Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1992-026-04 - Grande Ronde Early Life History of Spring Chinook and Steelhead Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1992-026-04 - Grande Ronde Early Life History of Spring Chinook and Steelhead
Project Number:
1992-026-04
Title:
Grande Ronde Early Life History of Spring Chinook and Steelhead
Summary:
The goal of this project is to investigate the critical habitat, abundance, migration patterns, survival, and alternate life history strategies exhibited by spring Chinook salmon and summer steelhead juveniles from distinct populations in the Grande Ronde River and Imnaha River subbasins. This project will provide information on abundance of spring Chinook salmon and steelhead parr and estimates for egg-to-parr and parr-to-smolt survival for spring Chinook salmon and parr-to-smolt survival for steelhead, and assess stream health in selected study streams. This study provides a means for long term monitoring of juvenile salmonid production in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha River subbasins that is essential for assessing the success of restoration and enhancement efforts including hatchery supplementation and habitat improvement. As hatchery supplementation of spring Chinook salmon continues in the Grande Ronde subbasin, we will monitor abundance of migrants, life history characteristics, and survival to various life stages to determine the effectiveness of this management action.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
1992
Ending FY:
2017
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Blue Mountain Grande Ronde 100.00%
Purpose:
Artificial Production
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU (threatened)
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU (threatened)
Steelhead - Snake River DPS (threatened)
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Locations of fish traps in the Grande Ronde River Subbasin during the study period. Shaded areas delineate spring Chinook salmon spawning and upper rearing areas in each study stream. Dashed lines indicate the Grande Ronde River and Wallowa River valleys.

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P122551

Document: Investigations into the early life history of naturally produced spring Chinook salmon and summer steelhead in the Grande Ronde River subbasin

Page Number: 51

Project: 1992-026-04

Contract: 51891


Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $1,253,435 $1,253,435 $1,253,242 $1,253,242 $1,242,383

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $1,253,435 $1,253,242 $1,253,242 $1,242,383
FY2017 (Current) $1,253,435 $1,253,435 $1,253,396 $1,253,396 $705,435

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $1,253,435 $1,253,396 $1,253,396 $705,435
FY2018 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Apr-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2016 - FY2018)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2016 Expense $1,253,435 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY16 SOY June Uploads 06/26/2015
FY2017 Expense $1,253,435 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY17 SOY Budgets 06/02/2016

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Project Cost Share:

FY2016 9 %
FY2015 10 %
FY2014 7 %
FY2013 9 %
FY2012 11 %
FY2011 25 %
FY2010 17 %
FY2009 15 %
FY2008 9 %
FY2007 9 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution
FY2015 Oregon Department Of Fish and Wildlife $42,000
FY2015 Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) $12,000
FY2015 US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) $61,000
FY2015 US Geological Survey (USGS) $25,000
FY2016 Oregon Department Of Fish and Wildlife $42,000
FY2016 Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) $12,000
FY2016 US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) $52,000
FY2016 US Geological Survey (USGS) $25,000

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-003709 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Life Studies Of Spring Chinook Active $24,704 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2008
BPA-004121 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Life Studies of Spring Chinook Active $23,102 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
BPA-004982 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Life Studies of Spring Chinook Active $26,802 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
BPA-005598 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - GR Early Life History of Spg Chinook Active $24,025 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
BPA-005704 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Life Studies of Spring Chinook Active $41,173 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
BPA-006345 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Life Studies of Spring Chinook Active $28,633 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-006992 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Life Studies of Spring Chinook Active $27,298 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-007725 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Life Studies of Spring Chinook Active $27,056 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
BPA-008382 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Life Studies of Spring Chinook 15 Active $14,939 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
71578 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1992-026-04 EXP GRANDE RONDE CH EARLY LIFE HISTORY STUDY 2016 Issued $1,232,895 2/1/2016 - 1/31/2017
BPA-008900 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Life Studies Spring Chinook 16 Active $20,347 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
75001 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1992-026-04 EXP GRANDE RONDE CH EARLY LIFE HISTORY STUDY 2017 Issued $1,230,029 2/1/2017 - 1/31/2018
BPA-009523 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Life Studies Spring Chinook - FY17 Active $23,367 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):18
Completed:15
On time:13
Status Reports
Completed:51
On time:45
Avg Days Early:4

