FY 2002 LSRCP proposal 200123

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

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Defer final recommendation until review of the entire LSRCP is complete.

General Comments

The authors generally did a good job putting the material together describing, to the program's credit, a substantial commitment to monitoring program elements including hatchery practices, size and time at release, adult returns, smolt survival during migration, relative survival of hatchery and wild fish, and variability in brood stocks. Although the Tucannon and Walla Walla subbasin summaries contain some data on stock status, the summaries and proposals need to include detailed results concerning successes and failures in meeting the program's numerical goals. The proposals should include sufficient amounts of these data and analyses to stand on its own in a technical review.

Although most of responses adequately addressed the ISRP's concerns, some of the responses could have been more helpful. In several instances, for example, the respondents referred the ISRP to other documents or publications to search for the information needed to answer a question. In one instance, the authors did not produce the desired data because the information is to be included in a yet to be prepared publication. Presentation of these data to clarify an issue for the ISRP would not preclude publication at a later date.

In response to questions regarding the program's effectiveness in meeting the goals, the authors reported that the steelhead program sometimes exceeded the goal by as many as 10, 000 fish. When this happens wouldn't it be prudent to consider reducing the size of the program to prevent further jeopardy to wild fish? The respondent's did not make clear the program's effectiveness in meeting goals for chinook salmon.

Some estimates of harvest rate were presented in the response. Although rates for chinook (up to 6% for springs, up to 35% for falls) may be considered low, the impact of these rates on severely depressed spring and fall chinook may be profound. Rates for steelhead were reported to be up to 50%.

Specific Comments

Additional review comments for consideration below are numbered according to their sequence in the WDFW response.

1. The ISRP asked whether monitoring of the trout sport fishery has been conducted to determine where it is with respect to the compensation goal. The WDFW response indicates that creel surveys of the steelhead fishery were conducted from 1984-1986 and resident trout in 1985. Goals for adult returns of steelhead have been met nearly every year. The creel surveys showed that the angler day goals for resident trout were exceeded during the survey year.

ISRP Final Comment: A lot of things can change in 15 years, especially considering one year as the index. The ISRP suggests that a periodic monitoring plan be developed that would identify any trends in angler participation over the years. Evidently, it is possible to estimate the numbers of adult steelhead returning annually. These numbers should be provided in future proposals. With respect to chinook, the response is adequate. Again, this information should be provided in future proposals.

2. The ISRP asked for a description of how past results have influenced project implementation. Have plans changed direction because monitoring trends show the need. In response to this request, WDFW provides a lengthy description of modifications that have been made in the details of the program.

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate.

3. The ISRP asked for information, where available, on the size of the 2001 spring chinook runs into the Tucannon and Walla Walla rivers as pertinent to the LSRCP performance. In response WDFW provides a table showing numbers of spring chinook counted at several points during the years 1986 through 2000. They also conclude that the run in 2001 responded to ocean conditions in the same positive way as other stocks in the Snake and Columbia basins.

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate.

4. The ISRP raised a question about how these hatcheries are addressing the need for more information on rates of straying and the need to reduce it. The WDFW response describes several specific actions intended to assist in determining straying rates of steelhead released from these facilities. Coded wire tags are applied so as to identify each release group. Freeze brands are also used to identify release locations and groups. With spring chinook and effort is being made to ensure that all hatchery releases are marked so they can be distinguished from wild fish. All yearling fall chinook released from hatcheries are currently marked. Subyearling fall chinook are for the most part released above Lower Granite Dam by the Nez Perce tribe. It is expected that most will return to the Snake River basin, because they are acclimated prior to release.

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate, in that the requested information is provided. However, the information on fall chinook subyearlings is not reassuring, as suggested in a recent article by Kenaston, Lindsay, and Schroeder in the most recent North American Journal of Fisheries Management (21:765-773), where steelhead that were acclimated showed no better return responses than fish that were not acclimated.

5. The ISRP asked what comparisons will be made in the evaluation of Curl Lake acclimation. The WDFW response indicates that in spite of the acclimation program, intended to shift spawning upstream, the concentration of redds has shifted downstream. Returns in 2001 may help clarify some of the questions regarding homing abilities and distribution of fish from Curl Lake. It is unlikely that studies will continue into the future, given management policies that are in effect.

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate. See the previous item 4.

6. The ISRP suggested that the results for the spring chinook captive brood stock program should be included in the same proposal as the LSRCP program. The WDFW indicates that there is little to report on the captive brood stock program. The first four-year old females will be spawned in the fall of 2001. Only after that would it be possible to compare the two programs.

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate.

7. The ISRP asked for a description of the exercise experiment that is proposed to determine whether exercise of juveniles prior to release will increase their rate of survival. The WDFW response describes an experiment involving two large rearing ponds. One group (control) will be reared using standard velocities (ca. 0.2 Body Lengths per second [BL/s]), while the exercised group will be submitted to various water velocities (in the range of 0.75 to 1.5 BL/s for 6 to 8 hours per day) five days a week until transfer to the Curl Lake Acclimation Pond. Velocities will be slowly increased each week by adjusting the angle of the water entering the pond. The target number for each group is in the range of 40,000 to 50,000 fish per brood year. Each group will be tagged with coded wire tags with a unique code. From each group another 500 fish will be marked with PIT tags before release into Curl Lake. ANOVA is proposed for the statistical analysis of differences in mean fish size, survival through the dams and survival to adult returns of spawners. The study is proposed to be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

ISRP Final Comment: There could be considerable saving in time and expense if a way could be found to provide replicate control and experimental groups within a year.

8. The ISRP asked for a description of methods used to monitor the results of planting salmon carcasses in streams to provide nutrients in an effort o increase productivity. The WDFW response suggests that the effort has been limited to placing in the stream carcasses of fish spawned in the hatchery. The program will depend upon studies elsewhere to apply to the LSRCP efforts.

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate.

9. The ISRP commented that the LSRCP goals include prevention of deleterious effects on naturally spawning stocks, but noticed little discussion of the option of discontinuing stocking of hatchery fish. WDFW responds that many modifications have been made in the program. They mention discontinuing stocking in Asotin Creek as one example, and reduction of numbers stocked in some streams. They are phasing into the use of local brood stock in two locations and are exploring a third. They have attempted to maintain stock integrity with the use of specific mating protocols.

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate.

10. The ISRP commented that there should be a discussion in the proposal of the factors and data that enter into the process of deciding how many fish to stock. WDFW provides a brief description of the CRFMP but recommended that the ISRP obtain additional information elsewhere. The CRFMP arose from the U.S. V Oregon court decision. The CRFMP process includes a Technical Advisory Committee, a Production Advisory Committee and a Policy Committee, each comprised of representatives of the parties to the suit. The intent of this plan is to provide management guidelines as well as hatchery production and harvest allocation requirements to ensure that Columbia River fisheries resources are protected, managed and enhanced for future generations, and to protect federally secured treaty tribal rights to their share of the harvestable fish. While the CRFMP has expired, a sequence of two-year agreements have been used that address hatchery production, fish marking and harvest levels and harvest sharing until such time as a revised CRFMP is completed and agreed to by the parties.

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate.

11. The ISRP (apparently) referred to Subobjective 7.2.1 concerning fall chinook adult return rates to SE Washington, and impacts from ocean and downriver fisheries and the use of CWT in this evaluation. The WDFW response states that all yearling fall chinook and some subyearlings produced by Lyons Ferry hatchery are marked with coded wire tags for evaluation of harvest, straying, and adult spawning escapement and hatchery returns. Ocean harvest has been and will continue to be included as part of the evaluation of success of the mitigation program. Periodically, all ocean and downriver harvests are examined and evaluated for their effect on meeting mitigation and recovery goals. Results are included in the annual monitoring and evaluation reports. Citation to a published report in which results are reported is provided (No. Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt. 17:638-651).

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate.

12. The ISRP inquired about monitoring for fall chinook adults and juveniles in the Tucannon River. The WDFW response says that redd counts are conduced annually in the lower Tucannon River. A table is provided. Carcasses have been examined, showing a hatchery origin (Lyons Ferry and Umatilla). A smolt trap operated on the lower Tucannon River has shown that natural production is highly variable, with counts between 100-15,000 smolts, while redd counts remained rather constant from year to year. They plan to publish the data in the near future. WDFW suspects that survival of juveniles in the river is variable because of due to channel instability and sediment input from Pataha Creek.

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate.

13. The ISRP said that the response should clarify the LSRCP goals for steelhead. The WDFW response specifies 4,656 hatchery produced steelhead adults per year and to maintain a substantial fishery in area streams. WDFW has separated the goal into subtotals for the watersheds 1,500 to the Grande Ronde, 875 to the Tucannon, 750 to the Touchet, 900 to the Walla Walla , and 631 to the Snake River.

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate.

14. The ISRP inquired whether the recreational fishery goal is being met, and asked what is the basis for stocking of brown trout? The WDFW response refers to the earlier question about monitoring of the recreational fishery (number 1). With respect to brown trout they accused the ISRP of not reading the full AOP plan, which shows that brown trout are no longer produced at any LFC facility. Production was discontinued following adoption of Washington's wild salmonid policy. The table the ISRP referred to was for design capacities for each hatchery for each species under the original LSRCP plan in which brown trout were identified as a mitigation for lost angler opportunity.

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate, though some note in the text would have been helpful in preventing the ISRP from having to infer this information from a comparison of a text that does not mention brown trout with a table that does.

15. The ISRP noted that the response should describe the option of phasing out unsuccessful activities, even the hatchery program altogether, at least for steelhead. The WDFW response is that many activities have been terminated or substantially modified. For example, resident trout are no longer planted into any area streams. All resident trout are now stocked in area ponds and lakes. A summary of planting records is attached to the response. WDFW feels it cannot terminate the hatchery program without congressional approval. Furthermore, WDFW feels that the program has been successful in supporting the hatchery produced resident trout and steelhead fisheries. The spring and fall chinook programs are currently geared toward restoring naturally spawning populations using local stocks. It is their hope to supply harvest opportunities and meet mitigation goals for fall chinook in the near future. They recognize that it may not be possible to maintain the Tucannon spring chinook stock or ever meet its mitigation goal.

They provide an analysis of potential effects of NMFS determination of jeopardy for LFH and Wallowa stock steelhead. There has been no guidance as to what level of hatchery production constitutes jeopardy. If relieved of the responsibility of mitigation under the LSRCP, other actions would have to be demonstrated to be successful and undertaken to compensate for the fish loss. They see no likelihood that other actions will be found in the near future that can substitute for the hatcheries.

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate.

16. The ISRP observed that the response should further describe the goal to establish hatchery brood stocks that are appropriate, local stocks. The WDFW response describes a process they are using to phase into local brood stock for steelhead in the Touchet River on a trial basis. They have concerns about "mining" the wild stock excessively; so have limited their initial target to 50,000 smolts from the wild stock and the remaining 75-100,000 smolts required using the Lyons Ferry Hatchery stock. Unknown return rates and straying rates of smolts originating from the wild stock also led to caution at this stage. Evaluation of performance of this brood stock will occur over the next five years before a decision is made that might commit the entire program to wild stock. With respect to the lower Walla Walla River, they are uncertain how to proceed. The status and identification of the steelhead stock is being studied to determine the best way to change to use of the local stock. Extent of straying of this stock is being studied as well. They have a concern that there may be more than one wild stock present in the basin, and do not want to undertake a program that might lead to their blending. Therefore, the Lyons Ferry stock will continue to be used in the lower Walla Walla River, evaluating the returns from that program and the wild steelhead stock status in the Touchet River, the upper Walla Walla River and Mill Creek.

ISRP Final Comment: The response was inadequate. See the ISRP general comment above on stock origin and transfer.

17. The ISRP asked for a description of the level of agreement among the CTUIR, the state of Washington and the state of Oregon. The WDFW response observes that the CTUIR would prefer that WDFW terminate the releases into the Walla Walla River of Lyons Ferry Hatchery stock steelhead and switch to a local stock. The state of Oregon has made no comment. WDFW will continue to study the alternatives and effects of this hatchery stock. With respect to the Touchet River, CTUIR has agreed with the WDFW plan for short term stocking goals over the next 4-5 years. CTUIR would prefer that over the long term WDFW would supplement the wild steelhead population for harvest mitigation rather than phasing into a local stock, due to concerns about straying. WDFW believes that the Touchet River stock is healthier than the Tucannon, where WDFW has already undertaken supplementation due to the depressed nature of the spring chinook and steelhead stocks there. They regard supplementation as experimental.

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate.

Comment:

Fundable, but issues with stock transfer remain. The authors generally did a good job putting the material together describing, to the program's credit, a substantial commitment to monitoring program elements including hatchery practices, size and time at release, adult returns, smolt survival during migration, relative survival of hatchery and wild fish, and variability in broodstocks. Although the Tucannon and Walla Walla subbasin summaries contain some data on stock status, the summaries and proposals need to include detailed results concerning successes and failures in meeting the program's numerical goals. The proposals should include sufficient amounts of these data and analyses to stand on their own in a technical review.

Project sponsors generally responded adequately to ISRP requests for specific additional information on past results; project implementation; project history; how decisions are made on determining how many fish to stock; survey and monitoring methods; straying rates of hatchery-produced fish into wild populations; ocean and downriver fishery impacts on LSRCP stocks; risk analysis on program effects and planning steps to phase out unsuccessful activities; and clarification on the kinds and levels of agreement among the CTUIR, the state of Washington and the state of Oregon within the LSRCP program.

Although most of the responses adequately addressed the ISRP's concerns, some of the responses could have been more helpful. In several instances, for example, the respondents referred the ISRP to other documents or publications to search for the information needed to answer a question. In one instance, the authors did not produce the desired data because the information is to be included in a yet to be prepared publication. Presentation of these data to clarify an issue for the ISRP would not preclude publication at a later date.

In response to questions regarding the program's effectiveness in meeting the goals, the authors reported that the steelhead program sometimes exceeded the goal by as many as 10,000 fish. When this happens wouldn't it be prudent to consider reducing the size of the program to prevent further jeopardy to wild fish? The respondents did not make clear the program's effectiveness in meeting goals for chinook salmon.

Some estimates of harvest rates were presented in the response. Although rates for chinook (up to 6% for springs, up to 35% for falls) may be considered low, the impact of these rates on severely depressed spring and fall chinook may be profound. Rates for steelhead were reported to be up to 50%.

Continuing ISRP Concern

The ISRP observed that the response should further describe the goal to establish hatchery broodstocks that are appropriate (i.e. local stocks?). The WDFW response describes a process they are using to phase into local broodstock for steelhead in the Touchet River on a trial basis. They have concerns about "mining" the wild stock excessively; so have limited their initial target to 50,000 smolts from the wild stock and the remaining 75-100,000 smolts required using the Lyons Ferry Hatchery stock. Unknown return rates and straying rates of smolts originating from the wild stock also led to caution at this stage. Evaluation of performance of this broodstock will occur over the next five years before a decision is made that might commit the entire program to wild stock. With respect to the lower Walla Walla River, they are uncertain how to proceed. The status and identification of the steelhead stock is being studied to determine the best way to change to use of the local stock. Extent of straying of this stock is being studied as well. They have a concern that there may be more than one wild stock present in the basin, and do not want to undertake a program that might lead to their blending. Therefore, the Lyons Ferry stock will continue to be used in the lower Walla Walla River, evaluating the returns from that program and the wild steelhead stock status in the Touchet River, the upper Walla Walla River and Mill Creek.