FY 2002 LSRCP proposal 200122

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.

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.