FY 2002 LSRCP proposal 200117

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
200117 Narrative	Narrative
200113 and 200117 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation
Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Overview Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	LSRCP Grande Ronde River Summer Steelhead and Fall Chinook Production and Evaluation Program
Proposal ID	200117
Organization	Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Mark L. Schuck
Mailing address	401 South Cottonwood Dayton, WA 99328
Phone / email	5093821004 / schucmls@dfw.wa.gov
Manager authorizing this project	James Scott
Review cycle	LSRCP
Province / Subbasin	Blue Mountain / Grande Ronde
Short description	Monitor releases of hatchery steelhead mitigation fish in the Grande Ronde. Recommend hatchery related actions which may aid recovery of ESA listed populations.
Target species	Summer steelhead and fall chinook salmon (future)

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
46.0718	-116.9845	Grande Ronde River

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Hatchery RPA Action 169

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
1983-2001	Mitigation releases of hatchery reared summer steelhead (Wallowa Stock) documented (PIT tagging, pre-release samples)
1985-2001	Creel census to document contribution of hatchery steelhead to sport fishery
2000	Adult Trapping on Rattlesnake for assessing broodstock potential
2001	Adult Trapping on Menatchee Creek for assessing broodstock potential
1992-2001	Adult Trapping on Cottonwood Creek for Wallowa hatchery broodstock, document returns and recover CWT's
1999-2000	Collection of genetic samples from juveniles in Washington tributaries in the lower Grande Ronde

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
	LSRCP Production and M&E	The work within the Grande Ronde River is part of a broad LSRCP Monitoring and Evaluation Program in the Snake River Basin.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
N/A			$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
N/A			$0

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
N/A			$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
N/A			$0

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1) Monitor and evaluate the quality and release of hatchery spring and fall chinook salmon and summer steelhead produced from LFC.	a. Evaluate mark/tag quality and retention [adipose/ventral fin clip, Coded-Wire tag (CWT), freeze brand, and Visual Implant elastomer tag (VI)] before release.	ongoing	$2,100	Yes
	b. Document and report release size, general condition, degree of smoltification, sexual precocity, and blood hematocrit levels (fall chinook only) prior to release.	ongoing	$700	Yes
	c. Summarize hatchery records for each brood year to document and report egg-to-fry, fry-to-smolt, and egg-to-smolt survival rates at LFC.	ongoing	$350	Yes
2) Evaluate summer steelhead (LFH, Wallowa, and Endemic stock) release strategies, release sites, smolt out-migration timing and relative survivals from LFC releases, upstream acclimation sites above LGD to downstream collection sites.	a. Recommend marks for a portion of the steelhead reared at LFC to determine survival, ocean distribution, contribution to various fisheries, and returns to the LSRCP area.	ongoing	$350	Yes
	b. Implant PIT tags in a sample of fish from each release site (before release) for identification at collection facilities at lower Snake and Columbia river dams.	ongoing	$900	Yes
	c. Monitor migration timing, migration rates and relative recapture rates of PIT tagged and freeze branded fish at juvenile collection facilities at lower Snake and Columbia river collector dams.	ongoing	$700	Yes
3) Operate temporary adult steelhead traps on tributary rivers.	a. Evaluate the effectiveness of the existing TFH, Touchet River, lower Tucannon River, Cottonwood Creek, and Rattlesnake and Menatchee Creek adult traps for collecting naturally produced steelhead.	ongoing	$2,750	Yes
	b. Recommend modifications to improve the effectiveness of each trap.	ongoing	$350	Yes
	c. Collect endemic origin naturally reared steelhead for broodstock where appropriate.	ongoing	$0	Yes
	d. Record the origin of all fish captured in steelhead traps, document mortalities, and collect biological samples on natural origin steelhead for stock profile.	ongoing	$3,300	Yes
4) Estimate adult returns and return rates, collect life history and genetic characteristics, and document distribution of adult summer steelhead to southeast Washington streams and to LSRCP facilities.	a. Document hatchery returns to LFH, the traps on the Tucannon and Touchet rivers, Cottonwood Creek, Menatchee Creek and LGD.	ongoing	$1,750	Yes
	b. Conduct spawning ground surveys, determine distribution of spawners, and collect carcasses to document life history characteristics of summer steelhead in LSRCP project rivers.	ongoing	$600
	c. Estimate spawning escapement of LFH origin steelhead (LFH stock and Wallowa stock) in LSRCP rivers.	ongoing	$350
	d. Sample adults (natural and hatchery origin) at LFH, in the Tucannon and Touchet rivers, Asotin Creek, and tributaries to the Grande Ronde for length, age, sex, fecundity, and genetic (electrophoretic and/or DNA) data.	ongoing	$2,750
	e. Process recovered CWTs and scales for age composition.	ongoing	$350
	f. Conduct creel surveys on the Snake, Touchet, Walla Walla, Tucannon, and Grande Ronde rivers to collect information on harvested untagged and CWT tagged LFH origin adult steelhead.	ongoing	$19,500
	g. Use WDFW catch record card estimates and samples of adult CWT codes collected during creel surveys and redd counts to estimate the return and sport harvest of all groups of released LFH origin steelhead within the LSRCP area of Washington.	ongoing	$350
	h. Calculate the number of LFH origin steelhead that were present in the sport catch on each river within the LSRCP area for which creel survey results and/or adult trapping data are available.	ongoing	$550
	i. Utilize age composition data, adult escapement estimates, and creel data to calculate smolt-to-adult survival rates on hatchery steelhead produced from LFC.	ongoing	$1,100
	j. Assess the nature and extent of straying of LFH origin steelhead within the Snake River basin and provide recommendations to minimize straying.	ongoing	$550
5) Assess evaluation actions to determine potential effects on ESA listed species. Coordinate Washington's anadromous research with the Section 7 LSRCP Biological Assessment, subsequent Biological Opinions and Management plans.	a. Assess LSRCP hatchery evaluation actions to determine potential effects on species listed under the Endangered Species Act.	ongoing	$1,700
	b. Represent WDFW during formal ESA consultation between NMFS and the FWS.	ongoing	$700
	c. Coordinate and integrate Washington's anadromous fish research with the Section 7 LSRCP Biological Assessment, subsequent Biological Opinions and Management Plans, HGMPs, and NMFS' Recovery Plans.	ongoing	$4,500
6) Complete annual reports to summarize results of all LSRCP funded work conducted during the contract period	a. Summarize results from objective tasks, assemble into species specific reports. Make available in printed and electronic formats.	ongoing	$1,700

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Monitor and evaluate the quality and release of hatchery spring and fall chinook salmon and summer steelhead produced from LFC.	2003	2006	$14,270
2. Evaluate summer steelhead (LFH, Wallowa, and Endemic stock) release strategies, release sites, smolt out-migration timing and relative survivals from LFC releases, upstream acclimation sites above LGD to downstream collection sites.	2003	2006	$8,835
3. Operate temporary adult steelhead traps on tributary rivers.	2003	2006	$28,970
4) Estimate adult returns and return rates, collect life history and genetic characteristics, and document distribution of adult summer steelhead to southeast Washington streams and to LSRCP facilities.	2003	2006	$126,060
5. Assess actions and compliance with ESA	2003	2006	$31,235
6. Complete annual reports	2003	2006	$7,700

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$50,350	$52,870	$55,550	$58,300

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel		$24,538
Fringe	28.5%	$6,930
Supplies		$650
Travel		$5,500
Indirect	25.2%	$9,542
Capital		$0
PIT tags	# of tags: 350	$790
		$47,950

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$47,950
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$47,950
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Reason for change in estimated budget

N/A

Reason for change in scope

N/A

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
LSRCP	All actions identified	$42,800	cash

Other budget explanation

The LSRCP is a Congressionally mandated BPA reimbursable program. Budget figures are provided here for comparison purposes only.

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-12B)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

A response is required. The budget is apparently for one FTE at $42,800K to participate in a broad LSRCP M&E program, but it is unclear how this project is integrated with other evaluation projects. This proposal has been largely extracted from the proposal for Projects 200118, 200112, 200114, 200115 (or the other way around). In general, the way the proposal is written detracts from the project clarity. It is far too long for the content involved (needless words, among other problems), and is full of organizational lapses (though most headings remain). Trying to find why and how the project is being done and what its results are takes far more effort than it should. Therefore, many comments below deal with the proposal rather than the project itself. It was helpful to have in-hatchery (production) details relegated to an appendix. Section b: Technical and/or scientific background shows disregard for this subject area. The material focuses on statutory underpinnings and program process, gives little hint of technical matters, and has nothing whatsoever about scientific basis for the program. The message this section conveys is that the sponsors view the program as neither needing scientific justification nor having science behind what is being done. Hunting through the rest of the proposal reveals that this does not adequately characterize the sponsors' view, but the writers got the proposal off to a poor start by misconstruing Section b. Furthermore, no primary scientific literature is referenced anywhere in the proposal. Only gray literature was used, and one of those sources shown in the text, Martin (2000), does not appear among the proposal's listed references. The proposal fails to refer to the significant body of published research findings on steelhead residualization and the effects of it. It does not even refer to WDFW's own long-standing and well-known research on relative reproductive performance of wild and hatchery steelhead and the resulting threat to natural productivity, e.g., the papers of Chilcote, Leider, and others from the Kalama River. It also ignores such pertinent papers as Reisenbichler and McIntyre (1977) and Reisenbichler et al. (1992). Below are examples of references that project personnel should consult for possible inclusion (and as starting points for finding others) with thorough discussion in a revised proposal: Chilcote, M. W., S. A. Leider, and J. J. Loch. 1986. Differential reproductive success of hatchery and wild summer-run steelhead under natural conditions. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115:726-735. Reisenbichler, R. R. 1997. Genetic factors contributing to declines of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. Pages 223-244 in D. J. Stouder, P. A. Bisson, and R. J. Naiman, eds. Pacific salmon and their ecosystems: status and future options. Chapman & Hall, New York. Reisenbichler, R. R., and J. D. McIntyre. 1977. Genetic differences in growth and survival of juvenile hatchery and wild steelhead trout, Salmo gairdneri. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 34:123-128. Reisenbichler, R. R., J. D. McIntyre, M. F. Solazzi, and S. W. Ladino. 1992. Genetic variation in steelhead of Oregon and northern California. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 121:158-169. Reisenbichler, R. R., and S. R. Phelps. 1989. Genetic variation in steelhead (Salmo gairdneri) from the north coast of Washington. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46:66-73. Section c: Rationale and significance to Regional Programs contains a welter of material concerning rationale: various forms of statement on goals, objectives, plans, identified needs, and visions—by at least eight agencies and tribes. This could have been boiled down to something more coherent but is generally good stuff. It gives helpful context within which to consider the target fishes, fall chinook salmon and summer steelhead, and the management for them. (The project's actual, narrow, technical concept and operation, or aspects of these, may not fit in with some of the stated, ecologically based visions and goals). Then, for each of the two fishes, there is a summary of past hatchery program intents, efforts, and results, as well as future "possibility." Embedded in Section c are indications of some technical aspects and underlying science that could have been covered (with much else) in Section b. Most of the material on past effort and results belongs in Section e, Project history. (If writers do not follow the organization stipulated for proposals, it becomes confusing and inefficient for reviewers to ferret out what they are trying to say.) The following quotation brings up useful questions: "The existence of LSRCP hatchery mitigation within the Grande Ronde basin . . . continues to raise questions: what are the effects on listed species of continuing the hatchery steelhead program, should new broodstocks be developed for the program to reduce the potential for negative impacts of hatchery production and serve as a more appropriate source of supplementation fish, and are wild populations within the basin healthy enough to be used for broodstock development without serious damage? Answers to these questions must be obtained and integrated into existing management documents if managers are to make informed decisions that benefit natural populations." The proposal should indicate the progress made toward getting the answers and what the results have been so far. Section e: Project history merely lists various activities, some oddly presented as task statements. It fails to show here what the results were, but, as said, some were shown in a previous section. Except for one unquantified statement, the "Past Accomplishments" are expressed not as what was accomplished, but as activities performed; mere activities are not meaningful accomplishments. The one statement of a result was that the project "provides an excellent steelhead sport fishery in the lower Grande Ronde River which has exceeded the original LSRCP mitigation goals." It was previously stated that LSRCP's "specific mitigation goals include 'in-place' and 'in-kind' replacement of adult salmon and steelhead," and that the project is intended to "rear and release juvenile fish to compensate for . . . [among other things,] . . . 4,656 Snake River summer steelhead. . ." An objective is later stated of meeting an "LSRCP goal to return an average of 1,250 adult hatchery steelhead to the Lower Grande Ronde River annually for harvest." It is not clear how the figure of 4,656 was reduced to 1,250. The estimated sport fishery harvests of the hatchery's fish were estimated to range from 1,291 to 3,520 during the nine angling seasons from 1991-1992 to 1999-2000. These estimated harvests exceed the LSRCP harvest goal of 1,250 but fall short of the 4,656 that are supposed to be compensated for. What is the explanation to this? Section f: Objectives, tasks and methods. This is the good part. There are better indications of what the project is about. The opening paragraph indicates that the objectives and tasks that apply to this project were pulled from an overall document on the LSRCP program. The narrative material may represent direct input by project personnel. The scheme looks adequate. The project history section should, by summarizing results, show the extent to which the work is being done and is effective. Most of these comments likely pertain to the proposals that material has been extracted from, but this proposal must be substantially clarified.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-6)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Apr 23, 2002

Comment:

Fundable. The respondents presented a helpful package of information and responses to ISRP questions. Their responses amply address the ISRP's preliminary review requests for description of the scientific basis for the program; reference to relevant literature on steelhead residualization and reproductive performance; clarification of technical matters such as sample site selection and assessment of data quality; description of broodstock development; and clarification of harvest goals. If future preparations for review build on this, the processing of the resultant materials should be efficient. WDFW should be congratulated on their efforts to reduce straying, production, and to protect endemic gene pools.

Although they have taken considerable action to prevent their program from causing further jeopardy for wild stocks, and will continue to do so, they inform the ISRP that they will not stop mitigation actions authorized under the LSRCP. They blame NMFS in one instance, for not providing guidance on the amount of reduction needed to preclude deleterious effects in wild fish, but WDFW should take responsibility in determining what steps to take to avoid potential harm caused by the fish they release. The intent of this program is to use LSRCP authorization to produce fish for harvest, but a primary intent of other basin programs is to conserve native species and increase abundance to useful and persistent levels. These differing views of "basin management" may have several incompatibilities.

If hatchery production (Project 200114) was reduced by 7,000 lb annually to redirect some money into habitat structure construction (p 4), does that habitat structure work continue today?