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
4119 21206, 26380, 31086, 36760, 41002, 46139, 51891, 56105, 60987, 64286, 68144, 71578, 75001 1992-026-04 GRANDE RONDE CHINOOK SALMON EARLY LIFE Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 03/2001 03/2001 Issued 51 180 0 0 3 183 98.36% 1
BPA-005598 PIT Tags - GR Early Life History of Spg Chinook Bonneville Power Administration 10/2006 10/2006 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-003709 PIT Tags - Life Studies Of Spring Chinook Bonneville Power Administration 10/2007 10/2007 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004121 PIT Tags - Life Studies of Spring Chinook Bonneville Power Administration 10/2008 10/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004982 PIT Tags - Life Studies of Spring Chinook Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005704 PIT Tags - Life Studies of Spring Chinook Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006345 PIT Tags - Life Studies of Spring Chinook Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006992 PIT Tags - Life Studies of Spring Chinook Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007725 PIT Tags - Life Studies of Spring Chinook Bonneville Power Administration 10/2013 10/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008382 PIT Tags - Life Studies of Spring Chinook 15 Bonneville Power Administration 10/2014 10/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008900 PIT Tags - Life Studies Spring Chinook 16 Bonneville Power Administration 10/2015 10/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009523 PIT Tags - Life Studies Spring Chinook - FY17 Bonneville Power Administration 10/2016 10/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 51 180 0 0 3 183 98.36% 1


Review: RME / AP Category Review

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 1992-026-04-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 1992-026-04
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1992-026-04
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Response Requested
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: BPA would like to discuss further coordination in data management needs of this project to support RPA 72 and potentital coordination with PNAMP Data workgroup. The F&W Program would like to meet with ODFW, CRITFC and Umatilla staff to ensure there is no duplication of effort. Multiple entites are producing survial estimates, conducting snorkle and redd surveys, using smolt traps, and assessing habitat in various ways. We will request a time to meet before January to clarify the level of effort in the Grande Ronde.

Please identify:
1. Why your data is "not electronically available"; and
2. What data sets will not be "electronically available" for various deliverables. Please specify the deliverable that is not electronically available. (Note a data set includes the raw data collected and additional data on analysis). For example if there is a deliverable for population adult abundance or habitat, we expect your raw and synthesized data to be made available electronically.
- Your response may help BPA identify funding needs for data repositories or identify an existing data warehouse that your data could be stored.

The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs only. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: (50.6 56.3 63.1 64.1 64.2 )
All Questionable RPA Associations (72.1) and
All Deleted RPA Associations ( 56.1 56.2 63.2 )
Proponent Response:

1. Why your data is "not electronically available"

Response:  Our data could be electronically available.  Tell us where you want it uploaded to be available.

2. What data sets will not be "electronically available" for various deliverables. Please specify the deliverable that is not electronically available. (Note a data set includes the raw data collected and additional data on analysis). For example if there is a deliverable for population adult abundance or habitat, we expect your raw and synthesized data to be made available electronically.
- Your response may help BPA identify funding needs for data repositories or identify an existing data warehouse that your data could be stored.

Response:  All data sets could be electronically available.  Where is an appropriate data repository?

 

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1992-026-04-ISRP-20101015
Project: 1992-026-04 - Grande Ronde Early Life History of Spring Chinook and Steelhead
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1992-026-04
Completed Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The project’s status and trend monitoring objectives (1-4) and the tasks involved meet scientific review criteria. In future proposals, however, the proponents need to provide a more thorough presentation of results for each project objective, adding interpretive discussion of data. This is especially true for the supplementation part of the project.

Qualification: Project objectives 5 and 6, concerning the Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) procedure and habitat monitoring do not meet scientific review criteria. The proponents should prepare a comprehensive plan for the IMW project including its objectives, study design, metrics, and the project’s role in the IMW project. The ISRP should review the plan before its implementation.

Objectives 5 and 6 are not scientifically justifiable at this time due to the lack of specific detail concerning the Grand Ronde IMW program and this project’s role in that program.

In the proposal, broad objectives of the IMW program and ISEMP procedures and protocols are given, but little detail is provided about on-the-ground studies in the Grande Ronde basin. What are the specific objectives of the Grande Ronde? What is the study design? What hypotheses will be tested? What are the treatment and reference streams, why were they selected, and what are the restoration activities that are ongoing and planned in them? At what spatial scales will comparisons be made? What metrics will be chosen? What is this project’s role? Will the proponents integrate and analyze the data (as implied by the objectives), and how will the data be analyzed? If other projects are involved, what is their role? In short, a great deal more information about the IMW specific to the Grande Ronde and this project needs to be provided before scientific criteria are met. In connection with this, the ISRP recommends that the project obtain the services of a qualified biometrician to help with statistical design of the monitoring and of the subsequent data analyses. All of these questions should be addressed in a comprehensive plan for the IMW which should be reviewed by the ISRP before implementation.

The proponents revealed in oral presentation that they plan to add staff - a project leader for the EMAP (status and trend) and for the IMW. Their IMW will focus on the Grande Ronde above the Wallowa River. The project’s control stream for adult escapement, the Minam River is in wilderness area and is hard to access. The Lower Grande Ronde is also difficult to access in springtime. How will these factors affect accomplishment of the project objectives?

This major project, ongoing since 1994, seems to have substantial accomplishments, but this was not evident from the results presented in the proposal. There were tables and graphs on timing of movements of juvenile steelhead and Chinook and on smolts per redd for spring Chinook, but the proponents presented little explanation and interpretation of the data. They often stated what they did, and then referred the reviewer to a table or graph with little interpretation of what those results mean, no general conclusions being drawn. Also, it would have been helpful for the proponents to present tables in more concise and understandable form. The oral presentation provided interpretation that alleviated some of the interpretive deficiency. The ISRP requests that future proposals contain narrative interpretation and discussion of the project’s data.

The results need to be summarized by project objective to clearly illustrate that the project is progressing toward accomplishing the objectives. For each of the project’s four streams, information on spawner abundance and distribution, smolt abundance, smolts-per-spawner, smolt survival, life history characteristics (age, size, timing of migration), and juvenile abundance and distribution for both steelhead and salmon should have been provided, and then the meaning of this information should have been discussed.

Most importantly, the proponents should have discussed far more fully the supplementation evaluation, including study design, metrics, data analysis including statistical analyses, and results to date. Then, based on the results, the proponents should offer their assessment of the success of the supplementation program thus far.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:
The project’s status and trend monitoring objectives (1-4) and the tasks involved meet scientific review criteria. In future proposals, however, the proponents need to provide a more thorough presentation of results for each project objective, adding interpretive discussion of data. This is especially true for the supplementation part of the project.

Qualification: Project objectives 5 and 6, concerning the Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) procedure and habitat monitoring do not meet scientific review criteria. The proponents should prepare a comprehensive plan for the IMW project including its objectives, study design, metrics, and the project’s role in the IMW project. The ISRP should review the plan before its implementation.

Objectives 5 and 6 are not scientifically justifiable at this time due to the lack of specific detail concerning the Grand Ronde IMW program and this project’s role in that program.

