basin stock generally reared at Willard or Eagle Creek National Fish Hatcheries and moved to the Yakima Subbasin for final rearing and release. YKFP monitoring of these efforts to re-introduce a sustainable, naturally spawning coho population in the Yakima Basin have indicated that adult coho returns averaged over 3,600 fish from 1997-2009 (an order of magnitude greater than the average for years prior to the project) including estimated returns of wild/natural coho averaging nearly 1,400 fish since 2001. Coho re-introduction research has demonstrated that hatchery-origin coho, with a legacy of as many as 10 to 30 generations of hatchery-influence, can reestablish a naturalized population after as few as 3 to 5 generations of outplanting in the wild (Bosch et al. 2007). The project is working to further develop a locally adapted broodstock and to establish specific release sites and strategies that optimize natural reproduction and survival. A Master Plan is being developed and is expected to be submitted to the NPCC’s three-step review process within the next 1-2 years.

Summary tables and graphs showing trends for key metrics are included in our HGMP.

Habitat

The project objectives include habitat protection and restoration in the most productive reaches of the Yakima Subbasin. The YKFP's Ecosystem Diagnosis Treatment (EDT) analysis will provide additional information related to habitat projects that will improve salmonid production in the Yakima Subbasin. Major accomplishments to date include protection of 1,300 acres of prime floodplain habitat, reconnection and screening of over 20 miles of tributary habitat, substantial water savings through irrigation improvements, and restoration of over 80 acres of floodplain and side channels. Restoration designs are now complete for the middle reaches of Taneum and Swauk Creeks. Restoration designs for lower Swauk Creek are being finalized. A road alternatives analysis has been developed, including preliminary cost estimates for relocating a portion of a USFS road in the little Naches watershed. Appraisals have also been completed on important habitat properties, and we are trying to get some of these purchased. Additional habitat improvements implemented by other entities, including the Conservation Districts, counties and private interests are also continuing in the basin (e.g., YBFWRB 2010).

Research

One of the YKFP's primary objectives is to provide knowledge about hatchery supplementation to resource managers and scientists throughout the Columbia River Basin, to determine if it may be used to mitigate effects of hydroelectric operations on anadromous fisheries. To facilitate this objective, the Project created a Data and Information Center (Center) in 1999. The Center's purpose is to gather, synthesize, catalogue, and disseminate data and information related to project research and production activities. Dissemination of accumulated project information occurs through the Project Annual Review (PAR) conference, the project web site (ykfp.org), other regional websites (e.g., DART, RMPC, PTAGIS, and Streamnet), numerous technical reports (such as BPA annual reports), publications, and other means (e.g., electronic mail). Data and results are published in the peer-reviewed literature as they become ripe. In addition to technical reports and publications listed under “Existing Project Documents” and “Project References” below, recent relevant publications in the peer-reviewed literature include:

Beckman, B.R. and D.A. Larsen. 2005. Upstream Migration of Minijack (Age-2) Chinook Salmon in the Columbia River: Behavior, Abundance, Distribution, and Origin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134:1520-1541.

Beckman, B.R., B. Gadberry, P. Parkins, and D.A. Larsen. 2008. The Effect of Yakima River Spring Chinook Salmon Sire Life History Type on Emergence Timing and Size of Progeny. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:1285-1291.

Bosch, W. J., T. H. Newsome, J. L. Dunnigan, J. D. Hubble, D. Neeley, D. T. Lind, D. E. Fast, L. L. Lamebull, and J. W. Blodgett. 2007. Evaluating the Feasibility of Reestablishing a Coho Salmon Population in the Yakima River, Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:198-214.

Busack, C. and C. M. Knudsen. 2007. Using factorial mating designs to increase the effective number of breeders in fish hatcheries. Aquaculture 273:24-32.

Busack, C., C.M. Knudsen, G. Hart, and P. Huffman. 2007. Morphological Differences Between Adult Wild and First-Generation Hatchery Upper Yakima River Spring Chinook Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:1076-1087.

Dittman, A. H., D. May, D. A. Larsen, M. L. Moser, M. Johnston, and D. Fast. 2010. Homing and spawning site selection by supplemented hatchery- and natural-origin Yakima River spring Chinook salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139:1014-1028.

Fast, D. E., D. Neeley, D.T. Lind, M. V. Johnston, C.R. Strom, W. J. Bosch, C. M. Knudsen, S. L. Schroder, and B.D. Watson. 2008. Survival Comparison of Spring Chinook Salmon Reared in a Production Hatchery under Optimum Conventional and Seminatural Conditions. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:1507–1518.

Fritts, A. L., and T. N. Pearsons. 2004. Smallmouth bass predation on hatchery and wild salmonids in the Yakima River, Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:880-895.

Fritts, A.L. and T.N. Pearsons. 2006. Effects of Predation by Nonnative Smallmouth Bass on Native Salmonid Prey: the Role of Predator and Prey Size. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:853-860.

Fritts, A.L., J.L. Scott, and T.N. Pearsons. 2007. The effects of domestication on the relative vulnerability of hatchery and wild spring Chinook salmon to predation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 64:813-818.

Fritts, A. L., and T. N. Pearsons. 2008. Can nonnative smallmouth bass, Micropterus dolomieu, be swamped by hatchery fish releases to increase juvenile Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, survival? Environmental Biology of Fishes 83:485–494.

Greene, C.H., B.A. Block, D. Welch, G. Jackson, G.L. Lawson, E.L. Rechisky. 2009. Advances in conservation oceanography: New tagging and tracking technologies and their potential for transforming the science underlying fisheries management. Oceanography. Vol. 22, no. 1, pp 210-223.

Johnson, C.L., G.M. Temple, T.N. Pearsons, and T.D. Webster. 2009. An Evaluation of Data Entry Error and Proofing Methods for Fisheries Data. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138:593-601.

Knudsen, C. M., S. L. Schroder, C. A. Busack, M. V. Johnston, T. N. Pearsons, W. J. Bosch, and D. E. Fast. 2006. Comparison of Life History Traits between First-Generation Hatchery and Wild Upper Yakima River Spring Chinook Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:1130–1144.

Knudsen, C.M., S.L. Schroder, C. Busack, M.V. Johnston, T.N. Pearsons, and C.R. Strom. 2008. Comparison of Female Reproductive Traits and Progeny of First-Generation Hatchery and Wild Upper Yakima River Spring Chinook Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:1433-1445.

Knudsen, C. M., M. V. Johnston, S. L. Schroder, W. J. Bosch, D. E. Fast, and C. R. Strom. 2009. Effects of passive integrated transponder tags on smolt-to-adult recruit survival, growth, and behavior of hatchery spring Chinook salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29:658-669.

Larsen, D. A., B. R. Beckman, K. A. Cooper, D. Barrett, M. Johnston, P. Swanson, and W. W. Dickhoff. 2004. Assessment of High Rates of Precocious Male Maturation in a Spring Chinook Salmon Supplementation Hatchery Program. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:98-120.

Larsen, D. A., B. R. Beckman, C. R. Strom, P. J. Parkins, K. A. Cooper, D. E. Fast, and W. W. Dickhoff. 2006. Growth Modulation Alters the Incidence of Early Male Maturation and Physiological Development of Hatchery-Reared Spring Chinook Salmon: A Comparison with Wild Fish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:1017-1032.

Larsen, D. A., B. R. Beckman, and K. A. Cooper. 2010. Examining the Conflict between Smolting and Precocious Male Maturation in Spring (Stream-Type) Chinook Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139:564-578.

Major, W. W. III, J. M. Grassley, K. E. Ryding, C. E. Grue, T. N. Pearsons, D. A. Tipton, and A. E. Stephenson. 2005. Abundance and consumption of fish by California gulls and ring-billed gulls at water and fish management structures within the Yakima River, Washington. Waterbirds 28:366-377.

Murdoch, A.R., T.N. Pearsons, and T.W. Maitland. 2009. The Number of Redds Constructed per Female Spring Chinook Salmon in the Wenatchee River Basin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29:441-446.

Murdoch, A.R., T.N. Pearsons, and T.W. Maitland. 2009. Use of Carcass Recovery Data in Evaluating the Spawning Distribution and Timing of Spring Chinook Salmon in the Chiwawa River, Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29:1206-1213.

Murdoch, A.R., T.N. Pearsons, and T.W. Maitland. 2010. Estimating the Spawning Escapement of Hatchery- and Natural-Origin Spring Chinook Salmon Using Redd and Carcass Data. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30:361-375.

Pearsons, T.N., A.L. Fritts, and J.L. Scott. 2007. The effects of hatchery domestication on competitive dominance of juvenile spring Chinook salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 64:803-812.

Pearsons, T. N. and G. M. Temple. 2007. Impacts of Early Stages of Salmon Supplementation and Reintroduction Programs on Three Trout Species. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:1-20.

Pearsons, T.N., C.L. Johnson, B.B. James, and G.M. Temple. 2009. Abundance and Distribution of Precociously Mature Male Spring Chinook Salmon of Hatchery and Natural Origin in the Yakima River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29:778-790.

Pearsons, T. N. and G. M. Temple. 2010. Changes to Rainbow Trout Abundance and Salmonid Biomass in a Washington Watershed as Related to Hatchery Salmon Supplementation. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139:502-520.

Rechisky, E.L., D.W. Welch, A.D. Porter, M.C. Jacobs, A. Ladouceur. 2009. Experimental measurement of hydrosystem-induced delayed mortality in juvenile Columbia River spring Chinook salmon using a large-scale acoustic array. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 66: 1019-1024.

Schroder, S. L., C. M. Knudsen, T. N. Pearsons, T. W. Kassler, S. F. Young, C. A. Busack, and D. E. Fast. 2008. Breeding Success of Wild and First-Generation Hatchery Female Spring Chinook Salmon Spawning in an Artificial Stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 137:1475-1489.

Schroder, S. L., C. M. Knudsen, T. N. Pearsons, T. W. Kassler, S. F. Young, E.P. Beall, and D. E. Fast. 2010. Behavior and Breeding Success of Wild and First-Generation Hatchery Male Spring Chinook Salmon Spawning in an Artificial Stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 139:989-1003.

Temple, G.M. and T. N. Pearsons. 2006. Evaluation of the recovery period in mark-recapture population estimates of rainbow trout in small streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26:941-948.

Welch, D.W., E.L. Rechisky, M.C. Melnychuk, A.D. Porter, C.J. Walters, S. Clements, B.J. Clemens, R.S. McKinley, C. Schreck. 2008. Survival of migrating salmon smolts in large rivers with and without dams. PLoS Biology Vol. 6, Issue 10, p e265, doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060265.

Past Council Recommendations and ISRP Reviews

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number:	1995-063-25-NPCC-20230310
Project:	1995-063-25 - Yakima River Monitoring and Evaluation-Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP)
Review:	2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Approved Date:	4/15/2022
Recommendation:	Implement with Conditions
Comments:	Bonneville and Sponsor to address condition #1 (spawner-recruit) in project documentation. This project supports hatchery mitigation authorized under the Northwest Power Act (Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program) for the Levi George Spring Chinook Hatchery program. See Policy Issue I.b., II.a. and II.b. [Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/2021-2022-anadromous-habitat-and-hatchery-review/]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Final Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	1995-063-25-ISRP-20230324
Project:	1995-063-25 - Yakima River Monitoring and Evaluation-Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP)
Review:	2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Completed Date:	3/24/2023
Final Round ISRP Date:	2/10/2022
Final Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
The ISRP’s two 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 Condition in future annual reports and work plans: Spawner-recruit relationships. Please present spawner-recruit relationships as a means to evaluate capacity of the habitat to support salmon and steelhead and to help track progress over time. If current data are insufficient to generate these relationships, then please describe efforts to improve data collection. 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 Yakima Basin Habitat Project (199705100) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Yakima River basin. During the response loop, as a key M&E project and partner in the basin, we ask your project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what, where, and when your monitoring occurs and what is being monitored for and shared with implementation projects in the basin. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard. The overall Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project is a very large and comprehensive salmon supplementation and habitat restoration project. This M&E effort reportedly focuses on salmon population dynamics including hatchery supplementation, harvest, and predation effects on salmon but does not specifically describe efforts to monitor fish responses to habitat restoration. The ISRP is concerned that salmon and steelhead responses to habitat restoration actions in the Yakima Basin are not adequately addressed by the restoration projects and/or this M&E project. Most habitat restoration projects in the Yakima Basin identified this M&E effort as the project that is monitoring salmon and steelhead responses to habitat restoration actions. However, this M&E proposal is clearly focused on supplementation effects, and only occasionally mentions the response of natural-origin salmon to habitat restoration actions. This M&E project should be able to track the basin-wide response of natural-origin salmon and steelhead to habitat restoration actions over the long term while incorporating density dependence and environmental variability into the analyses. The ISRP encourages the proponents to continue to address comments by the ISRP review of the Yakima Basin Master Plan (2020-3, 2020-9). These comments largely involve supplementation efforts of coho and summer/fall Chinook salmon that have greatly exceeded the EDT and Beverton-Holt capacity estimates. While it is understandable why the proponents target high spawning escapements, it is also important to consider the lower productivity (survival) associated with spawning densities of hatchery salmon that greatly exceed current capacity of the habitat to support the salmon. Higher and higher spawner densities have not produced more progeny. Furthermore, high densities of hatchery origin spawners promote interbreeding with the relatively few natural salmon and will inhibit local adaptation even though the hatchery attempts to use 100% natural broodstock. Recent reviews by Anderson et al. (2020) and the HSRG (2020) indicate that minimizing pHOS is more beneficial to promoting local adaptation than maximizing pNOB. We encourage the proponents to use the collected data to further develop and evaluate spawner recruit relationships for naturally produced spring and summer/fall Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead. For example, what is the relationship between smolts per spawner (or adults per spawner) and parent spawners, and at what parent spawner densities is smolt production and/or adult maximized? Monitoring of natural-origin salmon spawner-recruit relationships is critical to the evaluation of salmon responses to habitat restoration activities and to inform adaptive management contingencies. Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes The goal of the large and comprehensive Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) is to restore sustainable and harvestable populations of salmon, steelhead and other at-risk species that were historically present in the Yakima subbasin. Abundance objectives by species for the Yakima Basin were developed in collaboration with the Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee and presented on pages 212-249 of the task force’s Phase 2 Report, which was released in October 2020. Specific strategies to achieve these objectives include enhance existing stocks; re-introduce extirpated stocks; protect and restore habitat in the Yakima Subbasin; operate using a scientifically rigorous process that will foster application of the knowledge gained about hatchery supplementation and habitat restoration throughout the Columbia River Basin; and use modeling tools to facilitate planning and adaptive management for project activities. The proposal includes a number of M&E questions related to salmon propagation and supplementation, predation on salmonids, harvest and spawning escapement, and monitoring and evaluation methods. The proposal would have benefited if species-specific objectives for the Yakima Basin were listed in the proposal itself rather than referenced in the Phase 2 Report. The proposal does not describe monitoring of the salmon and steelhead response to habitat restoration actions even though most habitat projects stated this M&E effort was providing the necessary information. Q2: Methods This very large program involves a wide variety of methodologies, which are very briefly noted in the proposal with links to documents that provide more detail. This approach complicates the ISRP review process, but the ISRP recently reviewed the Master Plan that provides more detail. The proposal states that the Yakama Nation is working to update evaluation methods presented in the 1997 and 2006 Yakima Basin supplementation monitoring and evaluation plans. Most methods appear to be based on sound scientific principles. However, on page 18 of the 2020 annual report, it was unclear why the spawner-recruit analysis assumed no production from hatchery origin spawner and the analysis apparently removed hatchery spawners from the analysis. Q3: Provisions for M&E This is an M&E proposal for the very large and comprehensive Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project. In August 2020, the proponents provided a 378-page M&E annual report including appendices. The report provides numerous data tables along with text that can be used for documenting progress over time. The proponents reportedly review their methods and progress and make changes as needed. The project has also produced over 60 peer-reviewed articles. The effort to go through the peer review process helps ensure that results are properly evaluated and that the project adjusts to acceptable scientific standards. Many projects involving restoration efforts depend on this umbrella project to provide data and information about the success of their efforts. It is not clear how responsive this project is to the needs of some of the sub-projects (e.g., 200739800; 199206200), which refer to this project for providing the biological monitoring efforts needed for feedback to assess the success of their stream restoration efforts. Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife The annual report provides many details regarding the benefits to fish and wildlife, including findings for multiple life stages of salmon. Supplementation has led to greater abundances of salmon returning to the watershed; however, abundances remain very small compared with historical levels. The YN recognize the long-term commitment to rebuild populations through supplementation and habitat restoration. References Anderson, J. H., K. I. Warheit, B. E. Craig, T. R. Seamons, and A. H. Haukenes. 2020. A review of hatchery reform science in Washington State. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; Final report to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, January 23, 2020. Available at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/02121/wdfw02121_0.pdf. HSRG (Hatchery Scientific Review Group). 2020. Developing recovery objectives and phase triggers for salmonid populations. December 2020.
Documentation Links:	Proponent Presentation (6/24/2022, 4.9 MB)

Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number:	1995-063-25-NPCC-20110124
Project:	1995-063-25 - Yakima River Monitoring and Evaluation-Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP)
Review:	RME / AP Category Review
Proposal:	RMECAT-1995-063-25
Proposal State:	Pending BPA Response
Approved Date:	6/10/2011
Recommendation:	Fund (Qualified)
Comments:	Implement with conditions through 2016: Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in contracting, submit Master Plan by end of FY 2012 for coho and Fall Chinook, and conduct an ISRP review of YKFP in conjunction with the Yakama Fisheries Reviews. Implementation subject to regional hatchery effects evaluation process described in programmatic recommendation #4.
Conditions:
	Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #4 Hatchery Effectiveness—subject to regional hatchery effects evaluation process
	Council Condition #2 Qualifications: ISRP recommends 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 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. Submit master plan by end of FY 2012 for coho and fall Chinook. 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.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Final Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	1995-063-25-ISRP-20101015
Project:	1995-063-25 - Yakima River Monitoring and Evaluation-Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP)
Review:	RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number:	RMECAT-1995-063-25
Completed Date:	12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date:	12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
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.
First Round ISRP Date:	10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating:	Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
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.
Documentation Links:	Proponent Response (11/15/2010)

Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number:	1995-063-25-NPCC-20090924
Project:	1995-063-25 - Yakima River Monitoring and Evaluation-Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP)
Review:	FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date:	10/23/2006
Recommendation:	Fund
Comments:	ISRP fundable qualified: ISRP recommends that the broader YKFP program be the subject of an organized program review. Project sponsor should consider focusing the next annual review for this purpose, otherwise review will need to occur as part of the next project review cycle. As Council has asked for in the past, a Master Plan is needed for fall chinook and coho elements of the project.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Final Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	1995-063-25-ISRP-20060831
Project:	1995-063-25 - Yakima River Monitoring and Evaluation-Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP)
Review:	FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date:	8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date:	None
Final Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
See the overall comments for the five related Yakima/Klickitat Fishery Projects under proposal 19881205. Comments specific to this M&E proposal. Technical and scientific background: The M&E project is the omnibus scientific component (a large share) of the broader YKFP and is the most amenable to scientific review. This project essentially provides the rigor and measurement to test the basic assumptions of supplementation within the Yakima subbasin. The background treatment is actually a bit light, instead, referring to previous efforts, e.g., "The YKFP monitoring program is built on a foundation laid in a number of earlier projects. The general elements of a monitoring plan were first outlined in the YKFP's 1993 Project Status Report (BPA 1993)." Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: This project is the key tool for comprehensively measuring assumptions and strategies long in place within the Yakima subbasin regarding supplementation and other programs. These are expressly detailed in the Yakima Subbasin Plan and need to be better articulated within the proposal. Relationships to other projects: This project is the umbrella or omnibus M&E activity for the others in the Yakima subbasin by both the Yakima Nation and the WDFW. It is designed to address the basic assumptions underlying the YKFP with intensive and explicit examination of the subcomponents of supplementation (and presumably habitat restoration and other H's). Project history: The project history is extensive. The table is quite data heavy. This proposal represents a major leap forward in the monitoring and evaluation of supplementation as a restoration and mitigation strategy within not only the Yakima subbasin, but basinwide. It addresses many of the key risks long assumed to be negligible with artificial production, as well as other critical variables (uncertainties). As such, the information generated will be highly relevant to future decisions as to ongoing efforts in the basin and subbasin. Objectives: The list of measurable biological objectives is quite lengthy. There needs to some thought to prioritizing these such that "measure everything" philosophy yields to "measure critical variables". These critical variables must address the key decision points in a logic path or decision tree. Non-biological objectives overlap somewhat with other proposals (e.g., unclear as to how NEPA for this project differs from NEPA for O&M project, etc.). Ultimately, while some individual hypotheses may be addressed rapidly, the timeline to gather information on the broader question of whether supplementation is "contributing to" versus "detracting from" natural reproduction may require a few generations (i.e., 10-15 years). Tasks (work elements) and methods: The methods are extensively and adequately described. The sponsors appear to have responded well to earlier comments/critiques/suggestions by ISRP (specifically) and ISAB (more generally re: supplementation). The M&E component of YKFP should address the appropriateness and soundness of assumptions. The techniques are largely appropriate for each of the tasks and include some references/controls, as well as involvement of statistical and design expertise. Monitoring and evaluation: This is a monitoring and evaluation component to the broader program. We look forward to a site and program review with summarized data and results of various activities ongoing in the Subbasin. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: There will be a large staff associated with these efforts (50+ fulltime and numerous part time/seasonal). The large staff is commensurate with scale and scope of the undertaking. Information transfer: The described intent is to make data (raw) available through various institutional means throughout the basin as well as to provide annual reporting and periodic evaluation. There is intent to produce high quality and credible summary in peer-reviewed outlets. There is also a web site with up-to-date fish counts, links to reports, cartoons (not skewering the ISRP) and swimming fish.
Documentation Links:

Response to past ISRP and Council comments and recommendations:

ISRP comments are addressed in AHSWG and CRHEET. Whole-River pedigree analysis, wild control and hatchery domestication research have been added to the study design (Busack et al. 2006). Organized program review continues to occur annually in a 2-day Yakima Basin Science and Management Conference. A preliminary Master Plan for coho (Hubble et al 2004) guides operations through 2011. Master Plans to implement permanent coho and fall chinook production facilities will be submitted to NPCC 3-step review in this funding cycle.

Adaptive Management

Management Changes:

The Project uses a Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) and Monitoring Implementation Planning Team (MIPT) to inform the YKFP Policy Group regarding current project results and recommended changes. Significant changes to the Project are recorded in YKFP decision documents executed by the policy representatives of the YN and State of Washington. Examples include: 
Using results from Fast et al (2008), the Project modified production at Cle Elum Supplementation and Research Facility (CESRF) to utilize the most effective semi-natural rearing practices.
Using results from Larsen et al (2004, 2006), the Project implemented growth-modulation feeding research to reduce incidence of precocial males.
Using results from Fritts and Pearsons (2004), WDFW implemented changes in fishery regulations to reduce predation by small-mouth bass in the Lower Yakima Basin.

Project Documents & Reports

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Public Attachments in CBFish

ID	Title	Type	Period	Contract	Uploaded
00000650-1	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project	Progress (Annual) Report	10/1999 - 09/2000		1/1/2001 12:00:00 AM
00004666-1	Yakima River Species Interactions Studies	Progress (Annual) Report	10/1999 - 09/2000	5881	12/1/2001 12:00:00 AM
00004666-9	Yakima River Species Interactions Studies	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2000 - 09/2001	5881	5/1/2002 12:00:00 AM
00004666-2	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Genetic Studies	Progress (Annual) Report	10/1999 - 09/2001	13756	11/1/2002 12:00:00 AM
00004666-3	Reproductive Ecology of Yakima River Hatchery and Wild Spring Chinook and Juvenile-to-Adult PIT-tag	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2000 - 09/2001	5881	11/1/2002 12:00:00 AM
00005881-1	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2000 - 09/2001	5881	12/1/2002 12:00:00 AM
00004666-7	Comparing the Reproductive Success of Yakima River Hatchery- and Wild-Origin Spring Chinook	Progress (Annual) Report	10/1999 - 09/2001	5881	1/1/2003 12:00:00 AM
00004666-8	Pathogen Screening of Naturally Produced Yakima River Spring Chinook Smolts	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2000 - 09/2001	5881	1/1/2003 12:00:00 AM
00004666-10	Yakima River Species Interactions Studies	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2001 - 09/2002	5881	5/1/2003 12:00:00 AM
00004666-12	Pathogen Screening of Naturally Produced Yakima River Spring Chinook Smolts	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2001 - 09/2002	5881	5/1/2003 12:00:00 AM
00004666-13	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Genetic Studies	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2000 - 09/2002	5881	5/1/2003 12:00:00 AM
00004666-14	Spring Chinook Salmon Interactions Indices and Residual/Precocial Monitoring in the Upper Yakima Bas	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2000 - 09/2002	5881	5/1/2003 12:00:00 AM
P00004666-15	Comparing the Reproductive Success of Yakima River Hatchery- and Wild-Origin Spring Chinook	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2000 - 09/2002	5881	5/1/2003 12:00:00 AM
P00004666-16	Reproductive Ecology of Yakima River Hatchery and Wild Spring Chinook	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2000 - 09/2002	5881	5/1/2003 12:00:00 AM
P00005881-2	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2001 - 09/2002	5881	3/1/2004 12:00:00 AM
00005881-3	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2002 - 09/2003	13769	6/1/2004 12:00:00 AM
00013769-1	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2003 - 04/2004	13769	8/1/2004 12:00:00 AM
00013769-2	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2003 - 04/2004	13769	3/1/2005 12:00:00 AM
00017478-1	Pathogen Screening of Naturally Produced Yakima River Spring Chinook Smolts	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2004 - 04/2005	17478	5/1/2005 12:00:00 AM
00017478-2	Effects of Domestication on Predation Mortality and Competitive Dominance	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2004 - 04/2005	17478	5/1/2005 12:00:00 AM
00017478-3	Yakima River Species Interactions Studies	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2004 - 04/2005	17478	5/1/2005 12:00:00 AM
00017478-4	Reproductive Ecology of Yakima River Hatchery and Wild Spring Chinook	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2004 - 04/2005	17478	5/1/2005 12:00:00 AM
00017478-5	Spring Chinook Salmon Interactions Indices and Residual/Precocious Male Monitoring in the Upper Yaki	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2004 - 04/2005	17478	5/1/2005 12:00:00 AM
00017478-6	Comparing the Reproductive Success of Yakima River Hatchery- and Wild-Origin Spring Chinook	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2004 - 04/2005	17478	5/1/2005 12:00:00 AM
00017478-7	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Genetic Studies	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2004 - 04/2005	17478	5/1/2005 12:00:00 AM
00017635-1	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2004 - 04/2005	17635	6/1/2005 12:00:00 AM
00022370-1	Ecological Interactions between Non-target Taxa of Concern and Hatchery Supplemented Salmon	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2005 - 04/2006	22370	5/1/2006 12:00:00 AM
00022370-2	Effects of Domestication on Predation Mortality and Competitive Dominance	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2005 - 04/2006	22370	5/1/2006 12:00:00 AM
00022370-3	Comparing the Reproductive Success of Yakima River Hatchery- and Wild-Origin Spring Chinook	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2005 - 04/2006	22370	5/1/2006 12:00:00 AM
00022370-4	Reproductive Ecology of Yakima River Hatchery and Wild Spring Chinook	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2005 - 04/2006	22370	5/1/2006 12:00:00 AM
00022370-6	Spring Chinook Salmon Interactions Indices and Residual/Precocious Male Monitoring in the Upper Yaki	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2005 - 04/2006	22370	5/1/2006 12:00:00 AM
00022370-5	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Genetic Studies	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2005 - 04/2006	22370	5/1/2006 12:00:00 AM
00022370-7	Pathogen Screening of Naturally Produced Yakima River Spring Chinook Smolts	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2005 - 04/2006	22370	5/1/2006 12:00:00 AM
00022370-8	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2005 - 04/2006	22370	5/1/2006 12:00:00 AM
00022449-1	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2005 - 04/2006	22449	7/1/2006 12:00:00 AM
P102831	Ecological Interactions Between Non-target Taxa of Concern and Hatchery Supplemented Salmon	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2006 - 04/2007	34450	7/19/2007 10:51:03 AM
P102832	Breeding Success Of Wild & First Generation Hatchery Female Spring Chinook Spawning In An Artificial	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2006 - 04/2007	34450	7/19/2007 10:56:19 AM
P102833	The Effects of Domestication on Predation Mortality and Competitive Dominance	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2006 - 04/2007	34450	7/19/2007 10:58:51 AM
P102834	Reproductive Ecology of Yakima River Hatchery and Wild Spring Chinook	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2006 - 04/2007	34450	7/19/2007 11:02:46 AM
P102835	Pathogen Screening Of Naturally Produced Yakima River Spring Chinook Salmon Smolts	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2006 - 04/2007	34450	7/19/2007 11:08:09 AM
P102836	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Genetic Studies	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2006 - 04/2007	34450	7/19/2007 11:10:40 AM
P102837	Spring Chinook Salmon Interactions Indices and Residual/Precocious Male Monitoring in the Upper	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2006 - 04/2007	34450	7/19/2007 11:14:28 AM
P102880	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project - Appendix A	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2005 - 04/2006	22449	7/23/2007 6:34:14 PM
P102881	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project - Appendix B	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2005 - 04/2006	22449	7/23/2007 6:39:02 PM
P102882	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project - Appendix C	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2005 - 04/2006	22449	7/23/2007 6:39:40 PM
P102883	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project - Appendix D	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2005 - 04/2006	22449	7/23/2007 6:44:25 PM
P102884	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project - Appendix E	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2005 - 04/2006	22449	7/23/2007 6:44:49 PM
P102885	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project - Appendix F	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2005 - 04/2006	22449	7/23/2007 6:45:23 PM
P102886	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project - Appendix G	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2005 - 04/2006	22449	7/23/2007 6:46:01 PM
P102887	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project - Appendix H	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2005 - 04/2006	22449	7/23/2007 6:46:27 PM
P102888	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project - Appendix I	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2005 - 04/2006	22449	7/23/2007 6:46:55 PM
P104177	YKFP Monitoring and Evaluation Annual Report for FY2006	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2006 - 04/2007	35037	10/22/2007 3:34:22 PM
P105090	Roza PIT install	Photo	-	35037	1/3/2008 1:06:30 PM
P105091	roza pIT antennas	Photo	-	35037	1/3/2008 1:08:07 PM
P106758	Ecological Interactions Between Non-target Taxa of Concern and Hatchery Supplemented Salmon	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2007 - 04/2008	37649	5/29/2008 3:19:22 PM
P106759	The Effects of Domestication on Predation Mortality and Competitive Dominance	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2007 - 04/2008	37649	5/29/2008 3:22:31 PM
P106760	Spring Chinook Salmon Interactions Indices and Residual/Precocious Male Monitoring in the Upper Yakima Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2007 - 04/2008	37649	5/29/2008 3:24:49 PM
P106829	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Genetic Studies	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2007 - 04/2008	37649	6/9/2008 9:11:05 AM
P107132	Reproductive Ecology of Yakima River Hatchery and Wild Spring Chinook	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2007 - 04/2008	37649	7/7/2008 8:38:28 AM
P107548	YKFP Monitoring and Evaluation 199506325 Final Report for May 1, 2007 to April 30, 2008	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2007 - 04/2008	37822	7/31/2008 4:01:06 PM
P109732	prosser denil	Photo	-	37822	1/12/2009 9:42:14 AM
P109733	prosser denil	Photo	-	37822	1/12/2009 9:43:32 AM
P109735	prosser denil	Photo	-	37822	1/12/2009 9:45:04 AM
P112744	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation Final Report	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2008 - 04/2009	42445	7/30/2009 2:19:05 PM
P113502	The Effects of Domestication on Predation Mortality and Competitive Dominance	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2008 - 04/2009	42861	9/29/2009 10:52:19 AM
P113503	Ecological Interactions Between Non-target Taxa of Concern and Hatchery Supplemented Salmon	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2008 - 04/2009	42861	9/29/2009 10:59:53 AM
P113504	Reproductive Ecology of Yakima River Hatchery and Wild Spring Chinook	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2008 - 04/2009	42861	9/29/2009 11:01:54 AM
P113505	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Genetic Studies	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2008 - 04/2009	42861	9/29/2009 11:03:57 AM
P113528	Spring Chinook Salmon Interactions Indices and Residual/Precocious Male Monitoring in the Upper Yakima Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2008 - 04/2009	42861	9/30/2009 9:47:05 AM
P113529	Breeding Success of Four Male Life History Types in Spring Chinook Salmon Spawning Under Quasi-Natural Conditions	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2008 - 04/2009	42861	9/30/2009 9:48:33 AM
P117474	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation Final Report	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2009 - 04/2010	42445	8/3/2010 10:49:17 AM
P118210	The Effects of Domestication on Predation Mortality and Competitive Dominance	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2009 - 04/2010	42861	9/30/2010 3:28:49 PM
P118211	Reproductive Ecology of Yakima River Hatchery and Wild Spring Chinook	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2009 - 04/2010	42861	9/30/2010 3:33:07 PM
P118213	Breeding Success of Four Male Life History Types in Spring Chinook Salmon Spawning Under Quasi-Natural Conditions	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2009 - 04/2010	42861	9/30/2010 3:42:15 PM
P118214	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Genetic Studies	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2009 - 04/2010	42861	9/30/2010 4:06:59 PM
P118215	Spring Chinook Salmon Competition/Capacity and Residual/Precocious Male Monitoring in the Upper Yakima Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2009 - 04/2010	42861	9/30/2010 4:10:19 PM
P118216	Ecological Interactions Between Non-target Taxa of Concern and Hatchery Supplemented Salmon	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2009 - 04/2010	42861	9/30/2010 4:12:03 PM
P122475	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation, 5/10 - 4/11	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2010 - 04/2011	54321	8/11/2011 2:38:57 PM
P123141	Ecological Interactions Between Non-target Taxa of Concern and Hatchery Supplemented Salmon	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2010 - 04/2011	53279	9/30/2011 10:55:50 PM
P123142	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Genetic Studies, Annual Report 2010	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2010 - 04/2011	53279	10/3/2011 9:27:41 AM
P123143	The Breeding Success of First- and Second- Generation Hatchery Spring Chinook Salmon Spawning in an Artificial Stream.	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2010 - 04/2011	53279	10/3/2011 9:30:22 AM
P123144	Reproductive Ecology of Yakima River Hatchery and Wild Spring Chinook, Annual Report 2010	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2010 - 04/2011	53279	10/3/2011 9:34:02 AM
P123328	The Effects of Domestication on Predation Mortality and Competitive Dominance	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2010 - 04/2011	53279	10/15/2011 2:46:18 PM
P123329	Spring Chinook Salmon Competition/Capacity and Residual/Precocious Male Monitoring in the Upper Yakima Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2010 - 04/2011	53279	10/15/2011 2:48:20 PM
P127347	The Breeding Success of First- and Third-Generation Hatchery Spring Chinook Salmon Spawning in an Artificial Stream; 5/11 - 4/12	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2011 - 04/2012	53279	7/16/2012 9:39:13 AM
P127348	The Effects of Domestication on Predation Mortality and Competitive Dominance; 5/11 - 4/12	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2011 - 04/2012	53279	7/16/2012 9:41:08 AM
P127349	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Genetic Studies; 5/11 - 4/12	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2011 - 04/2012	53279	7/16/2012 9:42:15 AM
P127683	YKFP Monitoring and Evaluation Final Report; 5/11 - 4/12	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2011 - 04/2012	54321	8/10/2012 1:52:27 PM
P128161	Spring Chinook Salmon Competition/Capacity and Residual/Precocious Male Monitoring in the Upper Yakima Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2011 - 04/2012	53279	9/17/2012 9:48:51 AM
P128686	Ecological Interactions Between Non-target Taxa of Concern and Hatchery Supplemented Salmon	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2011 - 04/2012	53279	10/17/2012 4:15:58 PM
P133528	YKFP Monitoring and Evaluation Yakima Subbasin Annual Report; 5/12 - 4/13	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2012 - 04/2013	56662 REL 22	8/30/2013 11:37:34 AM
P139180	YKFP Monitoring and Evaluation, Yakima Subbasin, Final Annual Report for May 1, 2013 to Apr. 30, 2014	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2013 - 04/2014	56662 REL 68	10/14/2014 7:28:58 AM
P141727	WDFW YKPF M&E 2013 Report	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2012 - 12/2013	65604	3/5/2015 1:05:47 PM
P144828	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation Yakima Subbasin Annual Report	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2014 - 04/2015	56662 REL 85	9/24/2015 10:16:08 AM
P145514	WDFW YKPF M&E 2014 Report	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2014 - 12/2014	65604	11/13/2015 1:48:47 PM
P147604	Spring Chinook Salmon Supplementation in the Upper Yakima Basin: Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Overview; 1/15 - 12/15	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2015 - 12/2015	69084	4/1/2016 10:53:12 AM
P148877	Spring Chinook Salmon Supplementation in the Upper Yakima Basin: Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Overview; 1/15 - 12/15	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2015 - 12/2015	69084	6/1/2016 1:08:48 PM
P150170	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project, Monitoring and Evaluation, Yakima Subbasin, Final Report	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2015 - 04/2016	56662 REL 108	8/3/2016 9:33:38 AM
P155169	Spring Chinook Salmon Supplementation in the Upper Yakima Basin: yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Overview; 1/16 - 12/16	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2016 - 12/2016	72482	7/12/2017 2:39:06 PM
P156803	YKFP Monitoring and Evaluation Yakima Basin; 5/16 - 4/17	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2016 - 04/2017	56662 REL 135	9/18/2017 1:42:15 PM
P159716	Spring Chinook Salmon Supplementation in the Upper Yakima Basin: Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Overview; 1/17 - 12/17	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2017 - 12/2017	75796	3/15/2018 10:57:15 AM
P162303	Yakama Nation Yakima Basin Monitoring and Evaluation; 5/17 - 4/18	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2017 - 04/2018	56662 REL 160	10/10/2018 11:08:11 AM
P164448	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation; 1/18 - 12/18	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2018 - 12/2018	74314 REL 34	3/15/2019 2:29:54 PM
P170174	Non-Target Taxa of Concern Monitoring	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2019 - 12/2019	74314 REL 67	1/14/2020 3:15:33 PM
P171303	Upper Yakima River basin Spring Chinook salmon summer rearing abundance, habitat use, and territorial response; 1/18 - 12/18	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2018 - 12/2018	74314 REL 34	2/28/2020 9:03:46 AM
P171304	Abundance and distribution of hatchery and natural origin precociously male Spring Chinook salmon in Yakima River; 1/18 - 12/18	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2018 - 12/2018	74314 REL 34	2/28/2020 9:08:25 AM
P171305	Early growth as an Indicator of Reach Scale Productivity in the Upper Yakima River Basin; 1/18 - 12/18	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2018 - 12/2018	74314 REL 34	2/28/2020 9:14:20 AM
P175222	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation, 5/10 - 4/11	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P175223	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation, 5/10 - 4/11	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P175224	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation, 5/10 - 4/11	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P175225	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation, 5/10 - 4/11	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P175226	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation, 5/10 - 4/11	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P175227	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation, 5/10 - 4/11	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P175228	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation, 5/10 - 4/11	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P175229	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation, 5/10 - 4/11	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P175230	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation, 5/10 - 4/11	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P175231	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation, 5/10 - 4/11	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P177319	YKFP M&E	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2018 - 04/2019	56662 REL 185	7/14/2020 1:59:20 PM
P177559	Spring Chinook Salmon Competition/Capacity and Residual/Prcocious Male Monitoring in the Upper Yakima River Basin; 1/19 - 12/19	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2019 - 12/2019	74314 REL 67	7/28/2020 7:57:47 AM
P177863	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation; 5/19 - 4/20	Progress (Annual) Report	05/2019 - 04/2020	56662 REL 185	8/10/2020 4:09:05 PM

Project Relationships

The Project Relationships tracked automatically in CBFish provide a history of how work and budgets move between projects. The terms "Merged" and "Split" describe the transfer of some or all of the Work and budgets from one or more source projects to one or more target projects. For example, some of one project's budget may be split from it and merged into a different project. Project relationships change for a variety of reasons including the creation of efficiency gains.

Project Relationships:	This project Split From 2008-468-00 effective on 12/18/2008 Relationship Description: The capital component of project 2008-468-00 is moved to 1995-063-25 for further construction/set-up of new mobile acclimation units.

Additional Relationships Explanation:

The YKFP is made up of a suite of BPA-funded projects that are jointly managed by the Yakama Nation and WDFW. The infrastructure supported by the program is essential for monitoring all species. We do not describe the relationship with habitat improvement projects funded by BPA and others in the basin, but note that information on population performance derived from this project is input to EDT/AHA models as part of an adaptive management process that will drive future investments in habitat improvement in the basin. Other RM&E projects and their relationship to this proposal (199506325) are:

199506425 YKFP Policy/Plan/Technical: Funds WDFW’s policy and technical involvement in the YKFP's Policy and Scientific and Technical Advisory Groups as delineated in the project management structure.
198812025 and 198812035 YKFP Management, Data, and Habitat: Provide core management and administrative support services for all YKFP tasks including habitat restoration and data management activities. Habitat activities supported under 198812025/35 directly benefit all populations in the Yakima and Klickitat subbasins and provide opportunities to address RPAs 56 and 57.  Data management activities conducted under 198812025/35 support RPAs 71 and 72; data collected under this proposal will be incorporated into existing YKFP regional data coordination and collaboration efforts.
198811525 and 200846900 Nelson Springs Design & Construction: These projects are the same and would fund upgrades to the facility that houses some YN staff for the 198812025 and 199506325 projects.
199701325 Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project Operations and Maintenance: Supports O & M for YKFP facilities in the Yakima Basin including: spring Chinook activities at the Cle Elum Supplementation and Research Facility; and fall Chinook, coho and steelhead kelt reconditioning (200001700) facilities at the Prosser Hatchery complex. Upgrades to these facilities and construction of additional facilities will be implemented (pursuant to Master Plan step review and approval) under 200846500 (Coho Production Facility and marking) and 200846600 (Prosser Hatchery Reform and Upgrades). In addition, nutrient supplementation will be implemented under 200845900 and 200846700 (Yakima Steelhead Acclimation Facilities) may be used to develop facilities to enhance our ability to evaluate sympatric population dynamics between resident and anadromous forms of O. mykiss (RPAs 50.3, 50.6).
201003000 Yakima Basin steelhead VSP monitoring: This fast-track project expands 199506325 RM & E activities to better evaluate VSP parameters (abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity) for Yakima steelhead populations. Opportunities to share equipment, data and methods.

Non-YKFP projects that are directly related to this proposal include:

199604000 Mid-Columbia Coho Reintroduction Feasibility Study: This project will share data, analysis and methods with 199506325.
199603501 Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project: This is a watershed scale restoration project intended to enhance habitat for the native threatened summer steelhead stock.  These efforts may indirectly affect populations being monitored by 199506325.
199206200 Lower Yakima Valley Riparian Wetlands Restoration: This project may indirectly affect populations being monitored by 199506325.
200001700 Recondition Wild Steelhead Kelts and 200306200 Evaluate Reproductive Success Kelt Steelhead: 200001700 is an ongoing project to evaluate methods to recondition steelhead kelts, generate science-based management recommendations, and assist in their implementation to rebuild wild steelhead populations throughout the Columbia Basin. 200306200 is designed to investigate the reproductive success of hatchery-reared, natural-origin, and reconditioned kelt steelhead in three different evolutionary significant units (Upper Columbia, Mid Columbia, and Snake River) under natural conditions. A large part of the work for these two projects is conducted in the Yakima Subbasin. Cost efficiencies will be gained via sharing of PIT-array and radio-tracking infrastructure.  Data sharing may also assist to “determine if properly designed intervention programs using artificial production make a net positive contribution to recovery of listed populations” (RPA 64).
200847000 Yakama Nation Ceded Lands Lamprey Evaluation and Restoration: This is a project to: assess status, abundance and distribution of Pacific Lamprey; develop a Yakama Nation Pacific Lamprey Program and Restoration Plan; and implement and monitor the plans.  Cost efficiencies with this proposal may be gained via sharing of radio-tracking infrastructure.
200301700 ISEMP: Opportunity to leverage information and methods (i.e., PIT tag interrogation systems and redd observer efficiency studies).
201003400 Upper Columbia Spring Chinook and Steelhead Monitoring: Opportunity to leverage information and methods.

Focal Species

Primary Focal Species

Chinook (O. tshawytscha) - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU

Coho (O. kisutch) - Unspecified Population

Steelhead (O. mykiss) - Middle Columbia River DPS (Threatened)

Secondary Focal Species

Cutthroat Trout, Coastal (O. clarkii clarkii)- Resident Populations

Lamprey, Pacific (Entosphenus tridentata)

Other Resident

Pikeminnow, Northern (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) [OBSOLETE]

Trout, Bull (S. confluentus) (Threatened)

Trout, Interior Redband (O. mykiss gairdnerii)

Whitefish, Mountain (Prosopium williamsoni)

Other Focal Species Description

Piscivorous birds, pathogens, invertebrates, dace, sculpins, suckers, redside shiner

Threats to program investments and project success:

Predation monitoring is an integral component of this project (e.g., BPA annual reports; Fritts and Pearsons 2004; Major et al. 2005). The YKFP makes a point to invite speakers on emerging factor topics to its annual Science and Management Conference (e.g., Philip Mote on climate change issues and Tom Quinn on long-term temporal cycles effecting fisheries). The project works on a daily basis with U.S. Bureau of Reclamation representatives to address water management issues and limitations. Policy and technical representatives of the YKFP participated in Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP) to address water storage and flow enhancement issues.

Types of Work

Work Classes

Work Elements

RM & E and Data Management:

157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
158. Mark/Tag Animals
183. Produce Journal Article
162. Analyze/Interpret Data

Hatchery:

176. Produce Hatchery Fish
66. Trap/Collect/Hold/Transport Fish - Hatchery

Anadromous Fish Hatchery

Program Name:

Upper Yakima Spring Chinook

Type:

Integrated

HSRG Recommendations Summary

The program uses broodstock that is derived from naturally produced spring chinook adults captured at the Roza Dam weir/trap facilities.
The program deviates from the broodstock guidelines of the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) in that 100% of the hatchery brood is of natural origin as opposed to the 10 –20% recommended by the HSRG. The program also does not limit the contribution of hatchery origin fish to less than 30% as recommended by the HSRG. Risks associated with these deviations are, however, at least in part offset by an intensive monitoring and evaluation program.
The program fish are marked at a 100% rate.

HSRG Implementation Explanation

The program is consistent with HSRG recommendations, maintaining an average proportion natural influence (PNI) of 65% from 2001-2009. Broodstock used for the program are 100% natural-origin. Hatchery-origin fish escaping to the spawning grounds have at most one generation of hatchery influence.

Fish Species:

Chinook (O. tshawytscha) - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU

	pNOB	pHOS	PNI
Target	<div class="userEnteredValue">1.00</div>	<div class="userEnteredValue">0.50</div>	0.67
Realized	<div class="userEnteredValue">1.00</div>	<div class="userEnteredValue">0.56</div>	0.64

<hr/>

Program Name:

Yakima Basin Coho Reintroduction Project

Type:

Integrated

HSRG Recommendations Summary

Observations
For management purposes, the entire Yakima subbasin is treated as a single stock. There is a reintroduction program in the upper river and a segregated harvest program in the lower river. The reintroduction program uses a mix of natural and hatchery returns collected at Prosser. The lower river segregated program currently uses out-of-basin broodstock. All fish are currently adipose fin-clipped, but this is a practice that will cease.

Recommendations
The reintroduction programs should continue to move aggressively toward developing local broodstocks within the basin. Broodstock for fish released in the upper Yakima should be collected at Roza. Broodstock for fish released in the Naches should be collected from the Naches. We recommend that these fish should be coded-wire tagged but not adipose fin-clipped.
The segregated harvest program in the lower river should also be based on a local broodstock from hatchery returns. These fish should have external marks and a portion coded-wired tagged to maximize harvest so that broodstock separation can be achieved and straying into the natural population can be evaluated.
In-basin facilities for incubation and rearing should be developed. In the interim, local broodstock may need to be incubated and reared out-of-basin.

HSRG Implementation Explanation

A Master Plan is being developed and will address HSRG recommendations.

Fish Species:

Coho (O. kisutch) - Unspecified Population

	pNOB	pHOS	PNI
Target	<div class="userEnteredValue">0.50</div>	<div class="userEnteredValue">0.50</div>	0.50
Realized	<div class="userEnteredValue">0.30</div>	<div class="userEnteredValue">0.70</div>	0.30

<hr/>

Program Name:

Yakima River Summer and Fall Run Chinook

Type:

Integrated

HSRG Recommendations Summary

This program is sustained by annually importing fall Chinook from outside the basin, a practice that is inconsistent with sustaining natural production. With current facilities, it is not possible to collect sufficient broodstock to sustain a hatchery program. Current collection facilities are located upstream of historic spawning reaches, making it difficult to collect natural broodstock for an integrated program. Due to low natural productivity and current pre-terminal harvest rates, this population cannot meet the standards of a Contributing population due to the high pHOS levels from the segregated harvest program. If adequate adult collection were possible, the population could sustain an integrated program of 500,000 and be consistent with the standards of a Primary population. Alternatively, the population could sustain an integrated program of 1,000,000 and be consistent with the standards of a Contributing population. If hatchery fish are harvested at a higher rate than wild fish, it may be possible to support larger programs. Approximately 10% of the hatchery fish are marked. This prevents an accurate determination of the composition of natural-origin fish in the broodstock and on the spawning ground. Due to changes in habitat conditions in the lower river, spawning habitat has been reduced.

HSRG Implementation Explanation

The Yakima Subbasin Summer and Fall Run Chinook Master Plan (YN; in development) proposes to transition the existing hatchery program. When upgrades to the Prosser Hatchery are completed pursuant to the Master Plan, fall Chinook transfers from Little White Salmon would be replaced with an adult brood collection program at Priest Rapids Dam (preferred alternative) or an egg transfer from Priest Rapids Hatchery (PRH). The Prosser Hatchery would be expanded as necessary to accommodate the program, including changes necessary for fish health and disease considerations. Fish would be released from acclimation site(s) in the lower Yakima River below Horn Rapids Dam. In addition, an integrated program using local fall Chinook brood stock to augment harvest and natural spawning escapement would continue to be developed. This program will use local brood stock collected at or near Prosser Dam and will mark releases so that natural-origin returns can be distinguished. These fish would be released from Prosser Hatchery. New hatchery releases targeted at re-establishing the summer run component would be implemented. Summer Chinook collected from Wells Hatchery or Wells Dam will be used initially to re-establish a summer run until adult returns are sufficient to meet the targeted summer run release objective with an integrated local brood source program. The existing fall Chinook program at Marion Drain would be replaced with the summer run rearing program. Marion Drain fall Chinook would be treated as part of the aggregate Yakima fall run Chinook population. The combined annual release goal for the fall-run and summer-run portion of the program would be approximately 2.0 to 2.7 million Chinook (generally consistent with the existing program). For additional detail, see the fall Chinook HGMP.

Fish Species:

Chinook (O. tshawytscha) - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU

	pNOB	pHOS	PNI
Target	<div class="userEnteredValue">0.50</div>	<div class="userEnteredValue">0.50</div>	0.50
Realized	<div class="userEnteredValue">0.10</div>	<div class="userEnteredValue">0.90</div>	0.10

Links to Hatchery Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) documents

Upper Yakima Spring Chinook HGMP

Yakima Coho HGMP

Yakima Summer/Fall Chinook HGMP

Tagging

Please explain why the tagging technology used in this project was selected. Include a discussion of how the cost and applicability of the selected tagging technology influenced your selection. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.

PIT tags are used in this project because they can be inserted into juvenile fish and provide a unique code that will last the life of the fish while not requiring handling or sacrificing the fish for interrogation.  The tags are used to calculate smolt to smolt survival, smolt to adult survival, compare migration timing between hatchery and naturally produced smolts, calculate growth of individual fish, and to monitor straying using the extensive network of tag detectors already installed on mainstem Columbia River dams, Yakima River diversion dams and fish bypass systems, and the growing number of tributary instream detectors.  We feel that the relatively low cost of PIT tags when compared to an active tag makes them the best option when a large sample size is necessary.  In addition, the absence of a battery allows PIT tags to last the life of the fish and reduces their size relative to active tags allowing them to be used in smaller fish.
We also use snout CWT because they are the standard for calculating harvest in the Columbia Basin.  The cost of the individual tag is negligible and they can be applied very quickly and easily to the entire hatchery population.
Colored elastomer material is injected into the adipose eyelid tissue of spring Chinook.  This allows hatchery fish to be visually identified over the course of their life and then released unharmed, particularly at the time broodstock collection is occurring.  Three colors allow each acclimation site to be identified and right and left placement indicates treatment and control groups.  Juveniles or adults can be unambiguously identified as hatchery fish (eliminated as possible natural-origin broodstock candidates) and their acclimation site and treatment/control status recorded.  These recovery data are then used to determine adult passage timing and survival to an adult monitoring facility and carcass distribution (spatial and temporal).  Elastomer marks are comparable in cost to coded-wire tags and 

Describe any of the innovative approaches that your projects proposes that are in direct support of the ISAB/ISRP's recommendations to improve techniques for surgical insertion of internal tags, or external attachment of acoustic, radio, or data storage tags that reduce handling time, fish injury and stress. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.

We currently have five instream PIT tag array in operation under this contract and there are plans under a related contract to construct several more of these detection systems in tributaries of the Yakima Basin. They are, adult PIT tag detectors are installed in Prosser and Roza dam fish ladders, juvenile PIT tag detectors are installed in the Chandler juvenile fish monitoring facility and adult/juvenile PIT tag detectors are installed in Taneum creek and Teanaway River. These arrays will greatly increase our knowledge of migration timing of juveniles and pre-spawning movements and habitat use of adults.

For specific tagging technologies, please address the tagging report's recommendations for genetic markers, otolith thermal marking, PIT tags, acoustic tags and radio tags for improving technologies in any way applicable. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.

NA

If your project involves ocean port sampling and lower river sampling for coded wire tag (CWT) recovery, address the tagging and tag recovery issues (statistical validity of tagging rates, tag recovery rates, and fishery sampling rates) presented in the Pacific Salmon Commission's Action Plan to Address the CWT Expert Panel (PSC Tech. Rep. No. 25, March 2008).

NA

Explain how your tagging and tag recovery rates ensure a statistically valid result for your project. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.

The YKFP utilizes coded wire tags in all spring Chinook released into the upper Yakima River. Additionally, approximately 40,000 of those released annually are also pit-tagged (Knudsen et al. 2009). To date the number of pit-tag returns have been sufficient to assess many of the metrics necessary to the project with adequate statistical certainty (Knudsen 2009, Fast et al 2008). Although far fewer naturally produced spring Chinook are PIT tagged, we are continually expanding our ability to capture and tag more of these fish to provide adequate power for comparisons to the hatchery Chinook. Further, results from these tagging efforts have also been cited within the ISRP’s own publication which recommends projects to address the long-term effects of all tag types on juvenile and adult fish (ISRP 2009). Future work with acoustic tagging technology will help to evaluate potential shortfalls in estimates derived from pit-tag detections.

Fast, D. E., D. Neeley, D. T. Lind, M. V. Johnston, C. R. Strom, W. J. Bosch, C. M. Knudsen, S. L. Schroder, and B. D. Watson. 2008. Survival comparison of spring Chinook salmon reared in a production hatchery under optimum conventional and seminatural conditions. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:1507–1518.

ISRP (Independent Science Review Panel) / ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2009. Tagging Report: a comprehensive review of Columbia River Basin fish tagging technologies and programs. ISRP/ISAB 2009-1. Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon.

Knudsen, C. M., M. V. Johnston, S. L. Schroder, W. J. Bosch, D. E. Fast, and C. R. Strom. 2009. Effects of passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags on smolt-to-adult recruit survival, growth, and behavior of hatchery spring Chinook salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29:658-669.

Data Management

Please explain how you manage the data and corresponding metadata you collect.

Describe how you distribute your project's data to data users and what requirements or restrictions there may be for data access.

RM&E

What type(s) of RM&E will you be doing?

Project Implementation Monitoring

Status and Trend Monitoring

Action Effectiveness Research

Uncertainties Research (Validation Monitoring and Innovation Research)

Project Compliance Monitoring

Where will you post or publish the data your project generates?

AFS or other peer-reviewed journals

BPA Fish and Wildlife publication page

DART - Data Access in Real Time

Fish Passage Center

PTAGIS Website

RMIS - Regional Mark Information System

StreamNet Data Store

Yakima-Klickitat Fisheries Project website

Location

Loading ...

Layers

Legend

Name (Identifier)	Area Type	Source for Limiting Factor Information
Name (Identifier)	Area Type	Type of Location	Count
Middle ForkTenaway River-Tenaway River (1703000102)	HUC 5	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	33
Little Naches River (1703000201)	HUC 5	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	51
Toppenish Creek (1703000306)	HUC 5	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	21
City of Selah-Yakima River (170300010709)	HUC 6	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	2
Lost Creek-Naches River (170300020202)	HUC 6	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	1
Lower Rattlesnake Creek (170300020206)	HUC 6	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	4
Waterworks Canyon-Naches River (170300020208)	HUC 6	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	1
Tieton River (170300020308)	HUC 6	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	4
South Fork Cowiche Creek-Cowiche Creek (170300020311)	HUC 6	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	3
Naches River (170300020312)	HUC 6	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	9
City of Yakima-Yakima River (170300030206)	HUC 6	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	4
Coulee Drain-Yakima River (170300031002)	HUC 6	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	4
Horseshoe Lake-Yakima River (170300031003)	HUC 6	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	2
Snipes Creek (170300031006)	HUC 6	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	2
Cold Creek (170300031109)	HUC 6		None
Corral Creek (170300031201)	HUC 6	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	1
Coyote Canyon (170300031204)	HUC 6		None
Cabin Creek (170300010302)	HUC 6	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	1
Little Creek-Yakima River (170300010306)	HUC 6	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	15
Lower Swauk Creek (170300010502)	HUC 6	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	3
Taneum Creek (170300010504)	HUC 6	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	9
Dry Creek (170300010506)	HUC 6		None
South Fork Manastash Creek (170300010508)	HUC 6	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	3
Manastash Creek-Yakima River (170300010511)	HUC 6	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	23
Umtanum Creek (170300010701)	HUC 6	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	1

Project Deliverables

Project Deliverables:

Ecological Interactions (EI)

Collect data to monitor ecological interactions. Produce project annual reports and manuscripts for peer-reviewed journal publications.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
158. Mark/Tag Animals
183. Produce Journal Article
162. Analyze/Interpret Data

Hatchery

66. Trap/Collect/Hold/Transport Fish - Hatchery

Genetics (Gen)

Monitor and evaluate genetic change due to domestication and potential genetic change due to in-basin and out-of-basin stray rates.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
158. Mark/Tag Animals
183. Produce Journal Article
162. Analyze/Interpret Data

Hatchery

176. Produce Hatchery Fish

Harvest (H)

Monitor and evaluate changes in harvest of YKFP targeted stocks.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
162. Analyze/Interpret Data

Natural Production (NP)

Determine if supplementation and habitat actions increase natural production. Evaluate changes in natural production with specified statistical power.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
158. Mark/Tag Animals
183. Produce Journal Article
162. Analyze/Interpret Data

Hatchery

176. Produce Hatchery Fish
66. Trap/Collect/Hold/Transport Fish - Hatchery

Objectives & Project Deliverables

Objective: Ecological Interactions (OBJ-1)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Ecological Interactions (EI)

Objective: Genetics (OBJ-2)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Genetics (Gen)

Objective: Harvest (OBJ-3)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Harvest (H)

Objective: Natural Production (OBJ-4)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Natural Production (NP)

*This section was not available on proposals submitted prior to 9/1/2011

RM&E Protocols and Methods

RM&E Protocol	Deliverable	Method Name and Citation
Ecological Interactions (1995-063-25) v1.0		Spawning Survey-Redds v1.0 (McCormick, J. 2009) Assess salmonid smolt development v1.0 (Donald Larsen 2013) Video Enumeration v1.0 (Hatch, D.R., Schwartzberg, M., & Mundy, P.R. 1994)
Harvest Monitoring (1995-063-25) v1.0		Video Enumeration v1.0 (Hatch, D.R., Schwartzberg, M., & Mundy, P.R. 1994)
Genetics (1995-063-25) v1.0		Spawning Survey-Redds v1.0 (McCormick, J. 2009) Estimation of Hatchery Strays v1.0 (Jeremy Trump 2017) Stray Rate (percentage) v1.0 (Beasley, C.A., Berejikian, B.A., Carmichael, R.W., Fast, D.E., Galbreath, P.F., Ford, M.J., Hesse, J.A., McDonald, L.L., Murdoch, A.R., Peven, C.M., & Venditti, D.A. 2008) Video Enumeration v1.0 (Hatch, D.R., Schwartzberg, M., & Mundy, P.R. 1994) Measure Phenotypic Diversity v1.0 (Knudsen, Curt et al 2006)
Natural Production (1995-063-25) v1.0		Adults v1.0 (Hillman, T.W. 2006) Spawning Survey-Redds v1.0 (McCormick, J. 2009) Mark Retention v1.0 (Peter Cleary) Fecundity by Age v1.0 Assess salmonid smolt development v1.0 (Donald Larsen 2013) Estimation of Hatchery Strays v1.0 (Jeremy Trump 2017) Progeny Per Parent Ratio v1.0 (Galbreath, P.F., Beasley, C.A., Berejikian, B.A., Carmichael, R.W., Fast, D.E., Ford, M.J., Hesse, J.A., McDonald, L.L., Murdoch, A.R., Peven, C.M., & Venditti, D.A. 2008) Calculating Relative Contribution v1.0 (PNAMP Support 2014) Age at emigration v1.0 (PNAMP Support 2014) Stray Rate (percentage) v1.0 (Beasley, C.A., Berejikian, B.A., Carmichael, R.W., Fast, D.E., Galbreath, P.F., Ford, M.J., Hesse, J.A., McDonald, L.L., Murdoch, A.R., Peven, C.M., & Venditti, D.A. 2008) Calculating the smolt to adult return rate (SAR) v1.0 (Coordinated Assessments Data Exchange Standard Development Team 2014) Age Structure 2 v1.0 (Beasley, C.A., Berejikian, B.A., Carmichael, R.W., Fast, D.E., Galbreath, P.F., Ford, M.J., Hesse, J.A., McDonald, L.L., Murdoch, A.R., Peven, C.M., & Venditti, D.A. 2008) Video Enumeration v1.0 (Hatch, D.R., Schwartzberg, M., & Mundy, P.R. 1994) Measure Phenotypic Diversity v1.0 (Knudsen, Curt et al 2006) Estimate PIT tag loss and effects on survival, growth and migration timing v1.0 (Knudsen, Curtis 2009)

Project Deliverables & Budget

Project Deliverable	Start	End	Budget
Ecological Interactions (EI)	2011	2020	$7,833,735
Genetics (Gen)	2011	2020	$8,443,237
Harvest (H)	2011	2020	$1,135,575
Natural Production (NP)	2011	2020	$34,599,004
		Total	$52,011,551

Requested Budget by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year	Proposal Budget Limit	Actual Request
2011		$4,642,487
2012		$4,758,549
2013		$4,877,513
2014		$4,999,450
2015		$5,124,437
2016		$5,252,547
2017		$5,383,861
2018		$5,518,458
2019		$5,656,419
2020		$5,797,830
Total	$0	$52,011,551

Item	Notes	FY 2011	FY 2012	FY 2013	FY 2014	FY 2015	FY 2016	FY 2017	FY 2018	FY 2019	FY 2020
Personnel		$3,645,145	$3,736,274	$3,829,681	$3,925,423	$4,023,559	$4,124,148	$4,227,252	$4,332,932	$4,441,256	$4,552,287
Travel		$8,175	$8,380	$8,589	$8,804	$9,029	$9,249	$9,480	$9,718	$9,960	$10,209
Prof. Meetings & Training		$11,240	$11,521	$11,809	$12,105	$12,405	$12,718	$13,034	$13,360	$13,695	$14,038
Vehicles		$230,895	$236,667	$242,583	$248,648	$254,864	$261,236	$267,767	$274,462	$281,323	$288,356
Facilities/Equipment	(See explanation below)	$129,621	$132,862	$136,183	$139,588	$143,077	$146,654	$150,321	$154,080	$157,931	$161,879
Rent/Utilities		$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Capital Equipment		$13,625	$13,965	$14,315	$14,672	$15,039	$15,414	$15,800	$16,195	$16,600	$17,015
Overhead/Indirect		$603,786	$618,880	$634,353	$650,210	$666,464	$683,128	$700,207	$717,711	$735,654	$754,046
Other		$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
PIT Tags		$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Total		$4,642,487	$4,758,549	$4,877,513	$4,999,450	$5,124,437	$5,252,547	$5,383,861	$5,518,458	$5,656,419	$5,797,830

Major Facilities and Equipment explanation:
All adults and jacks are enumerated via video monitoring at Prosser Dam in the lower Yakima, as well as Roza Dam on the middle Yakima, where the entire upper Yakima spring chinook run passes through an adult collection facility. Hands-on monitoring of all upper Yakima hatchery and wild adults can be conducted at Roza, allowing the detection of marked fish that cannot be identified on video. The right-bank ladder/denil/trap complex at Prosser Dam confers a similar capability. Stock-specific counts of migrating smolts can be made at the Chandler Juvenile Monitoring Facility (also located at Prosser Dam), which is equipped with two PIT-tag detectors. PIT tag detection is now possible at all three ladders at Prosser Dam for migrating adults since 2005. The state-of-the-art hatchery at Cle Elum and associated acclimation sites have a capacity to produce 810,000 spring chinook smolts that can be segregated into experimental rearing treatments from the eyed egg stage through release. In 2000, the hatchery added an experimental spawning channel for evaluating differences in reproductive success and associated behaviors of hatchery and wild fish. The hatchery and Chandler juvenile monitoring facility also include facilities for juvenile behavior studies. The project has hatcheries at Prosser Dam and Marion Drain capable of rearing multiple treatment groups of fall chinook and coho. The Prosser Dam adult trap and the Prosser hatchery are currently being used to collect returning adults in an effort to develop locally adapted fall chinook and coho broodstocks. Project management personnel work out of the YKFP’s Central Office in Toppenish, the WDFW regional office in Yakima, WDFW central offices in Olympia, the Nelson Springs Office and Research Facility northeast of Yakima, and satellite offices in Ellensburg and Cle Elum. The Nelson Springs office also serves as the central facility for Project data base management equipment and personnel.

Cost Share

Source / Organization	Fiscal Year	Proposed Amount	Type	Description
Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board	2011	$100,000	In-Kind	All years. This organization is working with PCSRF and local stakeholders to implement a number of habitat restoration projects (see YBFWRB 2010).
US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)	2011	$35,000	In-Kind	All years. Per PIT array for several tributary mouths.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration	2011	$100,000	In-Kind	All Years. Radio telemetry equipment.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration	2011	$100,000	In-Kind	Equipment and analysis for egg-to-fry survival study.
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission	2011	$100,000	In-Kind	PIT detection equipment and services at Prosser, Roza, and acclimation sites.
State of Washington	2011	$100,000	In-Kind	Salmon Recovery Board funding for various habitat projects.
Central Washington University	2011	$5,000	In-Kind	Annual use of facilities for Science and Management Conference

Project References or Citations

Araki, H.  2008.  Hatchery Stocking for Restoring Wild Populations: A Genetic Evaluation of the Reproductive Success of Hatchery Fish vs. Wild Fish.  Pp. 153-167 in K. Tsukamoto, T. Kawamura, T. Takeuchi, T. D. Beard, Jr. and M. J. Kaiser, eds. Fisheries for Global Welfare and Environment, 5th World Fisheries Congress.
Araki, H., W. R. Ardren, E. Olsen, B. Cooper, and M. S. Blouin.  2007.  Reproductive success of captive-bred steelhead trout in the wild: evaluation of three hatchery programs in the Hood River. Conservation Biology 21 (1), 181-190.
Baumsteiger, J., D. M. Hand, D. E. Olson, R. Spateholts, G. FitzGerald, and W. R. Ardren.  2008.  Use of Parentage analysis to Determine Reproductive Success of Hatchery-Origin Spring Chinook Salmon Outplanted into Shitike Creek, Oregon.  North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 28:1472-1485.
Beckman, B. R., D. A. Larsen, C. Sharpe, B. Lee-Pawlak, C. B. Schreck, and W. W. Dickhoff.  2000.  Physiological status of naturally reared juvenile spring Chinook salmon in the Yakima River: Seasonal dynamics and changes associated with smolting.  Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129:727-753.
Berejikian, B.A., E.P. Tezak, S.L. Schroder, C.M. Knudsen, and J.J. Hard.  1997.  Reproductive behavioral interactions between wild and captively reared coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).  ICES Journal of Marine Science 54:1040-1050.
Berejikian, B. A., T. Johnson, R.S. Endicott, and J. Lee-Waltermire. 2008. Increases in Steelhead Redd Abundance Resulting from Two Conservation Hatchery Strategies in the Hamma Hamma River, WA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 65:754-764.
Bilby, R. E., B. K. Fransen, and P. A. Bisson.  1996.  Incorporation of nitrogen and carbon from spawning coho salmon into the trophic system of small streams: Evidence from stable isotopes.  Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:164-173.
Blankenship, S., C. Bowman, C. Busack, A. Fritts, G. Temple, T. Kassler, T. Pearsons, S. Schroder, J. Von Bargen, K. Warheit, C. Knudsen, W. Bosch, D. Fast, M. Johnston, and D. Lind.  2009.  Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Genetic Studies, Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation, Annual Report 2008.
Bosch, W.J. 2004. The promise of hatchery-reared fish and hatchery methodologies as tools for rebuilding Columbia Basin salmon runs: Yakima Basin overview. Pages 151-160 in M.J. Nickum, P.M. Mazik, J.G. Nickum, and D.D. MacKinlay, editors. Propagated fish in resource management. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 44, Bethesda, Maryland.
Bosch, B.  2009.  Summary of Data Collected by the Yakama Nation relative to Yakima River Spring Chinook Salmon and the Cle Elum Spring Chinook Supplementation and Research Facility.  Appendix A in Sampson, Fast, and Bosch, Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation; Yakima Substation, 2008 Annual Report, Project No. 199506325, 304 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP-00037822-1).  
BPA (Bonneville Power Administration).  1990.  Preliminary Design Report for the Yakima/Klickitat Production Project.  Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife (BPA Report DOE/BP-00245).  March 1990.
BPA (Bonneville Power Administration). 1993. Yakima /Klickitat Fisheries Project Planning Status Report.
BPA (Bonneville Power Administration).  1996.  Yakima Fisheries Project.  Final Environmental Impact Statement.  Bonneville Power Administration.  Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.  Yakama Indian Nation.  January, 1996.  DOE/EIS-0169.  DOE/BP-2784.  Portland, OR.
Brannon, E. L., D. F. Amend, M. A. Cronin, J. E. Lannon, S. LaPatra, W. J. McNeil, R. E. Noble, C. E. Smith, A. J. Talbot, G. A. Wedemeyer, and H. Westers. 2004. The controversy about salmon hatcheries. Fisheries 29(9): 12-30.
Busack, C.A., and K.P. Currens. 1995. Genetic risks and hazards in hatchery operations: Fundamental concepts and issues. American Fisheries Society Symposium 15: 71-80.
Busack, C., B. Watson, T. Pearsons, C. Knudsen, S. Phelps, M. Johnston. 1997. Yakima Fisheries Project Spring Chinook Supplementation Monitoring Plan.  Report, DOE/BP-64878-1. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.
Busack, C., and four coauthors. 2006. Natural production and domestication monitoring of the Yakima spring Chinook supplementation program: December 2005 revision. Pages 148-196 in Busack, C. and seven coauthors. 2006. Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Genetic Studies, Annual Report 2005. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. (DOE/BP-00022370-5).
CBFWA. 2010. Anadromous Salmonid Monitoring Strategy Viable Salmonid Population Parameters and Subset of Tributary Habitat and Hatchery Effectiveness.  Columbia Basin Coordinated Anadromous Monitoring Workshop.  Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, Portland, OR.
Chilcote, M.W., S.A. Leider, and J.J. Loch. 1986. Differential reproductive success of hatchery and wild summer-run steelhead under natural conditions.  Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115: 726-735.
Conover, D. O., S. B. Munch, and S. A. Arnott.  2009.  Reversal of evolutionary downsizing caused by selective harvest of large fish.  Proceedings of the Royal Society B.  doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0003.
Cramer, S. P., N. K. Ackerman, and J. B. Lando.  2005. Viability of Oregon Coastal Coho: Comments on Oregon’s 2005 Assessment. Report to Oregon Forest Industries Council and Douglas County. S.P. Cramer & Associates, Inc. Gresham, OR.
CRITFC (Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission). 1995. Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Ksih-Wit (Spirit of the Salmon). Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan of the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs and Yakama Tribes.
Cuenco, M. L., T. W. H. Backman, and P. R. Mundy. 1993. The use of supplementation to aid in natural stock restoration. Pages 269-293 in J. G. Cloud and G. H. Thorgaard, editors. Genetic conservation of salmonid fishes. Plenum Press, New York.
Currens, K.P., and C. Busack. 1995. A framework for assessing genetic vulnerability.  Fisheries 20:24-31.
Dunnigan, J. L., W. J. Bosch, and J. D. Hubble.  2002.  Preliminary results of an effort to re-introduce coho salmon in the Yakima River, Washington.  Pp. 53-75 in “Hatchery Reform:  the Science and the Practice”, Proceedings of the International Congress on the Biology of Fish, July, 2002, Don MacKinlay, editor, 555 West Hastings St., Vancouver BC  V6B 5G3  Canada.
Fast, D.  Design, Operation and Monitoring of a Production Scale Supplementation Research Facility. 2002. Pp. 23-36 in “Hatchery Reform:  the Science and the Practice”, Proceedings of the International Congress on the Biology of Fish, July, 2002, Don MacKinlay, editor, 555 West Hastings St., Vancouver BC  V6B 5G3  Canada.
Fritts, A.L., D.E Fast, A.R. Murdoch, W.J. Bosch, C.M. Knudsen, S.L. Schroder, K.I. Warheit, S.M. Blankenship, T.W. Kassler, C.A. Busack, M.V. Johnston, S.R. Nicolai, D.T. Lind, G.M. Temple, C.L. Johnson, C.R. Fredericksen, M. Porter, M.R. Sampson, and J.A. Easterbrooks.  2009.  " Spring Chinook Salmon Supplementation in Upper Yakima Basin: Yakama/Klickitat Fisheries Project Overview", 2008-2009 Annual Report, Project No. 199506425, 42 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/P114025).
Fraser, D. J.  2008.  How well can captive breeding programs conserve biodiversity? A review of salmonids.  Evolutionary Applications, 1:535-586.
Freudenthal, J., D. Lind, R. Visser, and P. Mees.  2005.  Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan.  Draft, October 19, 2005.  Available from Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board, PO Box 2662, Yakima, WA  98907. 
Galbreath, P.F., C.A. Beasley, B.A. Berejikian, R.W. Carmichael, D.E. Fast, M.J. Ford, J.A. Hesse, L.L. McDonald, A.R. Murdoch, C.M. Peven, and D.A. Venditti.  2008.  Recommendations for Broad Scale Monitoring To Evaluate the Effects of Hatchery Supplementation on the Fitness of Natural Salmon and Steelhead Populations.  Final Draft Report of the Ad Hoc Supplementation Monitoring and Evaluation Workgroup. 
Gallinat, M. P., and L. A. Ross.  2007.  Tucannon River Spring Chinook Salmon Hatchery Evaluation Program, 2006 Annual Report.  WDFW, Olympia, WA. 
Goodman, D. 2005. Selection equilibrium for hatchery and wild spawning fitness in integrated breeding programs. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62(2): 374-389.
Ham, K. D., and T. N. Pearsons.  2000.  Can reduced salmonid population abundance be detected in time to limit management impacts?  Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:17-24.
Ham, K. D., and T. N. Pearsons.  2001.  A practical approach for containing ecological risks associated with fish stocking programs.  Fisheries 25(4):15-23.
Hedrick, P.W., V.K. Rashbrook, and D. Hedgecock.  2000.  Effective population size of winter-run chinook salmon based on microsatellite analysis of returning spawners.  Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57(12): 2368–2373.
Heggenes, J., M. Beere, P. Tamkee, and E. B. Taylor.  2006.  Genetic diversity in steelhead before and after conservation hatchery operation in a coastal, boreal river.  Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:251-267.
Hindar, K., N. Ryman, and F. Utter. 1991.  Genetic effects of cultured fish on natural fish populations.  Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:945-957.
HSRG (Hatchery Scientific Review Group). 2005. Hatchery Reform in Washington State: Principles and Emerging Issues. Fisheries 30:11-23.
Hubble, J., T. Newsome, and J. Woodward.  2004.  Yakima coho master plan.  Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project, Toppenish, WA.  September, 2004.
ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2003.  ISAB Review of Salmon and Steelhead Supplementation.  ISAB 2003-3.
ISRP/ISAB (Independent Scientific Review Panel / Independent Scientific Advisory Board).  2005.  Monitoring and evaluation of supplementation projects.  October 14, 2005.  ISRP & ISAB 2005-15.
Johnson, C.L., T.N. Pearsons, and G. M. Temple. 2009.  Spring Chinook Salmon Interactions Indices and Residual/Precocious Male Monitoring in the Upper Yakima Basin; Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation.  Annual Report 2008.  
Kassler, T. W., D. K. Hawkins, and J. M. Tipping.  2008.  Summer-Run Hatchery Steelhead Have Naturalized in the South Fork Skykomish River, Washington.  Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:763-771.
Knudsen, C.M.  2009.  Reproductive Ecology of Yakima River Hatchery and Wild Spring Chinook.  Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation, Annual Report 2008.
Kreeger, K. E. and W. J. McNeil. 1993.  Summary and estimation of the historic run-sizes of anadromous salmonids in the Columbia and Yakima rivers.  Unpublished report prepared for the Yakima River Basin Coalition, Yakima, WA.
Leider, S. A., P. A. Hulett, J. J. Loch, and M. W. Chilcote. 1990. Electrophoretic comparison of the reproductive success of naturally spawning transplanted and wild steelhead trout through the returning adult stage. Aquaculture 88:239-252.
Mackey, G., J.E. McLean, and T.P.Quinn.  2001.  Comparisons of Run Timing, Spatial Distribution, and Length of Wild and Newly Established Hatchery Populations of Steelhead in Forks Creek, Washington.  North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21: 717-724.
McElhany, P., M. H. Rucklelshaus, M. J. Ford, T. C. Wainwright, and E. P. Bjorkstedt.  2000.  Viable Salmonid Populations and the Recovery of Evolutionarily Significant Units.  NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-42.  NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA.
McMichael, G. A., C. S. Sharpe, and T. N. Pearsons.  1997.  Effects of residual hatchery-reared steelhead on growth of wild rainbow trout and spring chinook salmon.  Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:230-239.
McMichael, G. A., and T. N. Pearsons.  1998.  Effects of wild juvenile spring chinook salmon on growth and abundance of wild rainbow trout.  Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:261-274.
McMichael, G. A., A. L. Fritts, and T. N. Pearsons. 1998. Electrofishing injury to stream salmonids: injury assessment at the sample, reach, and stream scales. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:894-904.
McMichael, G. A., A. L. Fritts, and J. L. Dunnigan. 1998. Lower Yakima River predatory fish census: feasibility study 1997. Pages 229-254 in Pearsons, T. N, and five coauthors. 1998. Yakima River species interactions studies, progress report 1995-1997. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.  (DOE/BP 64878-6).
McMichael, G. A., T. N. Pearsons, and S. A. Leider.  1999.  Behavioral interactions among hatchery-reared steelhead smolts and wild Oncorhynchus mykiss in natural streams.  North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19:948-956.
McMichael, G. A., T. N. Pearsons, and S. A. Leider.  1999.  Minimizing ecological impacts of hatchery-reared juvenile steelhead trout on wild salmonids in a Yakima Basin watershed.  Pages 365-380 in E. E. Knudson, C. R. Steward, D. D. MacDonald, J. E. Williams, and D. W. Reiser editors.  Sustainable fisheries management: Pacific salmon. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
McMichael, G. A. and T. N. Pearsons.  2001.  Upstream movement of residual hatchery steelhead into areas containing bull trout and cutthroat trout.  North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:517-520.
Mullan, J.W.  1983.  Overview of Artificial and Natural Propagation of Coho Salmon (Onchorhynchus kisutch) on the Mid-Columbia River.  Fisheries Assistance Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Leavenworth, Washington.  December 1983.
Mullan, J.W.  1986.  Determinants of sockeye salmon abundance in the Columbia River, 1880s-1982: a review and synthesis.  Biological Report 86(12), September 1986, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fisheries Assistance Office, Leavenworth, Washington.  
Murdoch, A. R., P. W. James, and T. N. Pearsons.  2005  Interactions between rainbow trout and bridgelip suckers spawning in a small Washington stream.  Northwest Science 79: 120-130.
Neeley, D.  2001.  Annual report: outmigration year 2000, part 2- Chandler certification and calibration (spring Chinook and coho).  Appendix E in Sampson and Fast, Yakama Nation "Monitoring And Evaluation", Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Final Report 2000 to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No. 00000650, Project No. 199506325, 265 electronic pages (BPA Report DOE/BP-00000650-1).
Neeley, D.  2006.  Annual report: Smolt Survival to McNary Dam of Year-2005 Spring Chinook Releases at Roza Dam.  Appendix E in Bosch and Fast, "Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project; Monitoring and Evaluation", 2005-2006 Annual Report, Project No. 199506325, 222 electronic pages (BPA Report DOE/BP-00022449-1).
Nehlsen, W., J. E. Williams, and J. A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads: Stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Fisheries 16: 4-21.
Nickum, J. G., H. L. Bart Jr., P. R. Bowser, I. E. Greer, C. Hubbs, J. A. Jenkins, J. R. MacMillan, F. W. Rachlin, R. D. Rose, P. W. Sorensen, and J. R. Tomasso.  2004. Guidelines for the use of fishes in research. American Fisheries Society, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, and the American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists. Available: http://www.fisheries.org/afs/publicpolicy/guidelines2004.pdf.
Nickelson, T.E., M.F. Solazzi, and S.L. Johnson. 1986. Use of hatchery coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) presmolts to rebuild wild populations in Oregon coastal streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:2443-2449.
NOAA. 2010. Recommendations for Implementing Research, Monitoring and Evaluation for the 2008 NOAA Fisheries FCRPS BiOp.  Based on AA/NOAA/NPCC RM&E Worgroup Assessments. Available at: http://www.salmonrecovery.gov/ResearchReportsPublications.aspx
NPCC (Northwest Power and Conservation Council).  2005.  Draft Columbia River Basin Research Plan.  November 2005.
NPCC (Northwest Power and Conservation Council).  2009. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program: 2009 Amendments.  Available at: http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/2009/2009-09.pdf.
NPCC (Northwest Power and Conservation Council).  2010. Draft Columbia River Basin Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, and Reporting (MERR) Plan. Council document 2010-4.
NPPC (Northwest Power Planning Council). 1994. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Adopted Nov. 15, 1982, amended Dec. 14, 1994.  Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR.
NPPC (Northwest Power Planning Council). 2000. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.  Council document 2000-19.
NRC (National Research Council). 1996.  Upstream: Salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
Parties to United States v. Oregon.  1988.  Columbia River Fish Management Plan.  October 7, 1988.  Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.  Portland, Oregon.
Pearsons, T. N., and A. L. Fritts.  1999.  Maximum size of chinook salmon consumed by juvenile coho salmon.  North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19:165-170.
Pearsons, T. N., and C. W. Hopley.  1999.  A practical approach for assessing ecological risks associated with fish stocking programs.  Fisheries 24(9):16-23.
Pearsons, T.N. 2002. Chronology of ecological interactions associated with the life-span of salmon supplementation programs. Fisheries 27(12):10-15.
Pearsons, T. N., S. R. Phelps, S. W. Martin, E. L. Bartrand, and G. A. McMichael.  2007.  Gene flow between resident and anadromous rainbow trout in the Yakima Basin: Ecological and genetic evidence.  Pages 56-64 in R. K. Schroeder and J. D. Hall, editors.  Redband trout: resilience and challenge in a changing landscape.  Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon.
Pearsons, T. N., G. M. Temple, C. L. Johnson, and T. D. Webster.  2007.  Impacts of early stages of salmon supplementation and reintroduction programs on non-target fish taxa.  Pages 29-73 in T. N. Pearsons, G. M. Temple, A. L. Fritts, C. L. Johnson, and T. D. Webster.  Ecological interactions between non-target taxa of concern and hatchery supplemented salmon: Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project monitoring and evaluation program annual report 2006.  Submitted to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.  (YKFP 2007 NTTOC P102831)
Pearsons, T. N., C. L. Johnson, and G. M.Temple. 2008.  Spring Chinook Salmon Interactions Indices and Residual/Precocious Male Monitoring in the Upper Yakima Basin; Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation.  Annual Report 2008.  DOE/BP-00034450.
Pearsons, T.N. 2008. Misconception, reality, and uncertainty about ecological interactions and risks between hatchery and wild salmonids. Fisheries 33(6):278-290.
Pearsons, T. N.  2010.  Operating Hatcheries within an Ecosystem Context Using the Adaptive Stocking Concept.  Fisheries 35:23-31.
Phillips, J.L., J. Ory and A. Talbot.  2000.  Anadromous salmonid recovery in the Umatilla River Basin, Oregon: A case study.  Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1287-1308. Dec 2000.
Plumb, J.M., C.M. Moffitt, and W.P. Connor.  2009.  Hatchery Supplementation Success and the Juvenile Life-History of Wild-Reared Fall Chinook Salmon in the Lower Snake River, Idaho.  AFS poster presentation, national meeting, Nashville, TN, Sept. 2009.
RASP (Regional Assessment of Supplementation Planning). 1992. Supplementation in the Columbia River Basin, Parts 1-5. Report DOE/BP 01830-11, Bonneville Power Administration.     
Reisenbichler, R. R, and J. D. McIntyre. 1977. Genetic differences in growth and survival of juvenile hatchery and wild steelhead trout, Salmo gairdneri. Journal of Fishery Research Board of Canada 34:123-128.
Reisenbichler, R.R.. 1997. Genetic factors contributing to declines of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest.  Pages 223-244 in D.J. Stouder, P.A. Bisson, and R.J. Naiman, eds. Pacific Salmon & their Ecosystems: Status and Future Options.  Chapman.
Salafsky, N., R. Margoluis, and K. Redford. 2001. Adaptive management: A tool for conservation practitioners. Washington, D.C.: Biodiversity Support Program. Available at: http://www.fosonline.org/Site_Docs/AdaptiveManagementTool.pdf
Sampson, M, D. Fast, and B. Bosch.  2009. "Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project; Monitoring and Evaluation", Final Report for the Performance Period May 1, 2008 through April 30, 2009, Project No. 199506325, 304 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP-00037822-1). 
Sharma, R, G. Morishima, S. Wang, A. Talbot, and L. Gilbertson.  2006.  An evaluation of the Clearwater River supplementation program in western Washington.  Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Volume 63, Number 2, 1 February 2006, pp. 423-437(15).
Smoker, W.A. 1956. Evaluation to the potential salmon and steelhead production of the Yakima River to the commercial and recreational fisheries. Washington Department of Fisheries. Report Number  01, 136.
Steffensen, K.D., L.A. Powell, and J.D. Koch.  2010. Assessment of Hatchery-Reared Pallid Sturgeon Survival in the Lower Missouri River.  North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30:671-678.
Stewart-Oaten, A., W. W. Murdoch, and K. R. Parker.  1986.  Environmental impact assessment: “pseudoreplication” in time?  Ecology 67:929-940.
TAC (Parties to U.S. v. Oregon, Technical Advisory Committee).  1997.  Columbia River Fish Management Plan, All Species Review 1996.  August 1997.  Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.  Portland, Oregon.
Temple, G. M., and T. N. Pearsons. 2007. Electrofishing: Backpack and Driftboat.  Pages 95-132 in D. L. Johnson and 6 editors. Salmonid Field Protocol Handbook. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.  (Protocols Handbook Chapter 3).
Temple, G. M., T. D. Webster, and T. N. Pearsons.  2007.  Abundance, size, and distribution of mainstem Yakima River rainbow trout.  Pages 122-136 in T. N. Pearsons, G. M. Temple, A. L. Fritts, C. L. Johnson, and T. D. Webster.  Ecological interactions between non-target taxa of concern and hatchery supplemented salmon: Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project monitoring and evaluation program annual report 2006.  Submitted to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.  (YKFP 2007 NTTOC P102831).
Temple, G.M., T.N. Pearsons, A.L. Fritts, C.L. Johnson, T.D. Webster, Z. Mays, and G. Stotz.  2009.  Ecological Interactions between Non-target Taxa of Concern and Hatchery Supplemented Salmon.  Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation Report.  Annual Report 2008.
Thomas, J. B.  2007.  Pathogen Screening of Naturally Produced Yakima River Spring Chinook Smolts; Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation Report.  Annual Report 2006. 
Tymchuk, W. E., C. Biagi, R. Withler, and R. H. Devlin.  2006.  Growth and behavioral consequences of introgression of a domesticated aquaculture genotype into a native strain of coho salmon.  Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:442-455.
Utter, F. M. 2004. Population genetics, conservation and evolution in salmonids and other widely cultured fishes: some perspectives over six decades. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 14: 125-144.
Waples, R.S. 1991. Genetic interactions of hatchery and wild salmonids: lessons from the Pacific Northwest. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48(Supplement 1): 124-133.
Waples, R.S. and J. Drake. 2002. Towards a Risk/Benefit Analysis for Salmon Supplementation. Unpublished manuscript, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. East, Seattle, Washington 98112. 
Williams, R. N., W. E. McConnaha, P. R. Mundy, J. A. Stanford, R. R. Whitney, P. A. Bisson, D. L. Bottom, L. D. Calvin, C. C. Coutant, M. W. Erho Jr., C. A. Frissell, J. A. Lichatowich, and W. J. Liss. 1999. Return to the River: Scientific issues in the restoration of salmonid fishes in the Columbia River. Fisheries 24(3):10-19.
Yakama Nation.  2005.  Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Master Plan.  Yakama Nation Fisheries Resource Management.  Toppenish, WA.  Peer-reviewed by the Independent Scientific Review Panel, available at:  http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2006-5.pdf. 
YN  (Yakama Indian Nation now known as Yakama Nation), Washington Department of Fisheries and Washington Department of Wildlife.  1990.  Yakima River sub-basin: salmon and steelhead production plan.  Columbia Fish and Wildlife Authority, Portland, Oregon.  September 1, 1990.  237 pages.
YSFWPB.  2004a.  Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board.  Final draft Yakima subbasin plan.  Prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council.  May 28, 2004.
YSFWPB.  2004b.  Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board.  Management Plan Supplement, Yakima Subbasin Plan.  Prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council.  November 26, 2004.
YBFWRB.  2009.  2009 Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan.  Extracted from the 2005 Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan with updates.  Final, August 2009.  Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board, Yakima, WA.
YBFWRB (Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board).  2010.  Yakima Basin Habitat Restoration Projects funded by Washington’s Salmon Recovery Board & National Fish and Wildlife Foundation through the Community Salmon Fund, 1999-2009.  Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board, Yakima, WA.  Available online at:  http://www.ybfwrb.org/Library/YakimaSRFBprojectbook.pdf.
See also https://efw.bpa.gov/searchpublications/ and ykfp.org “Technical reports and publications” for additional references on this project.

Notes

None

RME / AP Category Review Assessments

Review: RME / AP Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Final Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	1995-063-25-ISRP-20101015
Project:	1995-063-25 - Yakima River Monitoring and Evaluation-Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP)
Review:	RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number:	RMECAT-1995-063-25
Completed Date:	12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date:	12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
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.
First Round ISRP Date:	10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating:	Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
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.
Documentation Links:	Proponent Response (11/15/2010)
Proponent Response:
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.