FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 199105500

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Reason for change in estimated budget

The costs of implementing and evaluating NATURES concepts in Columbia River Basin Hatcheries as called for by RPA 170, 171, 172, and 173 requires more supplies, material, and personnel costs than evaluations conducted at laboratory and pilot scales

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

The current proposal has two major foci. Objectives 1 and 2 test NATURES rearing habitat components (cover, structure, and substrate) at production hatchery scale and to determine interaction effects between rearing habitat variables assessed based on smolt-to-adult survival (design to detect a 20% difference between treatments with 80% power), and secondly to investigate benefits of predator conditioning to juvenile migratory and adult survival (same power). Research under Objectives 3 and 4 is intended to help determine ecological risks and benefits of release of NATURES reared under yearling steelhead to cohabit stream environments with wild cohorts (steelhead and spring Chinook). The latter studies to be conducted in experimental channels and observation flumes already available at NMFS facilities.

The proposal presents results of past studies and suggests that in-stream post-release survival of fish reared in these special habitats is significantly greater than that of their counterparts reared conventionally. These statements, however, are based on relative survival of NATURES reared-fish compared to conventionally reared hatchery fish and have not yet compared survival to adult returns. The studies in 1997-2000 included components to evaluate survival to adult returns.

While we acknowledge the efforts in these past studies, the ISRP believes it is important to keep these past results in proper perspective. In the summarized studies, the average improvement in survival (NATURES vs. conventional) is +18% (range +1% to 50%, n = 7 years). Given that smolt-to-adult survival for hatchery fish has frequently been <1%, these improvements (based on short-term smolt survival only to-date) are inadequate to provide the substantial improvement in survival needed for recovery or improved economical value of these hatchery fish. It is essential then that these 1997-2000 studies be reported as the data is available in order that any improved benefits to the adult stage may be accounted for.

The ISRP is also concerned about the publication record of these studies. The authors note a good publication list but upon inspection of those publications there are really 4 papers in recognized primary journals (4 of 32 listed). There does not seem to be any primary paper actually on the NATURES rearing studies? In their response the proposers should provide any available information about smolt to adult survival of NATURES-reared fish.

Since the ISRP has extensively reviewed the designs to Objectives 1 and 2 in the past, we do not have significant questions on those portions. The proposers have responded to previous review by incorporating study of the interaction between natures-reared and wild salmon. Concerning the sampling design for Objective 1 though, the proposed design includes monthly sampling of 100 animals per replicate/treatment group. In large raceways with various levels of structure (NATURES treatments) we question that this is adequate to estimate the variance or size distribution in each treatment (likely is for mean size). The authors might re-consider their design by initially evaluating how variance decreases with increasing sample sizes. Further, in Objectives 1 and 2, all fish will be coded-wire tagged, but will they be mass-marked to indicate presence of the tag. Given that mass-mark selective fisheries for spring Chinook are commencing, the mark identification could influence the return of these tags.

However, a major question related to Objectives 1 and 2 is not really technical in nature. It is whether the Council's FWP can support an additional 5-10 years of research into the NATURES components. Modified elements of NATURES are already being incorporated into facilities. Data collected so far on juvenile survival immediately post-release show small increments of greater survival by NATURES reared juveniles (above); but when translated into adult returns, the likely benefits could be small.

In Objective 3 and 4, the authors refer to density in the treatment, but the reviewers' reading is that this is the density at release into the artificial channels. How are the numbers of animals released determined and at what density are the animals reared? Reviewers suggest that the initial rearing density may be influential on the behavior of these fish even before they are released.

The project requests a large budget:
Objective 1 $624,300 Carson Hatchery NATURES study
Objective 2 $163,000 Carson Hatchery predator avoidance study
Objective 3 $173,284 Stream-channel rearing studies
Objective 4 $169,285 Behavior studies in observation flume
Objective 5 $ 29,100 Technology transfer
Total $1,158,969 increases for 5+ years in proposal (9-10 years for total study)

Unfortunately there is essential no information in the budget description about how these values were estimated, what labor is involved and what charge-out rates were used. For example, Section 8 includes costs for Indirect but also includes costs for utilities, rents, communications, printing under Other. What is the basis of these Other items that seem to be costs appropriate for Indirect cost accounting?