In the proposal, broad objectives of the IMW program and ISEMP procedures and protocols are given, but little detail is provided about on-the-ground studies in the Grande Ronde basin. What are the specific objectives of the Grande Ronde? What is the study design? What hypotheses will be tested? What are the treatment and reference streams, why were they selected, and what are the restoration activities that are ongoing and planned in them? At what spatial scales will comparisons be made? What metrics will be chosen? What is this project’s role? Will the proponents integrate and analyze the data (as implied by the objectives), and how will the data be analyzed? If other projects are involved, what is their role? In short, a great deal more information about the IMW specific to the Grande Ronde and this project needs to be provided before scientific criteria are met. In connection with this, the ISRP recommends that the project obtain the services of a qualified biometrician to help with statistical design of the monitoring and of the subsequent data analyses. All of these questions should be addressed in a comprehensive plan for the IMW which should be reviewed by the ISRP before implementation.

The proponents revealed in oral presentation that they plan to add staff - a project leader for the EMAP (status and trend) and for the IMW. Their IMW will focus on the Grande Ronde above the Wallowa River. The project’s control stream for adult escapement, the Minam River is in wilderness area and is hard to access. The Lower Grande Ronde is also difficult to access in springtime. How will these factors affect accomplishment of the project objectives?

This major project, ongoing since 1994, seems to have substantial accomplishments, but this was not evident from the results presented in the proposal. There were tables and graphs on timing of movements of juvenile steelhead and Chinook and on smolts per redd for spring Chinook, but the proponents presented little explanation and interpretation of the data. They often stated what they did, and then referred the reviewer to a table or graph with little interpretation of what those results mean, no general conclusions being drawn. Also, it would have been helpful for the proponents to present tables in more concise and understandable form. The oral presentation provided interpretation that alleviated some of the interpretive deficiency. The ISRP requests that future proposals contain narrative interpretation and discussion of the project’s data.

The results need to be summarized by project objective to clearly illustrate that the project is progressing toward accomplishing the objectives. For each of the project’s four streams, information on spawner abundance and distribution, smolt abundance, smolts-per-spawner, smolt survival, life history characteristics (age, size, timing of migration), and juvenile abundance and distribution for both steelhead and salmon should have been provided, and then the meaning of this information should have been discussed.

Most importantly, the proponents should have discussed far more fully the supplementation evaluation, including study design, metrics, data analysis including statistical analyses, and results to date. Then, based on the results, the proponents should offer their assessment of the success of the supplementation program thus far.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1992-026-04-NPCC-20101108
Project: 1992-026-04 - Grande Ronde Early Life History of Spring Chinook and Steelhead
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-1992-026-04
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (In Part)
Comments: Implement Objectives 1-4 only with condition through 2016: Implementation subject to regional hatchery effects evaluation process described in programmatic recommendation #4.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #4 Hatchery Effectiveness—subject to regional hatchery effects evaluation process
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1992-026-04-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1992-026-04
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: M&E for chinook populations; fishery managers authorized/required to perform as well; need cost share or other remedy.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1992-026-04-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1992-026-04
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1992-026-04-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1992-026-04 - Grande Ronde Early Life History of Spring Chinook and Steelhead
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This proposal is for ongoing studies focused on the early life stages of naturally and hatchery-produced spring Chinook salmon and summer steelhead in the Grande Ronde River system. The proposal is clearly written and very detailed. The statements of the project relationship to regional management questions are especially helpful in clarifying the project purpose.

The thorough project history indicates that studies of habitat conditions have been done which should meet the ISRP concerns expressed in the previous review cycle. The ISRP expects that the project will be able to examine for possible relation of egg-to-smolt survival to those conditions. Results from this project have been used in recommendations for protection and enhancement of Grande Ronde subbasin spring Chinook salmon populations and their rearing habitats.

The project has a long history of effective population monitoring and habitat analysis. However, it is unclear how the results will be evaluated. For future proposals it would be helpful to state performance measures and indications of how success will be determined. Additionally, it is not clear if or when study effort could be reduced because the needs for additional information decline.

The ISRP encourages the sponsors to share successes and lessons learned to others in and out of the region via professional publications.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1992-026-04-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1992-026-04 - Grande Ronde Early Life History of Spring Chinook and Steelhead
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments:

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Brian Jonasson Project Lead Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Ted Sedell Project Lead Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Ashlee Rudolph Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Russell Scranton Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Dorothy Welch Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration