FY 2001 Columbia Gorge proposal 198805303

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleHood River Production Program - CTWSRO M&E
Proposal ID198805303
OrganizationConfederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameMichael Lambert
Mailing address3430 W 10th The Dalles, OR 97058
Phone / email5412966866 / hoodriverproject@netcnct.net
Manager authorizing this projectMick Jennings
Review cycleColumbia Gorge
Province / SubbasinColumbia Gorge / Hood
Short descriptionImplement, monitor, and evaluate actions outlined in the Hood River and Pelton Ladder Master Plans pertaining to smolt production, acclimation, and habitat. Coordinate Pelton Ladder production.
Target speciesSpring chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), summer and winter steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
44.6927 -121.2299 Pelton Ladder
45.52 -121.68 Hood River Subbasin
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
1995 Completed physical stream inventories of most anadromous salmonid bearing streams located on all private and selected USFS lands in the Hood River subbasin.
1995 Completed construction of rearing cells in Pelton Ladder.
1996 Completed development of the winter steelhead acclimation facility on the East Fork Hood River.
1996 Completed development of the West Fork Hood River spring chinook salmon acclimation sites (portable acclimation ponds with gravity fed pipe systems).
1996 Powerdale Trapping Facility completed.
1996 Determined what subspecies of O. mykiss and O. clarki exist in the subbasin and if there are any sensitive gene pools that may be impacted by HRPP actions.
1996 Completed a radio telemetry study to assess the upstream migration of adult salmonids in the lower Hood River (Rm 0.0-4.0).
1997 Hood River Production Program EIS completed.
1997 Determination of spatial distribution for anadromous adult holding and spawning was completed in 1997.
1997 The East Fork Irrigation District 130 cfs diversion on the East Fork Hood River was equipped with fish screens.
1998 Spring chinook salmon spawning ground surveys on the West Fork Hood River were completed from 1997-1999.
1998 Parkdale Fish Facility completed and operational. Spring chinook salmon and summer and winter steelhead broodstock have been held and spawned; and eggs incubated. Hatchery winter steelhead and spring chinook salmon smolts were acclimated and released.
1999 Rearing density estimates for indigenous fish populations in the Hood River subbasin were made for selected sites from 1994-1999.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
8902900 Hood River Production Program/Round Butte Hatchery production and Pelton Ladder spring chinook salmon spawning, incubation, marking, and rearing
9500700 Pelton Ladder Hood River Production / PGE O&M Pelton Ladder operation and maintenance
8805304 Hood River Production Program / ODFW M&E monitoring and evaluation of HRPP activities within the Hood River subbasin: screw traps, distribution studies, adult trap count summaries
9301900 Hood River Production Program - Oak Springs, Powerdale, and Parkdale / O&M steelhead and chinook broodstock collection, upstream adult data collection, winter and summer steelhead spawning, incubation, marking, rearing, and acclimation
9802100 Hood River Fish Habitat Project / Habitat restore degraded fish habitat within the subbasin

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
1. Determine abundance, distribution, and life history patterns of anadromous and resident fishes in the Hood River subbasin. a. Estimate juvenile rearing distribution of anadromous and resident species. Ongoing $10,309
1. b. Estimate rearing densities or relative abundance of juvenile anadromous salmonids and resident trout in selected reaches. Ongoing $12,180
1. c. Estimate spatial distribution or rearing juvenile anadromous salmonids and resident trout. Ongoing $10,309
1. d. Estimate selected morphometric characteristics of resident trout (e.g. mean fork length, mean weight). Ongoing $11,382
1. e. Evaluate if acclimation facilities have significantly increased numbers of hatchery smolts leaving the Hood River subbasin. Ongoing $7,714
1. f. Estimate and compare median date of outmigration for naturally produced and acclimated hatchery produced smolts. Ongoing $9,035
1. g. Evaluate significance of "residualism" using electrofishing and snorkel surveys. Ongoing $9,369
1. h. Determine if acclimated hatchery spring chinook salmon adult returns distribute throughout the West Fork, Middle Fork, and mainstem; and utilize primary spawning areas. Ongoing $19,675
1. i. Determine if acclimated smolts have a significantly higher smolt to adult survival rate in relation to direct released smolts. Ongoing $7,714
1. j. Coordination of all monitoring and evaluation activities. Provide informational reports to agencies and public on project activities. Prepare BPA annual report. Ongoing $36,125
2. Identify the population genetic structure, systematics, and distribution of genetically unique steelhead, cutthroat, and resident trout populations in the Hood River subbasin. a. Coordinate and provide support to conduct laboratory work on the electrophoretic and mtDNA analysis. Work will be completed by University of Montana, contracted by ODFW. Ongoing $27,501 Yes
3. Develop fish culture procedures for steelhead and spring chinook to minimize future genetic impacts to the wild gene pools in the Hood River subbasin. a. Periodically re-evaluate the HR/PLPP Management Plans. With ODFW, complete a steelhead and spring chinook salmon Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) for the Hood River to minimize future genetic impacts. Ongoing $12,945
4. Achieve an interim run of 850 jack and adult spring chinook salmon to Hood River, with a spawner escapement of 400 jacks and adults. a. Volitionally release acclimated hatchery smolts into the Hood River subbasin. Ongoing $36,756
4. b. Coordinate clipping and coded-wire tagging operations for hatchery releases into the Hood. Ongoing $8,127
5. Achieve an interim run of 2,340 summer steelhead to Hood River, with a spawner escapement of 1,000 (500 wild and 500 hatchery) Hood River stock. a. Volitionally release acclimated hatchery smolts into the Hood River subbasin. Ongoing $36,735
5. b. Coordinate clipping and coded-wire tagging operations for hatchery releases into the Hood. Ongoing $8,127
6. Achieve an interim run of 2,785 winter steelhead to Hood River, with a spawner escapement of 1,000 (500 wild and 500 hatchery) Hood River stock. a. Volitionally release acclimated hatchery smolts into the Hood River subbasin. Ongoing $27,382
6. b. Coordinate clipping and coded-wire tagging operations for hatchery releases into the Hood. Ongoing $8,127
7. Determine the amount and condition of habitat available to anadromous salmonids in the Hood River subbasin. a. Monitor selected environmental factors that may effect carrying capacity. Ongoing $11,821
7. b. Estimate the quantity and quality of habitat available for spring chinook salmon and summer and winter steelhead. Ongoing $11,382
7. c. Re-evaluate and refine smolt carrying capacity. Ongoing $7,714
7. d. Complete physical habitat surveys. Ongoing $19,849
8. Restore and recover habitat lost as a consequence of man's activities in the Hood River subbasin. a. Plan, coordinate, and implement habitat projects from the Hood River Fish Habitat Protection, Restoration, and Monitoring Plan working document. Seek cost sharing funds for all projects. Ongoing $12,027
8. b. Continue to update and modify the Hood River Fish Habitat Protection, Restoration, and Monitoring Plan. Ongoing $8,137
9. Determine if the pesticides used and entering surface waters in the Hood River subbasin are adversely affecting steelhead. a. Determine if there is toxicity associated with surface waters in the Hood River subbasin. FY2002 $15,001 Yes
9. b. If there is toxicity, determine if the toxicity is caused by pesticides. FY2002 $15,001 Yes
10. Review measures of relative "smolt quality" between fish reared in Pelton Ladder (old and new sections) and fish reared at Round Butte Hatchery (RBH), as inference that ladder-reared smolts may have superior "fitness" for survival. a. Utilize past data from several broods of ladder reared and RBH reared smolts. Compile and analyze data to provide a comparison of relative "fitness" between the groups of fish. Ongoing $8,995
10. b. Determine and compare smolt survival and condition of fish in Pelton Ladder. Ongoing $14,943
10. c. Summarize and report jack and adult life history and morphological data on Deschutes River stock spring chinook salmon released from Pelton Ladder and RBH, 1994-1999 broods. Ongoing $8,995
10. d. Compile, summarize, and report smolt to adult survival rates of similar sized smolts released at the same time from RBH and Pelton Ladder (Pond H-1 vs. cells 1,2 and 6; pond H-2 vs. cell 3), brood years 1994-1996. Ongoing $9,209
11. Conduct controlled tests at Pelton Ladder to define effective smolt production criteria that maximizes adult returns. a. Compile, summarize, and report smolt to adult survival of fish transferred to Pelton Ladder in September and November, brood years 1994-1996. Ongoing $9,209
11. b. Compile, summarize, and report smolt to adult survival rates of small (12/lb at release; cell L-3) and medium (8/lb at release; cell L-6) size smolts reared at Pelton Ladder, brood years 1994-1996. Ongoing $9,209
11. c. Compile, summarize, and report smolt to adult survival rates of small (12/lb at release; pond H-2) and medium (8/lb at release; pond H-1) size smolts reared at RBH, brood years 1994-1996. Ongoing $9,209
11. d. Document fish culture activities that occur at RBH and Pelton Ladder during studies. Ongoing $9,209
11. e. Coordinate (assist) with RBH staff in sampling fish at the hatchery and ladder for condition prior to release (weight, length, size/lb., and clipping and coded-wire tag evaluations). Ongoing $12,819
11. f. Coordinate (assist) with RBH staff in retrieving coded-wire tags from jack and adult spring chinook salmon study fish. Ongoing $7,610
12. Measure survival of smolts produced in the (new) modified sections of Pelton Ladder and compare to (old) established pre-modification survival rates. a. Compile, summarize, and report smolt to adult survival of cells 1 and 2 (old section) with cell 6 (new section), brood years 1994-1999. Ongoing $7,772
12. b. Calculate and compare survival rates of historic smolt releases from the old ladder section and hatchery. Ongoing $5,298
13. Evaluate the effective production potential of the currently, unused area in Pelton Ladder. a. Summarize adult returns provided by the new modifications to Pelton Ladder to gain inferences about the potential value of further extending production in the ladder. Ongoing $7,038
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2002FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005
$540,000$560,000$580,000$600,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2001 cost
Personnel $182,765
Fringe @ 23% $42,036
Supplies $25,235
Travel $42,950
Indirect @ 41.4% $133,733
Capital $0
NEPA $0
PIT tags $0
Subcontractor $63,200
Other office rent, utilities $30,040
$519,959
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost$519,959
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$10,000
Total FY 2001 budget request$509,959
FY 2001 forecast from 2000$520,000
% change from forecast-1.9%
Reason for change in estimated budget

Not Applicable

Reason for change in scope

Not change in scope

Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
East Fork Irrigation District Use of a sand-settling raceway as an acclimation site for winter steelhead on the East Fork Hood River $10,000 cash
AmeriCorp Assist in setup of acclimation ponds and piping, provide overnight caretaker services of the acclimation facility $20,000 cash
U.S. Forest Service Complete NEPA for acclimation sites and assist in spring chinook salmon spawning ground surveys. $3,000 cash
Long View Fibre Use of the West Fork Hood River acclimation site property and site preparation $3,000 cash
Hood River Watershed Group Volunteers Miscellaneous project field work -acclimation, electrofishing, fish salvages, etc.. $6,000 cash

Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Oct 6, 2000

Comment:

Specific comments for this project:

Recommendation for the set of HRPP proposals: Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP's concerns. See subbasin comments, above.

The ISRP's FY2000 review comments remain germane to this project. Past progress (in general terms, but not data results) is described; feasibility and value of continuation seems very high. While the program is still in its early implementation phase, this proposal (and others in the groups) would have benefited by the inclusion of more results of previous studies by ODFW and CTWSRO.

The progressive nature of this project warrants publication in peer-reviewed journals. As project evaluations occur from 2000 through 2007 (based on the four-year minimum datasets described on pp. 5-6 of the narrative in proposal 1988-053-04), the region and the fisheries community at large will have great interest in the program's results. We encourage project planning that facilitates dissemination of the program's results through publication in peer-reviewed journals beyond the required annual reports to BPA.

General comments on Hood River Production Program:

The Hood River Subbasin Summary was well written and thorough. The Hood River group is on the right track with their watershed assessments and rehabilitation plans listed by priority of action. Concerns are with the hatchery program and the issue of passage at the dam.

Summer and winter steelhead stocks have been in decline during the 1990s, and are now down to less than 200 and 300 fish, respectively, and far below the escapement goal of 2,400 fish. A crude recruitment analysis, assuming these fish were, on average, 4 years-old at return, suggested both stocks are below replacement. The abundance of each seemed correlated, suggesting factors in the decline are affecting both stocks, now down to less than 1or 2 fish/km. It is not possible to separate the freshwater from the marine factors in the decline since no data on wild smolt yield is given. However, the decline is likely related to marine conditions, as found elsewhere. Data on smolt yield exists (five rotary screw traps in the watershed) so an analysis of overall smolt yield and return may be possible. Survivals on hatchery steelhead seemed peculiar in that winter-run hatchery releases faired worse, at less than 1% from 60,000 releases, than summer-runs, which apparently had survivals near 3%. Something is odd about this difference - either the release numbers have varied, summer and winter runs are misidentified, or summer runs are doing something different (migration pathways?). A more thorough treatment of the stock assessment information available is required.

The use of wild brood stock for hatchery purposes, while commendable and correct at the best of times (i.e., when survivals warrant it), is likely depleting the limited wild stock without increased return, given these poor survival rates. Furthermore, supplementation is focusing on the wrong life stage if the current limitation is in the smolt-to-adult stage. It is difficult to separate the "supplementation" from the fish released for harvest. All fish for harvest should be released below the dam. A review and justification of the supplementation program is required.

The comparisons and conclusions on acclimation (Figs. 11 and 12 in the summary) suffer from having no within-year control, and were not in agreement with the presentation on this issue which indicated there was no benefit to acclimation. Fish released from these facilities will compete with wild parr and smolts, particularly if a large portion residualize. Half of the males (perhaps as many as 15,000 of 60,000 releases in this watershed) may fail to migrate, and compete for food and space with wild fish. They plan to study residualism, but some information should already be available, and presented.

A review of the harvest-fish release and returns and consequences to the wild population is needed. What are the consequences within the Bonneville Pool and elsewhere when hatchery smolts out-number wild by several fold? Even catch-and-release fishing has an impact, particularly where effort is high, and this wild population can withstand no harvest impact. This form of supplementation may be doing more harm than good to the wild population; likewise for the harvest program.

They should proceed with their watershed rehabilitation plans and hope that these attempts will improve productivity and capability in freshwater to offset the dramatic declines in smolt-to-adult survival. Meanwhile, there is a need to do more work on the latter, including mortality in the downstream migration within the Hood, within the Bonneville Pool, down the Columbia, at the river mouth, and during the coastal migration. Comments above on hatchery harvest and supplementation will apply to several watersheds, thus an overall review may be required.

Recommendation for the set of HRPP proposals: Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP's concerns.

Issues to address:

  1. The proposals contained little specific data presentation.
  2. Quantify the juvenile loss through the Powerdale hydro facility.
  3. Consider using PIT tags or acoustic tags in the smolt evaluations.
  4. Release all smolts below the dam where the goal is to increase the available harvest but consider/address the indirect impacts to wild fish from C&R.
  5. The turn-back of hatchery steelhead at the ladder has increased straying, and may have lad to increased angling effort within the lower river (thus further C&R of wild). Alternatives to turnback should be provided (cull?).
  6. What are the consequences of increased hatchery smolt presence within the Bonneville Reservoir, the lower Columbia River, and at the mouth, and given the aggregate hatchery releases in the Province and elsewhere?
  7. Justify hatchery production levels. In the absence of quantitative stock assessments, the proposals fail to justify technically the need for the projects presented. For example, what is the basis for the numbers of hatchery fish to be released?
  8. Develop a monitoring and evaluation plan for the separate tasks of harvest development, supplementation, and habitat rehabilitation.

As with our FY2000 comments, these six projects are inextricably linked together to form the Hood River Production Program. It was difficult to evaluate each project singly, particularly with respect to the methods and M&E criteria. The proposals contained little specific data presentation, in spite of monitoring at some level for up to 6 or seven years. Presentations were similarly lacking in data presentation and reinforced these observations. The Hood River Production Program has many things going for it, including its dedicated staff, high quality facilities (Powerdale collection site and Parkdale), links between the habitat restoration efforts and the production program, etc. Nevertheless, the M&E portion of the program fails to adequately address monitoring and evaluation questions that are critical to the program's success. These include quantifying the juvenile loss through the Powerdale hydro facility, lack of consideration of using PIT tag technology to gather additional juvenile migration and adult return data, and deeper integration of the wild and hatchery production components for winter steelhead goals.

Acclimation as a supplementation strategy, as a means to enhance the survivability of artificially produced smolts released into the watershed, seems not to have been demonstrated, at least by the data presented in the proposals. Reviewers perceive that a better strategy for enhancing winter steelhead fisheries would be to release all smolts below the dam.

Recycling as a fishery-enhancement tactic, returning marked steelhead to the mouth of the tributary to make them available to harvest again, seems to have been responsible for enhanced straying into other watersheds; if so the practice is detrimental to the maintenance of biodiversity in the subbasin and should be curtailed.

Finally, density limits in the Bonneville Pool and lower Columbia River need to be addressed in this Subbasin Summary and others as a potential factor limiting salmon productivity. Without appropriate assessment of stocks including survival in the pool and lower river, and without consideration of density as a potential limiting factor, managers may inappropriately increase smolt releases to the detriment of future cohorts of native salmon. Reviewers note with concern that proposers in the Hood River program contemplate doubling of hatchery production as a method of supplementation; the detrimental effect of this increased density of salmon smolts on the survival of native salmon has apparently not been considered.


Recommendation:
Urgent/High Priority
Date:
Nov 15, 2000

Comment:

FY 01, 02, and 03 Budget Review Comments: The M+E component of the Hood River Production Program is the key to measuring it's success. Therefore funding of this project is urgent.
Recommendation:
Date:
Nov 15, 2000

Comment:

The M+E component of the Hood River Production Program is the key to measuring it's success. Therefore funding of this project is urgent.
Recommendation:
Date:
Nov 15, 2000

Comment:

The M+E component of the Hood River Production Program is the key to measuring it's success. Therefore funding of this project is urgent.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Dec 1, 2000

Comment:

The ODFW and CTWSRO response to the ISRP review comments on the HRPP projects addressed most of the ISRP concerns adequately. However, many of the ISRP's concerns should be kept in mind during the proposed 2002 comprehensive program review. There may be a role for the ISRP in the 2002 comprehensive program review, and the ISRP should be kept informed of progress towards formalizing that review. By 2002, several important datasets should have sufficient detail to provide input on some of the ISRP's concerns such as juvenile loss through Powerdale Dam.

Specifically, the responses adequately addressed the ISRP's concerns on juvenile loss through the Powerdale Facility, the potential use of PIT tags (perhaps to be revisited during the 2002 conference), smolt releases below Powerdale Dam, straying of recycled adult steelhead, and the impact of smolt numbers in the Bonneville Pool (a valid concern, but likely outside the purview of the Hood River Production Program). With respect to the justification of HRPP production levels, the final paragraph of the response gets to the main point of the ISRP's concern, somewhat unsatisfactorily (although what is said is no doubt true). Detail and references were lacking for this section.

A major concern of the ISRP is the need for an overall monitoring and evaluation plan. The PI's acknowledge that more coordination and summarization would be beneficial. We hope they are able to move forward on this issue.

Finally, the ISRP noted that both proposal and verbal presentation contained little specific data presentation. The response indicates that the PI's felt that an undue emphasis was placed on brevity for both proposals and presentations (this year and previous years) that precluded presentation of past results. While there is probably some truth in this viewpoint, the ISRP has been clear and consistent in articulating its expectations to the region that proposals for continuing projects must contain results-oriented summaries of past work in order to justify continued support for the project. Within the proposal, it is appropriate to cite past annual reports and publications that resulted from the work, but merely citing the reports without summarizing the results and learning that occurred is not an adequate response. The ISRP has been very clear on this expectation.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 16, 2001

Comment:

The ISRP comments focus questions on the monitoring components of the Hood River Production Program. The ISRP calls for an overall monitoring and evaluation plan and improved presentation of the results of past work. While concluding that the monitoring projects are fundable, the ISRP urged attention to its concerns in the scheduled Fiscal Year 2002 program review. Staff recommendation: Focus attention on these issues in the scheduled review of the Hood River Production Program in 2002. The ISRP's preliminary concerns for funding the program were sufficiently resolved in the response of the project sponsor. Nevertheless, the ISRP focuses continued attention on the need to make progress on an overall monitoring and evaluation plan. The combined costs for monitoring and evaluation approach $1 million a year and so the staff would encourage the final Council decision to call for a report on a coordinated plan as part of the Hood River Program's 2002 review and "Three-Step" review.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 11, 2001

Comment:


REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$516,646 $516,646 $516,646

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website