At present, the ISRP is inclined to recommend completion of the project after 3 brood years of the factorial study of NATURES components now underway at Carson NFH (the reduction from 5 brood years would probably not entail an important loss of experimental power), and then a shift to evaluation studies at production facilities in the basin that are employing NATURES techniques. Oversight by the proposers could standardize experimental rearing approaches among the various facilities and coordinate data collection and analysis (as proposed in Objective 5). Adaptive development of NATURES techniques could proceed at the various production facilities.

The ISRP is open to the proponent's response to this suggestion in their reply.

Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:

HARVEST AND HATCHERY SUBGROUP -- Address critical element of RPA? Not relevant to RPA 182. Proposal has nothing to do with reproductive success of hatchery fish. Only juvenile survival effects are examined.

Relevant to RPA 184. By looking at effects of NATURES rearing on survival, and the ecological risk/benefits of NATURES fish released into wild, the project addresses both major issues associated with transforming (reforming) hatcheries to conservation tools, thus very pertinent to 184. Conservation hatcheries may eventually employ NATURES rearing techniques to increase juvenile survival.

It also has potential application to evaluating hatchery reforms under RPA 184. Hatchery reform includes changes in rearing techniques, including the use of NATURES rearing, which deserve testing before universal application.

Scope? [ESU's covered, Transferability, Species covered] Target species include steelhead, chinook salmon, sockeye salmon and coho salmon. Results may be transferable to other hatcheries.

Study design adequate, as is, or as may be modified? This is a continuation of the research on the effectiveness of NATURES hatchery rearing techniques. Adequate study design. No other comment at this time.

ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:

Our perception is somewhat different than the RME group; the proposal does have to do with reproductive success of hatchery fish in that it will study effects of NATURES components on smolt to adult survival. The ISRP agrees that the components of NATURES rearing should be tested before universal application, and in fact are concerned that the techniques are being applied universally without rigorous testing. The ISRP generally agrees that the design is good but we have some specific comments. The RME and ISRP apparently disagree in that the ISRP is concerned about the size of the budget and the justification for it.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

This proposal would continue evaluations of NATURES effects (semi-natural rearing of fish in hatcheries) on salmonid behavior, morphology, physiology, post release survival, of these hatchery fish and their ecological interactions with wild fish.

The current proposal has two major foci. Objectives 1 and 2 test NATURES rearing habitat components (cover, structure, and substrate) at production hatchery scale and to determine interaction effects between rearing habitat variables assessed based on smolt-to-adult survival (design to detect a 20% difference between treatments with 80% power), and secondly to investigate benefits of predator conditioning to juvenile migratory and adult survival (same power). Research under Objectives 3 and 4 is intended to help determine ecological risks and benefits of release of NATURES reared under yearling steelhead to cohabit stream environments with wild cohorts (steelhead and spring Chinook). The latter studies are to be conducted in experimental channels and observation flumes already available at NMFS facilities.

The proposal presents results of past studies and suggests that in-stream post-release survival of fish reared in these special habitats is significantly greater than that of their counterparts reared conventionally. These statements, however, are based on relative survival of NATURES reared-fish compared to conventionally reared hatchery fish and have not yet compared survival to adult returns. The studies in 1997-2000 included components to evaluate survival to adult returns.

While we acknowledge the efforts in these past studies, the ISRP believes it is important to keep these past results in proper perspective. In the summarized studies, the average improvement in survival (NATURES vs. conventional) is +18% (range +1% to 50%, n = 7 years). Given that smolt-to-adult survival for hatchery fish has frequently been <1%, these improvements (based on short-term smolt survival only to-date) are inadequate to provide the substantial improvement in survival needed for recovery or improved economical value of these hatchery fish. It is essential that these 1997-2000 studies be reported as the data is available in order that any improved benefits to the adult stage may be accounted for.

The project sponsor's response did not adequately address several of the ISRP's preliminary criticisms. The experiment at Carson should be restricted to three brood years; the loss of power will be marginal, and the results of other studies within (Cle Elum) and outside (Puget Sound) the Basin will be available to compensate for the loss of power. This shift to evaluation studies at production facilities in the basin that are employing NATURES techniques could be assisted through oversight by the proposers to standardize experimental rearing approaches among the various facilities and coordinate data collection and analysis (as proposed in Objective 5).

The response does not provide any current data on smolt to adult survival rates associated with NATURES within the Basin and now concur that the expected benefits of NATURES may be small as currently estimated based on juvenile survival differences. The proposers note that incomplete returns to a study in Puget Sound at Forks Cr (lacking 5 yr old return) show an advantage in marine survival of NATURES-reared smolts (0.0595% vs 0.0514%). These are obviously small differences in marine survival rates and may be statistically indistinguishable from one another.

The ISRP commented that the project had thus far generated few peer-reviewed publications (in contrast, for example, to the NMFS Captive Brood Research program). In the proposal the authors credit themselves with a good publication list, but upon inspection of those publications there are really only 4 papers in recognized primary journals (4 of 32 listed). There does not seem to be any primary paper actually on the NATURES rearing studies? In their response the proposers say they're working on it; this is not responsive. This criticism has been leveled in earlier reviews and there continue to be no peer-reviewed publications of analyses of the elemental features of Natures.

The ISRP was concerned that sample sizes of 100 may not be adequate to describe variances of body size, etc. and that larger sample sizes may be necessary. The proposers did not respond to the question. The review suggested an investigation of how the precision of estimates of variance would improve with increased sample size, but the response seemed to infer that the criticism was about the ability to collect unbiased samples from raceways with structure in them.

The ISRP commented that mass-marking and selective fisheries on marked fish may bias results. The proposers responded that there will be intensive sampling to discover wire tagged fish among harvested fish and at the rack and that the bias will effect all treatment groups and controls similarly and that the effect on expected recoveries has been accounted for in the experiment design.

ISRP concerns about how the numbers of animals released were determined and at what density the animals were reared were answered adequately. The ISRP also had concerns that the budget was unjustified and apparently over estimated. The proposers explained the differences in the budget adequately.

An important outstanding issue remains: the ISRP's suggestion that the project could be reduced from 5 to 3 years of releases without a significant loss of power. In the proponents' response, they calculate that statistical power to detect a difference between treatments would be reduced from 0.87 to 0.65 by reducing the releases to 3 years. They argue this is unacceptable as it is below the design standard of 0.8 (based on detecting at least a 20% difference between rearing treatments at a 95% confidence level). While the ISRP agrees with the technical basis for this argument, the basis of our concern was the relative benefit (modest at best) achieved for the substantial expense of an additional two years of rearing releases. The reason a 5-year treatment plan is supported by the NMFS sponsors is that they are trying to measure a small difference among treatments with very high confidence. Such precision may be not warranted, given the small potential biological benefits observed to date between treatments.

A larger concern is whether supporting the proposed project at all is warranted given issues of best use of funds, given the expected modest gains from this investment, and the information that will be available near term from other application of the NATURES rearing approach within (e.g., Cle Elum) and outside (Puget Sound) the basin. The proposed value of this specific project was a production-scale test of the NATURES rearing approach conducted within a rigorous experimental design. Implementation of NATURES rearing approaches to supplementation in the Yakima and Clearwater systems are in fact now applying NATURES at production scales. Because of this mismatch in timing between the Carson facility research project and the implementation of NATURES rearing at other sites, the main benefit that would arise from this proposal would be measurements of the relative contributions and interactions among elements of the NATURES treatments (cover, rearing substrates, rearing densities, exposure to predators).

In making a final determination, Council should be advised that this NATURES proposal is a well-designed experimental assessment of NATURES treatments intended to inform subsequent application of the NATURES approach to supplementation and production programs. However, implementation of NATURES rearing treatments in the Basin has preceded this experiment already, but this study could still improve the efficiency of these applications. We should note, however, that there is general agreement that the relative benefits of NATURES rearing alone, are likely to be relatively small. As the sponsors state in their response to the ISRP comments (August 21, 2002 letter):

"In regards to concerns that NATURES alone may be "inadequate to provide the substantial improvement in survival needed", we too believe that we must be realistic about our expectations. There is no one "silver bullet" that will by itself restore the Region's anadromous salmonid resources. The most likely scenario is that recovery will be accomplished by threading together many "modest increases" in survival, such as those potentially offered by NATURES."

Comment:

Comments
NMFS proposal. Inappropriate to comment.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

Comment:

Comments:
Currently being implemented (e.g. NPTH and Cle Elum). Staff does not see the need to fund this project given the work in the provinces.

Comment: