FY07-09 proposal 200305400

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleRepro Of Steelhead In Hood Riv
Proposal ID200305400
OrganizationOregon State University
Short descriptionContinue estimating the reproductive fitness of traditional and supplementation hatchery stocks relative to that of wild fish. New data to include summer run supplem stock vs wild, and effects of mixing 1st generation supplem fish back into hatchery.
Information transferPublication in peer reviewed scientific literature. Reports to BPA.
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Form submitter
Michael Blouin Oregon State Univ. blouinm@science.oregonstate.edu
All assigned contacts
Michael Blouin Oregon State Univ. blouinm@science.oregonstate.edu

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide

Hood River
[none] Enter project or location description here

Section 3. Focal species

primary: Steelhead Lower Columbia River ESU

Section 4. Past accomplishments

2005 Completed genotyping and analysis of fitness data, as promised. This was the second of a multi-year collection effort. See narrative for final results. Publications: Araki and Blouin (2005) Molecular Ecology 14:4097-4110.
2004 Completed genotyping and preliminary analysis of fitness data, as promised. This was the first of a multi-year collection effort. See narrative for final results.

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Funding sourceRelated IDRelated titleRelationship
BPA 198805303 Hood River Production M&E - Ws Monitoring and evaluation of Hood River Production Program activities in the basin. Data collection and distribution. Partner with Parkdale hatchery operations.
BPA 198805304 Hood River Production M&E-ODFW Monitoring and evaluation activities within the Hood River subbasin, including operation of juvenile screw traps, data collection and distribution. In particular, they catalogue the scales, key punch the bio-data, mount all scales, coordinate the scale reading with their Corvallis office, maintain project databases, provide data summaries, respond to information requests, and resolve data conflicts post- genotyping (i.e., resolving parentage issues).
BPA 198805307 Hood R Prod O&M - WS/ODFW Operation and maintenance of the Parkdale fish facility In particular, they spawn the adults, maintain the spawning records, and transfer the fertilized eggs to Oak Springs Hatchery.
BPA 198805308 Hood R Powerdale/Oak Springs Operation and maintenance of the Powerdale fish trap. Adult handling and bio-sampling at the dam, including collection of scales, marking, recording of sampling data and collection of fish for broodstock. Operation and maintenance of the the Oak Springs hatchery where the hatchery steelhead are reared. Transfer of adults to Parkdale for acclimation.

Section 6. Biological objectives

Biological objectivesFull descriptionAssociated subbasin planStrategy
Estimate fitness of summer supplementation stock Estimate fitness of the first two run years (2001 and 2002) of the summer supplemtation (Hsupp) stock. Specific work: genotype summer Hsupp passed upstream beginning in 2001, and their offspring that returned through run year 2008. None This project was identified as being applicable systemwide
Estimate fitness of winter fish run yrs 99 to 2001 Estimate fitnesses of winter run fish that returned in run years 1998 to 2001. These will be of three types: wild fish, first-generation supplementation hatchery stock (pure wild broodstock parents), and hatchery fish of mixed ancestry. Specific work: genotype returned offspring identified as having been born in brood years 1999 to 2002, and match them to their parents. Analyze fitness as function of % hatchery background in each fish. None This project was identified as being applicable systemwide.
Finish estimating the fitness of summer old stocks Finish estimating the fitness of summer run old hatchery stock (Htrad) fish. Compare fitness of wild vs. Htrad in all five brood years from the early 1990’s. Specific work: finish genotyping backlog of summer run Htrad samples from early 1990’s. None This project was identified as being applicable systemwide.

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Work element nameWork element titleDescriptionStart dateEnd dateEst budget
Manage and Administer Projects Project supervision [Work Element Description Not Entered] 10/1/2006 10/1/2009 $124,522
Biological objectives
Produce Annual Report Annual Report [Work Element Description Not Entered] 10/1/2006 10/1/2009 $2,129
Biological objectives
Analyze/Interpret Data Data Analysis [Work Element Description Not Entered] 10/1/2006 10/1/2009 $340,573
Biological objectives
Primary R, M, and E Type: uncertainties research
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Genotyping [Work Element Description Not Entered] 10/1/2006 10/1/2009 $585,359
Biological objectives
Primary R, M, and E Type: uncertainties research
Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results Communicate results [Work Element Description Not Entered] 10/1/2006 10/1/2009 $11,707
Biological objectives

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget
Personnel tech, postdoc, student, PI summer $116,868 $121,543 $126,404
Fringe Benefits [blank] $52,314 $54,407 $56,583
Other grad student tuition, 1yr $9,523 $9,904 $10,300
Supplies [blank] $60,300 $62,712 $65,220
Travel scientific meetings, travel for project $3,770 $3,920 $4,078
Overhead 41.5% total costs except tuition $96,800 $100,671 $108,973
Totals $339,575 $353,157 $371,558
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: $1,064,290
Total work element budget: $1,064,290
Cost sharing
Funding source/orgItem or service providedFY 07 est value ($)FY 08 est value ($)FY 09 est value ($)Cash or in-kind?Status
Totals $0 $0 $0

Section 9. Project future

FY 2010 estimated budget: $386,420
FY 2011 estimated budget: $386,420
Comments: rough guess based on 4% per year increases

Future O&M costs:

Termination date: Indefinite
Comments: Dam is currently scheduled for removal at the end of the decade, at which point our mainstem collections will cease and we will have about one more year of work analyzing those samples. At this time weirs will be established in each of the main forks of the river. We will use these weirs to continue pedigree work on reproductive success of different types of fish, and to study the genetic interactions between anadromous and non-anadromous fish. Please see "Response to ISRP" document for further details.

Final deliverables: Annotated data, published manuscripts, reports.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Blouin response to ISRP.doc Jul 2006
Araki et al In press Cons Biol.pdf Jul 2006
Araki and Blouin 2005 Mol Ecol.pdf Jul 2006

Reviews and recommendations

FY07 budget FY08 budget FY09 budget Total budget Type Category Recommendation
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs]
$290,850 $290,850 $290,850 $872,550 Expense Basinwide Fund
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs]
$290,850 $290,850 $290,850 $0 Basinwide


Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: There is a well-defined issue on the use of hatchery fish to supplement wild steelhead production. This excellent proposal explains the background and published literature from this site. This work really points to the dangers of domestic or out-of-system brood sources, residualism in steelhead, and also provides evidence for the much-improved practice of wild native broodstock (when available) for at least the first generation of returns. There remain concerns about the effective population size of hatchery brood relative to wild, particularly when wild are at low density, and ecological impacts, as well as effects after several generations. There are two different issues: first, reproductive success of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds (ESA-lambda), and second, the fitness implications as a result of hatchery rearing. The separation of tasks is not clear within the proposal, and should be. This is not a study of fitness effects of hatchery fish (similar to Minter Creek). These are populations that have had long-term hatchery and wild interactions. Advocates and detractors of supplementation have used the results of preliminary work in potentially over-reaching situations. A clear result is required, and should appear in the peer-reviewed literature. This work is to finish the data collection through the F2 generation. Those results need to be reviewed (ISRP, literature) prior to consideration of funding for analysis at the F3 level. Even though there may be large numbers of hatchery returns, the effective size of the family is only as big as that collected for brood (or less, if some families did not survive). The issue requires further study, i.e., the effective family size and how that can be altered by fish culture, and its impact on the wild population over the long term. Beere and Heggenes (2006) calmed some concerns over the short term, based on results using wild brood at Kitimat when wild numbers were high, but noted caution was required over the longer term and when wild abundance declines to low levels (a potential genetic bottleneck). On the Hood, where acclimation sites abound (smolts released throughout the watershed), residualism (precocious parr or resident trout from fish that fail to migrate) is a serious issue, for both the river ecology (predators and competitors) and genetic impact. Although most residual parr die after displacing or out-competing smaller wild parr and consuming wild fry, some mature and spawn with wild fish. Spawning (residual) parr also likely confounded the Hood River analysis - both the wild and the hatchery brood and return samples were derived from a population containing residualized hatchery steelhead. Some evidence of collaboration with similar projects (e.g., Forks Creek, Mintow, Grande Ronde) would be a benefit, but at this level of the investigation and academic qualifications, it can be assumed. Published results should be provided (soon). Nevertheless, sponsors need to tie this work into other work in the basin. What is the connection between this work and that of other agencies (ODFW and NOAA) on supplementation? A few questions remain: •Blouin's work and Kostow's papers seem to present different interpretations of the relative success of hatchery fish. This needs to be addressed. •Power analysis of genetic work? How many loci and alleles are needed? •Planning for post-Powerdale? How will the work continue or be affected by the removal of the dam, where the key data on adult returns is collected?

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: The response addressed the ISRP questions. The ISRP appreciated the effort to address the review in a professional and positive manner with explanatory notes and even figures. The ISRP expects that the principal investigators will consider the ISRP's comments on residualized hatchery fish in subsequent proposals, reports, and reviews. A thorough response and additional references were provided, for the most part. Clearly, this is important work on the issue of wild and hatchery fish interactions and supplementation. The papers in press, in review, and planned shall become important contributions to fisheries science and particularly to the question of supplementation in the Columbia River Basin. The opportunity to review the papers in press or in review was much appreciated and assisted in confirming or addressing previous ISRP concerns quite adequately. The question of contribution of residualized hatchery fish to parentage of wild and hatchery returns remains. Htrad may have provided no evidence of a parental contribution to returns since their success in spawning (or of progeny post-spawning) may have been near zero, but Hnew males may be more successful. The implications of reproductive success of residualized Hnew males may be substantial. It seems this could be addressed with more planning and thought, perhaps by sub-sampling residuals directly or by samples from hatchery smolts released at acclimation sites throughout the Hood River. Indeed, the opportunity may be unique to this system. Does "acclimatization" provide a benefit or loss to overall reproductive success of wild fish? Supplementation was shown here (paper in review) to have no effect on the reproductive success of wild fish. However, does it add anything? In other words, if there is no added benefit when wild fish are seeding habitat to capacity, then what is the point of supplementation? Ecological effects remain an issue. Regardless, a continuation of this work is highly recommended since it will address important questions on the genetics of salmonids and hatcheries, particularly if more focus is placed on the residual steelhead issue, and success in sampling can continue with the removal of the Powerdale Dam, which seems possible. Further collaboration should be encouraged - this work should form part of a basinwide study on supplementation, filling gaps not possible in other studies and replicating work elsewhere, thus agreement on standard procedures is necessary, as appears to be unfolding.