1

RRS Project Review

Project ID: 1995-063-251

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

Short Description: This comprehensive project includes RME of hatchery and wild fish populations, as well as monitoring for habitat, harvest, and predation in the Yakima River basin. Specific research is designed to determine whether it is possible to change hatchery practices so that natural spawning populations of salmon receive biological benefits from a hatchery program. The project is also examining whether these same hatchery practices can be managed to limit deleterious impacts on non-enhanced fish populations. This project’s RME of hatchery and fish population are highly intertwined and are not necessarily independent from one another. The project has a small research component related to RRS, which has focused on spawning behavior and other mechanisms in an artificial spawning channel that may affect RRS. First-generation hatchery and wild spring Chinook salmon from the upper Yakima River were placed into an artificial stream and allowed to spawn. The RRS spawning channel portion of the project has come to a close.

Sponsor: Yakama Nation & Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

BiOp association: 2008 FCRPS

RPA 50.6 Review/modify existing fish pop status monitoring projects, RPA 50.7 Fund marking of hatchery releases from AA funded facilities, RPA 62.4 Support coded-wire tagging to hatchery rates, RPA 62.5 Investigate feasibility of genetic stock id techniques, RPA 64.2 Determine if artificial production contributes to recovery

Is this an Accord project? Yes BPA Budget (2008 to present):

BPA Total $49,854,108 (FY08 to FY17) FY16 $ 5,383,862 RRS budget Total $ 84,747 (FY13) Cost Share No cost share is reported

1 This is not one of the six exclusively RRS projects, but it has RRS linkages.

2

Proposal from last Categorical Review:

https://www.cbfish.org/Proposal.mvc/Summary/RMECAT-1995-063-25

Most recent Council recommendation:

https://www.cbfish.org/Assessment.mvc/CouncilRecommendationAssessmentSummary/Assessment/1995-063-25-NPCC-20110124

Date of most recent annual report available on Pisces/cbfish?

Spring Chinook Salmon Supplementation in the Upper Yakima Basin: Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Overview; 1/15 - 12/15. Submitted: June, 2016. https://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/DocumentViewer.aspx?doc=P148877

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation Yakima Subbasin Annual Report. Submitted: September, 2015. https://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/DocumentViewer.aspx?doc=P144828

WDFW YKPF M&E 2014 Report. Submitted: November, 2015 https://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/DocumentViewer.aspx?doc=P145514

Short summary of project reporting compliance: Sponsors were generally on time with all annual reports. They have also published extensively in peer-reviewed journals.

Summary of the scope of the RRS project as it was reviewed by Council: This project is characterized as a “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 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, and natural production. The project is addressing four research questions: 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?

Summary of the scope of the RRS: The Yakima-Klickitat Fisheries Program (YKFP) has not evaluated RRS in the usual sense, but focused on behavioral and other mechanisms that may affect RRS. Scientists evaluated mixed (hatchery- or natural-origin) populations and allowed them to spawn in an artificial environment, where behavior was observed. This project attempted to evaluate all stocks historically

https://www.cbfish.org/Proposal.mvc/Summary/RMECAT-1995-063-25https://www.cbfish.org/Assessment.mvc/CouncilRecommendationAssessmentSummary/Assessment/1995-063-25-NPCC-20110124https://www.cbfish.org/Assessment.mvc/CouncilRecommendationAssessmentSummary/Assessment/1995-063-25-NPCC-20110124https://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/DocumentViewer.aspx?doc=P148877https://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/DocumentViewer.aspx?doc=P148877https://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/DocumentViewer.aspx?doc=P148877https://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/DocumentViewer.aspx?doc=P144828https://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/DocumentViewer.aspx?doc=P144828https://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/DocumentViewer.aspx?doc=P145514https://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/DocumentViewer.aspx?doc=P145514

3

present in the Yakima Subbasin and apply a combination of habitat restoration and hatchery supplementation or reintroduction, to restore the Yakima Subbasin ecosystem with sustainable and harvestable populations of salmon, steelhead and other at-risk species.

Has the scope of this project changed significantly since it was reviewed? Yes, the artificial spawning channel work that was conducted at the Cle Elum Research Hatchery evaluating the differences in spawning behavior and success between hatchery and wild spring Chinook salmon has closed. At this point the ongoing work regarding the Spring Chinook salmon is more of a supplementation study than an RRS study.

ISRP/AB Critical Uncertainties Appendix D review:

http://www.nwcouncil.org/media/7149871/isabisrp2016-1appendixd.pdf#page=177

Comments: This project has a strong links to the 2014 FCRPS BiOp, and will likely be as important to the next iteration thereof. The sponsor has addressed Council recommendations since the review, has been timely with all required deliverables and contracting deadlines, they have published extensively in peer-reviewed journals, and the quality of their work is wide ranging and of good quality. Additional information can be found in Schroder et al., 2008 and Schroder et al., 2010.

Questions to all project sponsors with RRS studies:

• How does this project inform (1) the Council’s Research Plan and (2) the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program objectives?

• Can any results from this study be extrapolated to other geographic locations or other populations?

• How does the Idaho Supplementation Study inform this project? • Does this project have any of the following elements:

(a) A scientific question (b) A hypothesis (c) A specific time frame within which to answer the question posed

• How was it determined which species or geographic area to study? • How does this effort work or collaborate with other RRS projects on aspects of the study

(methodology, data and conclusions)? • How does density dependence factor in to this study moving forward?

Questions relative to this project:

• Has the RRS phase of this project come to an end? If so what were the significant insights or outcomes of the RRS work? If RRS work is continuing, what hypotheses are being investigated?

• What are the findings of the closed Cle Elum research hatchery work that investigated spawning behavior and success between hatchery and wild spring Chinook? Was this work published?

http://www.nwcouncil.org/media/7149871/isabisrp2016-1appendixd.pdf%23page=177http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/T07-123.1http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/T08-143.1http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/isab/isab2015-1/

NPCC Relative Reproductive SuccessProject Review

1996-063-25Yakima River / YKFP Monitoring & Evaluation

October 13, 2016

Presented by: Bill Bosch, Yakama Nation

Estimates of Historical Anadromous Fish Runs in the Yakima Subbasin as Compared to

YKFP Planning era Run Size

Species Pre-1900 Run

1980s Average

Fall Chinook 132,000 600

Spring Chinook 200,000 4,200

Summer Chinook 68,000 0

Coho 110,000 200

Summer Steelhead 80,500 1,800

Sockeye 200,000 0

RRS for this project relates toCle Elum

Supplementation and Research Facility

(CESRF) Spring Chinook

1996-063-25Yakima River / YKFP Monitoring & Evaluation

1997 2001 2005 2009 2013

1st Brood

Integrated HxWspawning in the wild

Integrated F1 progeny return

Integrated F2 progeny return

Integrated F3 progeny return

“Supplementation is 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”.

Regional Assessment of Supplementation Project (1992)

JUVENILE TRAITS Emergence Timing

Kd at Emergence

Egg-fry Survival

Developmental Abnormalities

Fry-Smolt Survival

Juvenile morphology

Smolt survival

Natural Smolt Survival

Smolt-Adult Survival

Outmigration Timing

Food Conversion

Length-Weight

Agonistic/Competitive Behavior

Predator Avoidance

Precocialism

Roza Dam Fish Monitoring Facilities

Adult Monitoring Facility

Roza Irrigation Canal

Juvenile Sampling Facility

ADULT TRAITS MONITORED

Adult Recruits

Age Composition

Sex-at-Age

Sex Ratio/Age

Run Timing

Spawn Timing

Fecundity

Egg Size

Reproductive Effort

Fertility

Morphology

Spawning Behavior

Spawning Success

Life History Trait Differences, etc.

Knudsen et al. 2006, 2008Busack et al. 2007

0

20

40

60

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Age-4 Female Post-eye lengths

WN SH

0

20

40

60

80

100

15-Apr 15-May 15-Jun 15-Ju

Mean Passage Timing at Roza

WN SH

SH: more age-3s, smaller, later run timing, earlier spawn timing, and different body shapes than WN.If same size, no difference in fecundity or egg mass for females.

Residual/Precocious Wild and Hatchery Spring Chinook

Work by Larsen et al., Pearsons et al., and Knudsen indicate large proportion of hatchery-origin mini-jack and jack production

But Knudsen work for this study indicates no difference in returning HO and NO age-4 and age-5 male proportions

Other Ecological Risks

Ecological interactions within adopted guidelines Stray rates < 5% Pathogen and BKD risk profiles very low

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

PNI pHOS

Gene Flow: Proportionate Natural Influence

Means: PNI = 66%, pHOS = 54%

pHOS pNOBpNOBPNI +

=

pNOB: proportion natural-origin broodstockpHOS: proportion hatchery-origin spawners

DOMESTICATION –HYPOTHETICAL OUTCOMES

TIME

HC

TR

AIT

swc

-4 -2 0 2 4 6

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Axis of Variation

Den

sity

|| || | | | || || || || || || || || | | || | || || || ||| || | || | || || | ||| | ||| |||| ||| | || | | | ||| | ||| | || ||| ||| | || || | ||| || ||| || || ||| |||| || ||| || | || || || | |||| || ||| || | ||| | ||| ||||| | ||| || ||| || ||||| || | || | | || || | ||| | || ||| || || ||| || | || ||| | ||| || | ||| ||| || || || ||| || || || | ||| || | || || || | || || || ||| || ||||| || || || ||| | || || | ||||||| || | | | |||| | | || ||| ||| | || | || | ||| || || | || ||| || || | |||| | ||| ||| || || || | | || || ||| | | |||| || | || || | || | || ||| || | || || || ||| |||| || | || | | || | ||| ||| | |||| | ||| | || | |||| || | || || || || || || ||| || || |

SPAWNING CHANNEL - Constructed summer 2000

RRS: Survival to FrySchroder et al. 2008, 2010

W/N H

Males 1.00 1.00

Females 1.00 0.94

07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15

Hatchery-reared fish, H (parents were N)Natural-origin, N

Three types of matings in the wild:Natural x Natural (N x N)Hatchery x natural (H x N)Hatchery x hatchery (H x H)

Natural-origin (wild-spawned) F2s

Whole River Pedigree Study(with 2009-009-00)

16 17 18

Challenge:Number of Samples

Advantage: Stat. Power

Upper Yakima vs Naches Natural-Origin Returns, 1982-2015

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

UpperYak Naches

Upp. Yak. Naches

Pre-Supp. 3,103 1,394

Post-Supp. 3,589 1,232

% Change +15.7 -11.6

Chart1

19821982

19831983

19841984

19851985

19861986

19871987

19881988

19891989

19901990

19911991

19921992

19931993

19941994

19951995

19961996

19971997

19981998

19991999

20002000

20012001

20022002

20032003

20042004

20052005

20062006

20072007

20082008

20092009

20102010

20112011

20122012

20132013

20142014

41641350

UpperYak

Naches

1680.5871529652

112.8837469449

1194.6836317786

139.6062347987

2015.8534346838

431.9895075763

3294.3491742829

847.7192884194

4624.2665158929

3113.258741818

2384.406677634

1383.5449950909

1666.5546069579

1595.0448042689

3055.4361690189

1216.1397341355

2732.157746761

1134.570034554

1772.802303263

714.4072435951

3314.3966109307

921.8918439203

1990.2597581838

1183.7033975045

584.0924865021

483.003952096

413.3762216444

140.8863379291

1948.6313733203

1043.1386182719

1761.3189660799

949.4491909551

853.6777477632

575.5373565299

2187.0949952142

507.6929879621

13632.1111705777

4440.3820762818

6902.9813713208

4944.261629986

3120.8833527029

2281.7606632984

1722.9436721023

1520.7874559425

8509.5718978927

2376.1131729056

5424.2621325206

1528.2716652087

2255.4711078991

1275.8711720488

1391.1063072245

496.5185649051

1902.6735638691

1217.0448124039

3572.875081345

1063.0077478483

3356.725639717

1078.1731872466

5243.9041825

2316.5256842923

3757

1425

3618

945.7044039938

4794

855

Sheet1

YearUpperYakNaches

19821,681113

19831,195140

19842,016432

19853,294848

19864,6243,113

19872,3841,384

19881,6671,595

19893,0551,216

19902,7321,135

19911,773714

19923,314922

19931,9901,184

1994584483

1995413141

19961,9491,043

19971,761949

1998854576

19992,187508

200013,6324,440

20016,9034,944

20023,1212,282

20031,7231,521

20048,5102,376

20055,4241,528

20062,2551,276

20071,391497

20081,9031,217

20093,5731,063

20103,3571,078

20115,2442,317

20123,7571,425

20133,618946

20144,794855

20154,1641,350

Density Dependence?

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000

Ret

urn

Rat

e

Estimated wild/natural Spawners

Upper Yakima Spring Chinook Productivity per Spawner, Brood Years 1984-2010

Before

After

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Ret

urn

Rat

e

Estimated wild/natural Spawners

Naches Subbasin Spring Chinook Productivity per Spawner, Brood Years 1984-2010

Before

After

Or Altered River Systems?

Kennedy, T.A., J.D. Muehlbauer, C.B. Yackulic, D.A. Lytle, S.W. Miller, K.L. Dibble, E.W. Kortenhoeven, A.N. Metcalfe,

and C.V. Baxter. 2016. Flow Management for Hydropower Extirpates Aquatic Insects, Undermining

River Food Webs. BioScience 66:561-575.

“Our study reveals a life history bottleneck that precludes viable populations of many aquatic

insects from inhabiting regulated rivers.”

Summary of CESRF Integrated Program Findings (Fast et al. 2015)

Spawner Abundance, Spatial Distribution, and Harvest increased

Natural-origin returns were maintained

Managed gene flow reduced genetic divergence

Ecological Interactions parameters were maintained within established guidelines

Habitat and water management factors continue to limit natural productivity; supplementation likely necessary until these factors are fully addressed

Results very consistent with Venditti et al. Idaho Supplementation Studies final report

“Unless factors limiting abundance are ameliorated, increases resulting from supplementation are unlikely to persist. Supplementation had few effects on population

productivity. Supplementation is useful as part of an integrated management approach to maintain population

abundance in the face of poor conditions. Post-supplementation results show that temporary benefits can be achieved while keeping ecological costs low. However, supplementation alone is not a panacea because it does not correct fundamental limiting factors; these limiting factors must be addressed to achieve population levels

capable of sustaining ecological function and management opportunities such as harvest.”

Venditti et al. (2015) – Idaho Studies

NPCC Relative Reproductive SuccessProject Review

1996-063-25Yakima River / YKFP Monitoring & Evaluation

THANK YOU!!

Questions?

t.pdfNPCC Relative Reproductive Success�Project Review��1996-063-25�Yakima River / YKFP Monitoring & Evaluation��October 13, 2016��Presented by: Bill Bosch, Yakama NationSlide Number 2Slide Number 3Slide Number 4Slide Number 5Slide Number 6JUVENILE TRAITS Slide Number 8ADULT TRAITS MONITOREDLife History Trait Differences, etc.Slide Number 11Slide Number 12Slide Number 13DOMESTICATION – HYPOTHETICAL OUTCOMESSlide Number 15Slide Number 16Whole River Pedigree Study�(with 2009-009-00)Slide Number 18Density Dependence?Or Altered River Systems?Summary of CESRF Integrated Program Findings (Fast et al. 2015)Slide Number 22NPCC Relative Reproductive Success�Project Review��1996-063-25�Yakima River / YKFP Monitoring & Evaluation��THANK YOU!!��Questions?