Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2003-063-00 - Natural Reproductive Success and Demographic Effects of Hatchery-Origin Steelhead in Abernathy Creek, Washington Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2003-063-00 - Natural Reproductive Success and Demographic Effects of Hatchery-Origin Steelhead in Abernathy Creek, Washington
Project Number:
2003-063-00
Title:
Natural Reproductive Success and Demographic Effects of Hatchery-Origin Steelhead in Abernathy Creek, Washington
Summary:
Our goal is to determine the natural reproductive success and mean relative fitness of hatchery-origin (HOR) and natural-origin (NOR) steelhead and assess the demographic effects of hatchery fish supplementation in Abernathy Creek relative to two adjacent control streams. The long-term contribution of stocked fish to recruitment of steelhead populations is unknown. Because stocking is only one of several management options for this species, it is critical to learn additional information about factors limiting hatchery production and natural recruitment processes. Information on the effect of rearing technique, size and physiological status of stocked fish, propensity of stocked fish to residualize, and genetic contribution is needed to optimize use of hatchery produced fish while simultaneously conserving wild stocks. We initiated our study by creating steelhead broodstock by captively rearing NOR juveniles to sexual maturity. Since 2003 we have released approximately 20,000 HOR steelhead smolts annually. Our results indicate that the timing of HOR and NOR smolts emigrating out of Abernathy has been similar and that populations among streams has remained relatively constant among years. However, emigrating HOR juvenile fish differ physiologically and morphologically compared to NOR fish and may be less prepared to emigrate into saltwater. As a result the number of residual HOR fish has
doubled since 2004. These residual HOR fish may negatively effect NOR fish via intraspecific competition. Since there is a high level of genetic variability in Abernathy steelhead and the broodstock created with these procedures have returned as adults and reproduced naturally, we will be able to determine reproductive success and demographic effects of hatchery fish supplementation in subsequent years.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Govt - Federal)
Starting FY:
2003
Ending FY:
2019
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Basinwide - 100.00%
Purpose:
Artificial Production
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - All Anadromous Populations
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - Southwest Washington/Columbia River ESU
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Lower Columbia River DPS
Trout, Rainbow
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Sites of interest on Abernathy Creek: AFTC, stationary PIT tag antenna arrays, and HOR steelhead release point. Electrofishing locations are numbered and denoted as L (lower), M (middle), and U (upper), TR (tributary), and DB (downstream of AFTC).

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P124372

Document: Natural Reproductive Success and Demographic Effects of Hatchery-Origin Steelhead in Abernathy Creek, Washington; 1/11 - 12/11

Page Number: 13

Project: 2003-063-00

Contract: 51233


Summary of Budgets

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

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2017 (Previous) $590,072 $590,072 $590,056 $590,056 $511,270

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $590,072 $590,056 $590,056 $511,270
FY2018 (Current) $293,099 $293,099 $293,099 $293,099 $384,624

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $293,099 $293,099 $293,099 $384,624
FY2019 (Next) $146,549 $146,549 $146,549 $146,549 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $146,549 $146,549 $146,549 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Aug-2018

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2017 - FY2019)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2017 Expense $590,072 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY17 SOY Budgets 06/02/2016
FY2018 Expense $293,099 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY18 SOY Budgets 07/17/2017
FY2019 Expense $146,549 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) Q2 FY19 Flat Budgets 09/07/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2018
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
2015 (Draft)
2014 $132,500 18 %
2013 $137,000 19 %
2012 $137,000 19 %
2011 $205,000 29 %
2010 $205,000 30 %
2009 $205,000 30 %
2008 $160,793 25 %

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-005562 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Cr Active $7,500 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
BPA-003722 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Creek Active $6,250 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2008
BPA-004209 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Cr Active $6,250 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
BPA-004868 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Cr Active $4,500 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
BPA-005723 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Creek Active $4,303 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
BPA-006391 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Creek Active $8,130 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-006951 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Creek Active $7,616 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-007738 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Creek Active $6,776 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
BPA-008419 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Creek Active $2,252 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
BPA-008948 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Creek Active $6,401 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
BPA-009533 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Creek Active $3,859 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
74723 SOW US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2003-063-00 EXP REPRO SUCCESS ABERNATHY CREEK Issued $586,197 1/1/2017 - 12/31/2017
78003 SOW US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2003-063-00 EXP REPRO SUCCESS ABERNATHY CREEK Issued $293,099 1/1/2018 - 12/31/2018
CR-326367 SOW US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2003-063-00 EXP REPRO SUCCESS ABERNATHY CREEK Pending $146,549 1/1/2019 - 12/31/2019



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):14
Completed:13
On time:13
Status Reports
Completed:53
On time:36
Avg Days Late:0

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
16522 25708, 36369, 40846, 45565, 51233, 55849, 59842, 64022, 67795, 71238, 74723, 78003 PI 200306300 REPRO SUCCESS ABERNATHY CREEK US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 02/2004 02/2004 Pending 53 328 14 0 2 344 99.42% 1
BPA-005562 PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Cr Bonneville Power Administration 10/2006 10/2006 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-003722 PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Creek Bonneville Power Administration 10/2007 10/2007 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004209 PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Cr Bonneville Power Administration 10/2008 10/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004868 PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Cr Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005723 PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Creek Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006391 PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Creek Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006951 PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Creek Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007738 PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Creek Bonneville Power Administration 10/2013 10/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008419 PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Creek Bonneville Power Administration 10/2014 10/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008948 PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Creek Bonneville Power Administration 10/2015 10/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009533 PIT Tags - Repro Success Abernathy Creek Bonneville Power Administration 10/2016 10/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 53 328 14 0 2 344 99.42% 1


Review: RME / AP Category Review

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 2003-063-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 2003-063-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2003-063-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Supports 2008 FCRPS BiOp
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: No BiOp Workgroup comments

The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: (62.5 64.2)
All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and
All Deleted RPA Associations ( 63.1 64.1 )
Proponent Response:

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2003-063-00-ISRP-20101015
Project: 2003-063-00 - Natural Reproductive Success and Demographic Effects of Hatchery-Origin Steelhead in Abernathy Creek, Washington
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2003-063-00
Completed Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The proponents provided much more detailed data to address the ISRP’s questions, and these data were very useful. In particular proponents have responded favorably to our suggestion to develop methods to include adult steelhead abundance estimates in Abernathy and extrapolated to Germany and Mill Creek for an evaluation of supplementation.

One question that was not addressed, and perhaps we failed to emphasize it, was the actual number of individuals that were assigned to single or parent pairs in the parentage analysis, and how many individuals that were genotyped were not assigned to a parent. The numbers (and proportion) of fish not assigned needs to be presented and adequately discussed in any future proposal for completion of this project.

The challenge with this project is not executing the lab work but the logistics of the field work, namely, to meet the sample sizes required to have sufficient data. From the ISRP perspective, the question posed circa 2000, about establishing a broodstock using wild parr and producing smolts and subsequent anadromous adults from them has been answered. The questions for which support is currently being provided are the relative reproductive success of hatchery versus natural origin steelhead and the demographic consequences of supplementation. Since Germany, Mill, and Abernathy Creeks are intended to serve as reference and treatment locations respectively, the near genetic equilibrium among them, with the conclusion they have large amounts of gene flow, complicates any analysis. The challenge is twofold: First, for a demographic analysis you need a reasonable estimate of the adult progeny produced from natural spawning. If the three streams are functionally panmictic, adults attributed to one stream based on redd counts may have originated in one of the other streams. Second, if the implied large proportion of unassigned adults or juveniles is owing to adults that avoided capture at the electric weir, effort is being expended on genotyping individuals for which no useful conclusion can be reached.

Unless all of these logistical challenges can be resolved in future proposals, this project should be designed to complete the RRS and supplementation evaluation tasks over the next few years, and then be concluded. The project should be included in the Columbia River Hatchery Effects Evaluation project as part of consideration of basinwide evaluation. If the data are not suitable for meaningful evaluation the project should be brought to a reasonable conclusion.

If the logistic challenges can be resolved this study will provide an important replicate of the relative reproductive success of hatchery steelhead developed from a local broodstock, adding to the range of locations to help meet BiOp needs.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
The ISRP requests a response that provides two primary items.

1. The response should provide a succinct, yet complete, presentation of the accomplishments of all facets of the project.

This includes:
• the number of parr collected each year to establish broodstocks the smolts released from these initial broodstocks
• the estimates of smolts leaving the system from these releases and those residualized in the stream
• natural smolt yield before beginning supplementation
• adult returns to the stream from natural and hatchery production (by release year)
• estimates of steelhead spawning below the hatchery weir site
• numbers of hatchery and natural steelhead passed above the weir for natural spawning
• estimates of juvenile (parr or smolt) production from natural spawning by natural and hatchery-origin adults, and
• estimates of RRS of hatchery and natural-origin adults.

The presentation should include the primary data (actual counts of fish), analysis of the primary data, interpretation of the analysis, and use of this interpretation to justify the approach to completing the study design in the 2003 proposal.

The submitted proposal and presentation to the ISRP often provide conclusions without transparent supporting data. Portions of the proposal and presentation are contradictory. And within the proposal, conclusions in various places are often contradictory or cannot be easily associated with specific data.

As an example, in the proposal in the accomplishments section there is a statement: steelhead smolt production has declined in the last few years in Abernathy Creek, whereas Germany and Mill Creeks (control streams) have been more variable (figure 1). These results suggest that this supplementation strategy may have negative consequences from either HOR smolt release or HOR adults spawning in the wild. Slide 9 in the presentation has bullet points stating that smolt production is equivalent between pre- and post-hatchery production years and that HOR emigration rates, timing, and patterns are similar to NOR fish. The text accompanying the presentation states: “These results suggest that smolt production within Abernathy Creek has not been negatively effected by hatchery production thus far.”

A second example: the proposal accomplishments section states that, “Improper synchrony of HOR physiological processes associated with smolt transformation may increase the percent of HOR fish that elect to remain in fresh water or reduce survival. The consistent differences we have observed in HOR and NOR steelhead physiology and morphology may be positively related to the proportion of HOR fish that remain in Abernathy Creek (residualize) annually.”

But in the next paragraph: “we evaluated spatial and seasonal overlap in habitat use and behavior between yearling HOR steelhead released from the AFTC and NOR salmonids. During spring, the majority of HOR smolts migrated downstream and left the system soon after each of three releases, whereas NOR smolt migration was more protracted following a normal distribution with one central peak. This suggests that the highest potential for ecological interaction between NOR and HOR at the smolt life states occurs downstream of the release location and within the first few days after each release.” Later in the same paragraph: “Our results suggest that there is a potential for hatchery fish to affect wild steelhead populations due to dietary overlap and salmonid fry predation.”

In the adaptive management section the proposal states: “Our results suggest that a small portion (1% - 7%) of HOR released smolts did not emigrate.”

For most of the essential production, demographic, and genetic objectives there is similar inconsistency within the proposal.

2. The response should also address the qualifications identified by the ISRP in the 2007 review. The 2007 ISRP review summary stated:

“The sponsors made a diligent effort to rapidly respond to the ISRP’s questions. For the most part, however, their answers are only partially satisfactory. One major difficulty with this project lies with the comparison of adult abundance estimates in the reference streams (Germany and Mill Creeks) and the treatment stream (Abernathy Creek). The sponsor’s are apparently unable to verify (with presently collected data) assumptions involved with redd counts, which will be used to assess adult abundance in the reference streams. The response lacks a description of how the error associated with the abundance estimates will be assessed, and there is difficulty in accurately assessing other demographic characteristics such as sex ratio, age structure, and redds per female. The sponsors fail to plainly explain how they will account for confounding effects, such as habitat restoration actions, planned sometime in the future for Germany and Mill Creeks.”

The recently submitted proposal continues to emphasize the opportunity to contrast production, demography, and genetic evaluations in reference and treatment streams. The proposal executive summary states: “We have started to compare the reproductive success and demographic changes (to both juvenile steelhead production and adult returns) occurring within Abernathy Creek to two control streams (i.e. Germany and Mill creeks) to determine whether supplementation was successful...”

However, the accomplishment section provides no data on adults in Germany and Mill creeks. None of the objectives identify a demographic comparison of adults in reference streams to a treatment stream, and there are no objectives to obtain data on adult steelhead in Germany and Mill creeks.

The ISRP raised concerns in the 2007 review about the sufficiency of data to assess and interpret relative reproductive success (for a variety of reasons), and demographic consequences of supplementation (for a variety of reasons) (see 2007 review). These concerns need to be resolved during this response loop.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (11/15/2010)

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2003-063-00-NPCC-20110125
Project: 2003-063-00 - Natural Reproductive Success and Demographic Effects of Hatchery-Origin Steelhead in Abernathy Creek, Washington
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-2003-063-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement through FY 2014. Implementation beyond 2014 based on ISRP and Council review of the results report and/or outcome of a regional hatchery effects evaluation process.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #6 Research projects in general—.
Council Condition #2 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #4 Hatchery Effectiveness—.
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2003-063-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2003-063-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Patricia Crandell Project Lead US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Maureen Kavanagh Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Kyle Hanson Technical Contact US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Michelle Guay (Inactive) Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Ronald Twibell Technical Contact US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
roger root US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)