FY 2002 LSRCP proposal 200120

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
200120 Narrative	Narrative
200120 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation
Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Overview Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Reintroduction evaluation of spring chinook salmon and the study of the early life history of summer steelhead in Lookingglass Creek
Proposal ID	200120
Organization	Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Mike Mclean
Mailing address	One University Blvd., 211 Inlow Hall La Grande, OR 97850
Phone / email	5419623777 / mmclean@eou.edu
Manager authorizing this project	Gary James
Review cycle	LSRCP
Province / Subbasin	Blue Mountain / Grande Ronde
Short description	Monitor and evaluate survival and life history characteristics of spring chinook salmon and O. mykiss in Lookingglass Creek
Target species	Spring Chinook Salmon, Summer Steelhead

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
45.7068	-117.8423	Entire Lookingglass Creek

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
RM&E RPA Action 182
RM&E RPA Action 185

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
1992	Collected and released Rapid River stock spring chinook salmon adults above the weir on Lookingglass Creek.
1992	Enumerated redds above and below the weir on Lookingglass Creek.
1993	Installation and operation of a rotary screw trap to quantify the natural production of spring chinook salmon above the weir.
1993	Collected and released Rapid River stock spring chinook salmon adults above the weir on Lookingglass Creek.
1993	Enumerated redds above and below the weir on Lookingglass Creek.
1993	PIT-tagged juvenile spring chinook salmon in upper reaches of Lookingglass Creek and at the trap for survival and arrival timing at the dams.
1993	Conducted fecundity counts on Rapid River stock spring chinook salmon adults.
1993	Summarized Lookingglass Creek flow and temperature data from 1964 to 1971.
1993	Summarized Lookingglass Creek spawning ground survey data from 1965 to 1970
1994	Operated rotary screw trap in Lookingglass Creek to enumerate natural production above the weir.
1994	Conducted monthly length/weight sampling of juvenile spring chinook salmon in upper Lookingglass Creek.
1994	Collected and released Rapid River stock spring chinook salmon adults above the weir on Lookingglass Creek.
1994	Enumerated redds above and below the weir on Lookingglass Creek.
1994	PIT-tagged juvenile spring chinook salmon in upper reaches of Lookingglass Creek and at the trap for survival and arrival timing at the dams.
1994	Conducted fecundity counts on Rapid River stock spring chinook salmon adults.
1995	Operated rotary screw trap in Lookingglass Creek to enumerate natural production above the weir.
1995	Conducted monthly length/weight sampling of juvenile spring chinook salmon in upper Lookingglass Creek.
1995	Enumerated and collected, for hatchery spawning and rearing, unmarked adult progeny of Rapid River stock spring chinook salmon adults that were released above the weir on Lookingglass Creek from 1992 to 1994.
1995	Enumerated redds above and below the weir on Lookingglass Creek.
1995	PIT-tagged juvenile spring chinook salmon in upper reaches of Lookingglass Creek and at the trap for survival and arrival timing at the dams.
1995	Summarized juvenile spring chinook trapping data from 1964 to 1974.
1996	Operated rotary screw trap in Lookingglass Creek to enumerate natural production above the weir.
1996	Released presmolts from unmarked adults into upper Lookingglass Creek.
1996	Conducted monthly length/weight sampling of juvenile spring chinook salmon in upper Lookingglass Creek.
1996	Enumerated and collected, for hatchery spawning and rearing, unmarked adult progeny of Rapid River stock spring chinook salmon adults that were released above the weir on Lookingglass Creek from 1992 to 1994.
1996	Constructed upper weir 4 miles above hatchery weir for release of fish above private land.
1996	Released above the weir, unmarked adult progeny of Rapid River stock spring chinook salmon adults that were released above the weir on Lookingglass Creek from 1992 to 1994.
1996	Enumerated redds above and below the weir on Lookingglass Creek.
1996	PIT-tagged and released into Lookingglass Creek unmarked progeny for a size at tagging experiment.
1996	PIT-tagged juvenile spring chinook salmon in at the trap for survival and arrival timing at the dams.
1997	Operated rotary screw trap in Lookingglass Creek to enumerate natural production above the weir.
1997	Released above the weir, unmarked adult progeny of Rapid River stock spring chinook salmon adults that were released above the weir on Lookingglass Creek from 1992 to 1994.
1997	Constructed upper weir 4 miles above hatchery weir for release of fish above private land.
1997	Enumerated redds above the weir on Lookingglass Creek.
1997	PIT-tagged and released into Lookingglass Creek unmarked progeny for a size at tagging experiment.
1997	PIT-tagged juvenile spring chinook salmon in upper reaches of Lookingglass Creek and at the trap for survival and arrival timing at the dams.
1997	Assisted with trapping of adult summer steelhead on Lookingglass Creek.
1998	Operated rotary screw trap in Lookingglass Creek to enumerate natural production above the weir.
1998	Enumerated and collected, for hatchery spawning and rearing, unmarked adult progeny of Rapid River stock spring chinook salmon adults that were released above the weir on Lookingglass Creek from 1993 to 1995.
1998	Enumerated redds above and below the weir on Lookingglass Creek.
1998	PIT-tagged juvenile spring chinook salmon in upper reaches of Lookingglass Creek and at the trap for survival and arrival timing at the dams.
1998	Conducted monthly length/weight sampling of juvenile spring chinook salmon in upper Lookingglass Creek.
1998	Assisted with trapping of adult summer steelhead on Lookingglass Creek.
1999	Operated rotary screw trap in Lookingglass Creek to enumerate natural production above the weir.
1999	Enumerated and collected, for hatchery spawning and rearing, unmarked adult progeny of Rapid River stock spring chinook salmon adults that were released above the weir on Lookingglass Creek from 1994 to 1996.
1999	Enumerated redds above and below the weir on Lookingglass Creek.
1999	Released presmolts from unmarked adults into upper Lookingglass Creek.
1999	PIT-tagged juvenile spring chinook salmon in upper reaches of Lookingglass Creek and at the trap for survival and arrival timing at the dams.
1999	Conducted monthly length/weight sampling of juvenile spring chinook salmon in upper Lookingglass Creek.
1999	Assisted with trapping of adult summer steelhead on Lookingglass Creek.
2000	Operated rotary screw trap in Lookingglass Creek to enumerate natural production above the weir.
2000	Enumerated and returned to the creek below the weir unmarked adult progeny of Rapid River stock spring chinook salmon adults that were released above the weir on Lookingglass Creek from 1995 to 1997.
2000	Enumerated redds above and below the weir on Lookingglass Creek.
2000	Released presmolts from unmarked adults into upper Lookingglass Creek.
2000	PIT-tagged juvenile spring chinook salmon in upper reaches of Lookingglass Creek and at the trap for survival and arrival timing at the dams.
2000	Conducted monthly length/weight sampling of juvenile spring chinook salmon in upper Lookingglass Creek.
2000	Assisted with trapping of adult summer steelhead on Lookingglass Creek.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
9202604	Early life history study of Grande Ronde River basin chinook salmon.	Similar study in other tributaries of the same basin.
	LSRCP Evaluation Studies	Data used with management decisions
199405400	Bull trout life history, genetics, habitat needs, and limiting factors in central and northeast Oregon	Proposed project captures bull trout incidentally in rotary screw traps and provides meristic and recapture data.
199800703	Facility O&M and Program M&E for Grande Ronde anadromous salmonids (CTUIR)	Proposed project uses broodstock for the reintroduction from this project.
199801001	Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program (ODFW)	Proposed project uses broodstock for the reintroduction from this project.
198805301	Northeast Oregon Hatcheries Master Plan (NPT)	Improvements to Lookingglass Hatchery are made in this project for use with the reintroduction effort.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Develop an endemic spring chinook salmon broodstock program for Lookingglass Creek	a. Meet and correspond with co-managers on the development of an endemic broodstock program for Lookingglass Creek.	Ongoing	$1,460
2. Develop summer steelhead endemic broodstock programs for the Grande Ronde River basin.	a. Cooperate with co-managers to develop plans for endemic steelhead programs for the Grande Ronde River basin.	Ongoing	$2,550

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Develop an endemic spring chinook salmon broodstock program for Lookingglass Creek	2003	2006	$6,604
2. Develop summer steelhead endemic broodstock programs for the Grande Ronde River basin.	2003	2006	$11,540

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$4,210	$4,420	$4,641	$4,873

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

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

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
3. Monitor the downstream migration and survival of the 2000 and 2001 cohorts of naturally-produced and captive broodstock juvenile spring chinook salmon from Lookingglass Creek.	a. Operate a rotary screw trap near the mouth of Lookingglass Creek to trap and enumerate juvenile spring chinook salmon moving past the screw trap.	Ongoing	$112,500
3.	b. Examine all trapped juveniles. Record all marks and scan all fish for PIT tags.	Ongoing	$0
3.	c. Estimate trap efficiencies.	Ongoing	$1,460
3.	d. PIT-tag 1,000 juveniles during one week in late July or early August in Lookingglass Creek.	Ongoing	$8,500
3.	e. PIT-tag 3,000 juveniles throughout the 2002 migration season at the trap in lower Lookingglass Creek (trap-tagged fish).	Ongoing	$6,750
4. Characterize growth of 2001 broodyear juvenile spring chinook in Lookingglass Creek using monthly fork length data (July-December, 2002).	a. Capture and measure juvenile salmon each month in the field and at the trap.	Ongoing	$4,500
5. Determine arrival distributions and survival rates to the screw trap for the 2000 cohort of naturally-produced juvenile spring chinook salmon below the weir on Lookingglass Creek	a. Describe survival and migration timing for entire population moving past the screw trap.	Ongoing	$575
6. Characterize growth of 2000 cohort naturally-produced progeny in Lookingglass Creek using monthly fork length data (July, 2001-July, 2002).	a. Calculate mean monthly fork length and weight.	Ongoing	$650
7. Characterize arrival timing to Lower Granite Dam of naturally-produced juvenile spring chinook salmon from Lookingglass Creek and other naturally-produced fish in the Grande Ronde River basin from the 2000 cohort.	a. Describe arrival timing at Lower Granite Dam for groups of 2000 cohort juvenile spring chinook salmon PIT-tagged during different time intervals and locations from Lookingglass Creek as well as other Grande Ronde River natural populations.	Ongoing	$550
8. Make comparisons of minimum survival rates to Lower Granite Dam among naturally-produced juvenile spring chinook salmon from the 2000 cohort from Lookingglass Creek and other naturally-produced fish in the Grande Ronde River basin.	a. Compare minimum survival rates to Lower Granite Dam of four groups of PIT-tagged fish from Lookingglass Creek and other natural populations in the Grande Ronde River basin.	Ongoing	$545
9. Determine the genetic diversity, origin, age, and juvenile to adult survival of all adult spring chinook salmon returning to Lookingglass Creek.	a. Conduct spawning ground surveys in Lookingglass Creek bi-monthly above and weekly below the weir to count redds and collect dead and dying adult spring chinook salmon.	Ongoing	$36,000
9.	b. Monitor any tribal fishery on Lookingglass Creek and collect scales, fin tissue, and associated tag/mark information from fish harvested.	Ongoing	$16,735
9.	c. Collect scales, fin tissue, and associated tag/mark information from all fish returning to Lookingglass Creek.	Ongoing	$4,500
9.	d. Determine age of unmarked adults returning to Lookingglass Creek.	Ongoing	$1,460
9.	e. We will summarize adult data from brood years whose returns will be essentially complete through 5-year-old fish (i.e., 1997 brood).	Ongoing	$1,460
9.	f. Estimate juvenile to adult survival rate for the 1997 broodyear.	Ongoing	$1,460
10. Assess aspects of ecological interactions between spring chinook salmon and their abiotic environment in Lookingglass Creek.	a. Obtain and summarize flow and temperature data from U.S. Geologic Survey flow gauge on an annual basis.	Ongoing	$650
10.	b. Install, monitor, and download data from electronic thermographs in the basin.	Ongoing	$650
11. Monitor and evaluate survival and migration characteristics of juvenile O. mykiss captured at the screw trap on Lookingglass Creek.	a. Operate a rotary screw trap near the mouth of Lookingglass Creek to enumerate O. mykiss moving past the screw trap in 2002.	Ongoing	$1,460
11.	b. PIT tag and scale sample 2,500 O. mykiss moving past the screw trap in 2002.	Ongoing	$5,625
11.	c. Estimate trap efficiencies using PIT tag recaptures.	Ongoing	$1,460
11.	d. Describe the arrival timing and survival to Lower Granite Dam from fish tagged in 1999 and 2000.	Ongoing	$1,460
12. Determine the arrival timing and minimum survival rate to Lower Granite Dam for the O. mykiss that were PIT-tagged at the screw trap on Lookingglass Creek.	a. Describe the arrival timing and minimum survival rate at Lower Granite Dam.	Ongoing	$600
13. Determine resident/unsuccessful and anadromous forms of O. mykiss captured in the screw trap using PIT tag detections at Snake and Columbia River dams.	a. Determine if relationships exist between the fork length, weight, and condition factor of detected and non-detected O. mykiss within a broodyear.	Ongoing	$1,460
13.	b. Determine if relationships exist between the arrival timing at the trap of detected set and non-detected O. mykiss within a broodyear.	Ongoing	$1,460
14. Describe the adult summer steelhead population that returns to Lookingglass Creek.	a. Assist with the checking of the adult trap at least once a week to enumerate, measure, and remove a scale and genetic (opercle punch) sample from all adult summer steelhead captured in the hatchery picket weir trap.	Ongoing	$4,500
15. Monitor the population genetics of summer steelhead in the Grande Ronde River basin.	a. Collect fin tissue for genetic analysis from 100 juvenile O. mykiss captured in each of 7 sub-basins within the Grande Ronde River basin.	Ongoing	$9,000
15.	b. Assist with the collection of fin tissue for genetic analysis from all adult summer steelhead captured at weirs on Catherine Creek and the upper Grande Ronde River.	Ongoing	$3,000
16. Cooperate with ODFW and CTUIR to maintain ongoing LSRCP and BPA evaluation activities.	a. cooperate with ODFW/CTUIR evaluation personnel conducting LSRCP/BPA objectives and tasks.	Ongoing	$1,311

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
2. Implement kelt rejuvenation experiment for Grande Ronde River basin.	2003	2006	$161,354
3. Monitor the downstream migration and survival of the 2000 and 2001 cohorts of naturally-produced and captive broodstock juvenile spring chinook salmon from Lookingglass Creek.	2003	2006	$76,354
4. Characterize growth of 2001 broodyear juvenile spring chinook in Lookingglass Creek using monthly fork length data (July-December, 2001).	2003	2006	$76,354
5. Determine arrival distributions and survival rates to the screw trap for the 2000 cohort of naturally-produced juvenile spring chinook salmon below the weir on Lookingglass Creek	2003	2006	$76,354
6. Characterize growth of 2000 cohort naturally-produced progeny in Lookingglass Creek using monthly fork length data (July, 2001-July, 2002).	2003	2006	$76,354
7. Characterize arrival timing to Lower Granite Dam of naturally-produced juvenile spring chinook salmon from Lookingglass Creek and other naturally-produced fish in the Grande Ronde River basin from the 2000 cohort.	2003	2006	$76,354
8. Make comparisons of minimum survival rates to Lower Granite Dam among naturally-produced juvenile spring chinook salmon from the 2000 cohort from Lookingglass Creek and other naturally-produced fish in the Grande Ronde River basin.	2003	2006	$76,354
9. Determine the genetic diversity, origin, age, and juvenile to adult survival of all adult spring chinook salmon returning to Lookingglass Creek.	2003	2006	$76,354
10. Assess aspects of ecological interactions between spring chinook salmon and their abiotic environment in Lookingglass Creek.	2003	2006	$76,354
11. Monitor and evaluate survival and migration characteristics of juvenile O. mykiss captured at the screw trap on Lookingglass Creek.	2003	2006	$76,354
12. Determine the arrival timing and minimum survival rate to Lower Granite Dam for the O. mykiss that were PIT-tagged at the screw trap on Lookingglass Creek.	2003	2006	$76,354
13. Determine resident/unsuccessful and anadromous forms of O. mykiss captured in the screw trap using PIT tag detections at Snake and Columbia River dams.	2003	2006	$76,354
14. Describe the adult summer steelhead population that returns to Lookingglass Creek.	2003	2006	$76,354
15. Monitor the population genetics of summer steelhead in the Grande Ronde River basin.	2003	2006	$76,354
16. Cooperate with ODFW and CTUIR to maintain ongoing LSRCP and BPA evaluation activities.	2003	2006	$67,713

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2005	FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2006
$271,221	$331,006	$258,306	$284,782

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 2.5	$100,393
Fringe	35%	$35,137
Supplies		$13,500
Travel		$14,900
Indirect	34%	$55,736
Capital		$0
NEPA		$0
PIT tags	# of tags: 6500	$14,625
Subcontractor		$0
Other		$0
		$234,291

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$234,291
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$234,291
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Other budget explanation

Cost previously provided through LSRCP.

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:
Do not fund - response required

Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Do not fund, response required. While this is quite a comprehensive proposal and can be rationalized against Regional programs, reviewers question the current necessity for this detailed program. Three issues suggest the need to review this program:

improvements to the Lookingglass Hatchery water supply have not been agreed upon or costs approved at this time;
uncertainty about the wisdom of outplanting into the habitat without careful consideration of experiments that could be conducted in this unique environmental situation (this point is even referred to by the authors in point 2, page 4 of Section 9); and
whether there is simply the need to conduct such a detailed investigation for another production objective.

The project should be reduced to reasonable scope, focusing on a single, clear purpose, and then be written up in a much more concise proposal. A suggestion may be for the proponents to proceed with a substantially reduced program until the hatchery up-grade is complete, and until a careful consideration of alternative uses of the habitat is complete. We recognize that this may lead to a temporary deferment of production or fishery objectives but the benefits of using such a controlled environment for critical research issues (such as about the efficacy of re-introduction methods) may out-weigh these shorter-term production goals. These options should be discussed amongst co-managers before this proposal proceeds further.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-6)

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Apr 23, 2002

Comment:

Not Fundable. The response from CTUIR continues to demonstrate a clear difference of opinion on this proposal. While their response contains reasonable points of clarification, there was not much consideration of the ISRP comments. In the volume of paper reviewed, the committee certainly could be mistaken on a proposal, but this is also why a few reviewers read each proposal. To fully consider the CTUIR's response on this proposal, we have re-read the proposal and considered our original comments. Clearly our original review could have been more explicit but each of the original reviews made similar comments on focus and value of this research. Comments on focus result from the numerous activities listed in the proposal, but less attention was given to a clear statement of objectives and methods. For example, if the focus of the proposal is contained in the forth and fifth paragraphs of Mr. Contor's comments, these are not well identified in the proposal. To clarify, we address each of the original comments presented in the ISRP review:

improvements to the Lookingglass Hatchery water supply ... the response seems to agree with the ISRP concern. The ISRP was aware that the co-managers agree on the need for this improvement but also that it is not presently scheduled for implementation. Therefore, if pathogen free water is the current issue limiting production in the upper river, what has changed to allow this proposal to proceed?
uncertainty ... without careful consideration of experiments that could be conducted in this unique environmental situation. Our original concern was not about the thoroughness of the experiment proposed but whether that experiment is the best use of this situation. If the experiment was to test the ability of chinook produced through captive broodstock to recolonize the habitat that could be one worthwhile question to test. However, how would the production be introduced to the habitat, what would the observed rates of production be compared against, and was the most informative experimental design being used ... or did the proposal actually result from an opportunity to get surplus production from the captive brood program? We recognize the unique opportunity to use this environment for restoration of production and controlled experiments, but were the activities in this proposal the best use of this opportunity?
whether there is simply the need to conduct such a detailed investigation for another production objective. The ISRP was not questioning the CTUIR decision to replace production but whether every restoration project necessitates a comprehensive evaluation. Each project involves choices and costs, and basically monitoring competes with restoration efforts for limited funding resources. In the Grande Ronde basin, the co-managers have apparently made their choices in the ongoing programs. Is a proposal to re-introduce chinook to this habitat of greater priority than an ongoing conservation program? We do not mean to imply an ISRP priority or choice by this comments, only that the Provincial reviews have clearly demonstrated that ideas far exceed dollar resources. Local co-mangers must make difficult choices.

Given the continued uncertainty about the water issue for Lookingglass Hatchery and the uncertain scientific value of this proposal, the ISRP does not recommend funding of this proposal. The response offered confirms the ISRP's opinion that the project sponsors need to fundamentally rethink the project and prioritize actions so that varying levels of funding support would accomplish a hierarchical set of objectives. Any new proposal should include a detailed description of the problem, the specific goals and objectives for solving the problem, and detailed methods for meeting these objectives in a timely manner.