Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1998-016-00 - Escapement and Productivity of Spring Chinook and Steelhead Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1998-016-00 - Escapement and Productivity of Spring Chinook and Steelhead
Project Number:
1998-016-00
Title:
Escapement and Productivity of Spring Chinook and Steelhead
Summary:
The John Day River subbasin supports one of the last remaining intact wild populations of spring Chinook salmon and summer steelhead in the Columbia River Basin. These populations, however, remain depressed relative to historic levels. Numerous habitat protection and rehabilitation projects to improve salmonid freshwater production and survival have been implemented in the basin and are in need of effectiveness monitoring. While much of our monitoring efforts outlined here will not specifically measure the effectiveness of any particular project, they will provide much needed background (status and trend) information for developing context for project-specific effectiveness monitoring efforts. To meet the data needs as index stocks, to assess the long-term effectiveness of habitat projects, and to differentiate freshwater and ocean survival, sufficient annual estimates of spawner escapement, age structure, smolt abundance, SAR, and egg-to-smolt survival are needed. Columbia Basin managers have identified the John Day subbasin populations as index populations for assessing the effects of alternative future management actions on salmon stocks in the Columbia River Basin.

A coordinated approach to the monitoring and evaluation of status and trends in anadromous and resident salmonid populations and their habitats is needed to support restoration efforts in the Columbia Plateau. This project will focus on the Steelhead and juvenile Chinook component of this need. Currently, independent research projects and some monitoring activities are conducted by various state and federal agencies, tribes, and to some extent by watershed councils or landowners, but there is no overall framework for coordination of efforts or for interpretation and synthesis of results. This project extends the structure and methods employed by the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Monitoring Program to the John Day subbasin of the Columbia Plateau. This approach, successfully implemented in Oregon's coastal watersheds, applies a rigorous, Tier-2 sampling design to answer key monitoring questions, provides integration of sampling efforts, and has greatly improved coordination among state, federal, and tribal governments, along with local watershed groups. This project is high priority based on the high level of emphasis the NWPPC Fish and Wildlife Program, Subbasin Summaries, NOAA Fisheries, and the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds have placed on monitoring and evaluation to provide the real-time data to guide restoration and adaptive management in the region.

The ISRP, in their guidance on monitoring, strongly recommended that the region move away from index surveys and embrace probabilistic sampling for most population and habitat monitoring. The objectives of these projects can only be met with Tier 2-level monitoring using probabilistic selection of survey sites with limited replication". The sampling approach outlined in this study fulfills these requirements.

By implementing the program we will address many of the goals for Tier 1 monitoring, such as defining areas currently used by adult steelhead for spawning habitats and summer rearing habitats for juvenile O. mykiss and spring chinook (adult/juvenile salmonid monitoring). The BiOp describes Tier 2 goals as defining population growth rates (adult monitoring), detecting changes in those growth rates or relative abundance in a reasonable time (adult/juvenile monitoring), estimating juvenile abundance and survival rates (juvenile/smolt monitoring), and identifying stage-specific survival (adult-to-smolt, smolt-to-adult) and environmental attributes (habitat monitoring). This project provides much needed Tier-2 monitoring for the two anadromous focal species in the John Day basin.

Integration with on-going monitoring is accomplished in the following manner. In annual reporting, we use data from on-going projects to develop a more complete picture of status and trends in resources and life stage-specific survival. To accomplish these tasks, we work with co-managers and other interested publics to establish a monitoring oversight committee for the region that is tasked with coordinating and integrating on-going efforts into a comprehensive reporting system of regional resources. This work is integrated with the current RM&E effort for the John Day River basin. Our efforts provide nearly all of the status and trend monitoring, and some of the effectiveness monitoring, for the RM&E projects. Coordination occurs through periodic meetings. This project provides information as directed under two measures of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. This project was developed in direct response to the recommendations and needs of the Mid-Columbia Steelhead DPS recovery plan, the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP), the Fish and Wildlife Program, and the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority Multi-Year Implementation Plan.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
1998
Ending FY:
2024
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau John Day 100.00%
Purpose:
Programmatic
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Fish
All Anadromous Salmonids
Bass, Smallmouth
Carp, Common
Catfish
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Lamprey, Pacific
Other Resident
Pikeminnow, Northern
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
FCRPS 2008 – view list of FCRPS 2008 BiOp Actions

RPA 50.4 Fund pilot studies in Wenatchee/Methow/Entiat,
RPA 50.4 Fund pilot studies in Wenatchee/Methow/Entiat,
RPA 50.4 Fund pilot studies in Wenatchee/Methow/Entiat,
RPA 50.4 Fund pilot studies in Wenatchee/Methow/Entiat,
RPA 50.4 Fund pilot studies in Wenatchee/Methow/Entiat,
RPA 50.4 Fund pilot studies in Wenatchee/Methow/Entiat,
RPA 50.4 Fund pilot studies in Wenatchee/Methow/Entiat,
RPA 50.4 Fund pilot studies in Wenatchee/Methow/Entiat,
RPA 50.4 Fund pilot studies in Wenatchee/Methow/Entiat,
RPA 50.4 Fund pilot studies in Wenatchee/Methow/Entiat,
RPA 50.4 Fund pilot studies in Wenatchee/Methow/Entiat,
RPA 50.6 Review/modify existing fish pop status monitoring projects,
RPA 50.6 Review/modify existing fish pop status monitoring projects,
RPA 50.6 Review/modify existing fish pop status monitoring projects,
RPA 50.6 Review/modify existing fish pop status monitoring projects,
RPA 50.6 Review/modify existing fish pop status monitoring projects,
RPA 50.6 Review/modify existing fish pop status monitoring projects,
RPA 50.6 Review/modify existing fish pop status monitoring projects,
RPA 50.6 Review/modify existing fish pop status monitoring projects,
RPA 50.6 Review/modify existing fish pop status monitoring projects,
RPA 50.6 Review/modify existing fish pop status monitoring projects,
RPA 50.6 Review/modify existing fish pop status monitoring projects,
RPA 56.1 Implement research in select areas of the pilot study basins,
RPA 56.1 Implement research in select areas of the pilot study basins,
RPA 56.1 Implement research in select areas of the pilot study basins,
RPA 56.1 Implement research in select areas of the pilot study basins,
RPA 56.1 Implement research in select areas of the pilot study basins,
RPA 56.1 Implement research in select areas of the pilot study basins,
RPA 56.1 Implement research in select areas of the pilot study basins,
RPA 56.1 Implement research in select areas of the pilot study basins,
RPA 57.3 Bridge Creek-Study treatments of channel incision,
RPA 57.3 Bridge Creek-Study treatments of channel incision,
RPA 57.3 Bridge Creek-Study treatments of channel incision,
RPA 57.3 Bridge Creek-Study treatments of channel incision,
RPA 57.3 Bridge Creek-Study treatments of channel incision,
RPA 57.3 Bridge Creek-Study treatments of channel incision,
RPA 57.3 Bridge Creek-Study treatments of channel incision,
RPA 57.3 Bridge Creek-Study treatments of channel incision,
RPA 57.4 Wenatchee/Methow/John Day-Habitat/fish productivity assessment,
RPA 57.4 Wenatchee/Methow/John Day-Habitat/fish productivity assessment,
RPA 57.4 Wenatchee/Methow/John Day-Habitat/fish productivity assessment,
RPA 57.4 Wenatchee/Methow/John Day-Habitat/fish productivity assessment,
RPA 57.4 Wenatchee/Methow/John Day-Habitat/fish productivity assessment,
RPA 57.4 Wenatchee/Methow/John Day-Habitat/fish productivity assessment,
RPA 57.4 Wenatchee/Methow/John Day-Habitat/fish productivity assessment,
RPA 57.4 Wenatchee/Methow/John Day-Habitat/fish productivity assessment,
RPA 57.4 Wenatchee/Methow/John Day-Habitat/fish productivity assessment,
RPA 62.5 Investigate feasibility of genetic stock id techniques,
RPA 62.5 Investigate feasibility of genetic stock id techniques,
RPA 63.1 Measure effect of safety-net & conservation hatchery programs,
RPA 63.1 Measure effect of safety-net & conservation hatchery programs,
RPA 63.1 Measure effect of safety-net & conservation hatchery programs,
RPA 63.1 Measure effect of safety-net & conservation hatchery programs,
RPA 63.1 Measure effect of safety-net & conservation hatchery programs,
RPA 63.1 Measure effect of safety-net & conservation hatchery programs,
RPA 63.1 Measure effect of safety-net & conservation hatchery programs,
RPA 63.1 Measure effect of safety-net & conservation hatchery programs,
RPA 63.1 Measure effect of safety-net & conservation hatchery programs,
RPA 63.1 Measure effect of safety-net & conservation hatchery programs,
RPA 63.1 Measure effect of safety-net & conservation hatchery programs

Description: Page: 10 Figure 1: Map of John Day River basin out-migrant monitoring sites.

Project(s): 1998-016-00

Document: P126255

Dimensions: 1045 x 1114

Description: Page: 11 Figure 1: Map of the John Day River basin including the Mainstem John Day River and all three major forks (North Fork, Middle Fork, and South Fork). Dashed grey lines represent subbasin boundaries, as well as summer steelhead population delineations (Lower Mainstem, Upper Mainstem, North Fork, Middle Fork, and South Fork).

Project(s): 1998-016-00

Document: P124375

Dimensions: 625 x 746

Description: Page: 14 Figure 2: Map of summer steelhead life history use in the John Day River basin and 2011 spawning and juvenile/habitat monitoring sample sites. Spawning sites were surveyed in the spring (March-July) of 2011 for steelhead redds and juvenile salmonid abundance and habitat sites were sampled in the summer (June-September) of 2011.

Project(s): 1998-016-00

Document: P124375

Dimensions: 916 x 1088

Description: Page: 19 Figure 3: Map of sites selected for subsample spawning surveys and habitat/juvenile monitoring in the South Fork John Day River Subbasin in 2011 and steelhead life history use. Spawning and juvenile/habitat sites were surveyed in the spring (March-July) of 2011 for steelhead redds and juvenile salmonid abundance and habitat sites were sampled in the summer (June-September) of 2011.

Project(s): 1998-016-00

Document: P124375

Dimensions: 710 x 730


Summary of Budgets

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

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2023 - FY2025)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2023 Expense $1,100,072 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY23 SOY Budget Upload 06/01/2022
FY2023 Expense $16,388 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) ODFW FY23 Adjustments 08/26/2022
FY2024 Expense $1,175,566 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) ODFW FY24 SOY Budgets 09/05/2023
FY2024 Expense $1,175,566 To: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) September Budget Transfers 09/18/2023

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2024
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2014 (Draft)
2013
2012 $11,814 1%
2011 $36,200 3%
2010
2009 $13,150 2%
2008 $15,225 2%
2007 $66,955 10%

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Closed, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
498 REL 1 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 199801600 ESCAPE/PROD OF SPRING CHINOOK IN JOHN DAY BASIN History $145,291 7/1/2000 - 6/30/2001
5840 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 ESCAPEMENT/PRODUCTIVITY OF SPRING CHINOOK History $1,026,906 7/1/2001 - 11/30/2004
15113 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 IMPLEMENT EMAP IN THE JOHN DAY SUBBASIN History $864,137 9/1/2003 - 8/31/2006
20364 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife PI 199801600 ESCAPEMENT/PRODUCTIVITY OF SPRING CHINOOK History $421,087 12/1/2004 - 11/30/2005
25467 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP ESCAPEMENT-PRODUCTIVITY JD SPRING CHINOOK History $491,533 12/1/2005 - 12/31/2006
28894 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP IMPLEMENT EMAP IN JOHN DAY SUBBASIN History $378,911 9/1/2006 - 8/31/2007
BPA-004148 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Escapement/Productivity Spring Active $15,500 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
32193 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 199801600 EXP ESCAPEMENT/PRODUCTIVITY SPRING Closed $321,259 1/1/2007 - 12/31/2007
34466 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 199801600 EXP IMPLEMENT EMAP IN JOHN DAY SUBBASIN Closed $288,006 9/1/2007 - 8/31/2008
BPA-003721 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Escapement/Productivity Spring Active $15,803 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2008
36462 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 199801600 EXP ESCAPEMENT/PRODUCTIVITY SPRING Closed $336,905 1/1/2008 - 12/31/2008
39054 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 B EXP IMPLEMENT EMAP IN JOHN DAY SUBBASIN Closed $227,474 9/1/2008 - 8/31/2009
BPA-004321 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Escapement/Productivity Spring Active $15,342 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
40876 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP ESCAPEMENT/PRODUCTIVITY SPRING Closed $334,530 1/1/2009 - 1/31/2010
44049 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP IMPLEMENT EMAP IN JOHN DAY SUBBASIN Closed $322,241 9/1/2009 - 4/30/2011
BPA-004990 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Escapement & Productivity of Spg Chinook Active $14,014 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
46071 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP ESCAPEMENT/PRODUCTIVITY SPRING Closed $345,881 2/1/2010 - 1/31/2011
50129 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP IMPLEMENT EMAP IN JOHN DAY SUBBASIN Closed $569,027 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
BPA-005478 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Escapement & Productivity of Spirng Chinook Active $13,769 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
51809 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP ESCAPEMENT/PRODUCTIVITY SPRING Closed $340,660 2/1/2011 - 1/31/2012
54926 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP IMPLEMENT EMAP IN JOHN DAY SUBBASIN Closed $635,278 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-006384 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Escapement & Productivity of Spring Chinook Active $15,206 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
56008 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP ESCAPEMENT/PRODUCTIVITY SPRING Closed $307,543 2/1/2012 - 1/31/2013
59806 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP IMPLEMENT EMAP IN JOHN DAY SUBBASIN Closed $593,096 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-006983 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Escapement/Productivity Active $14,947 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
60983 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP ESCAPEMENT/PRODUCTIVITY SPRING Closed $387,862 2/1/2013 - 1/31/2014
63516 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP IMPLEMENT EMAP IN JOHN DAY SUBBASIN Closed $625,324 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
BPA-007624 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Escapement & Productivity Spring Chinook Active $14,846 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
64517 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP ESCAPEMENT/PRODUCTIVITY SPRING Closed $380,801 2/1/2014 - 1/31/2015
66581 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP IMPLEMENT EMAP IN JOHN DAY SUBBASIN Closed $769,205 10/1/2014 - 1/31/2016
BPA-008394 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Escapement & Productivity Spring Chinook Active $14,793 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
68303 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP ESCAPEMENT/PRODUCTIVITY SPRING Closed $379,104 2/1/2015 - 1/31/2016
BPA-008917 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Escapement & Productivity Spring Chinook FY16 Active $17,045 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
71583 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP ESCAPEMENT/PRODUCTIVITY SPR. CHINOOK/STEELHD Closed $1,007,811 2/1/2016 - 1/31/2017
BPA-009494 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Escapement & Productivity Spring Chinook Active $19,049 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
74969 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP ESCAPEMENT/PRODUCTIVITY SPR. CHINOOK/STEELHD Closed $997,364 2/1/2017 - 1/31/2018
BPA-010022 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Escapement & Productivity Spring Chinook Active $19,078 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
74313 REL 21 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP ESCAPEMENT/PRODUCTIVITY SPR. CHINOOK/STEELHD Closed $1,005,019 2/1/2018 - 1/31/2019
BPA-010625 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Escapement & Productivity Spring Chinook Active $19,734 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
74313 REL 49 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP ESCAPEMENT/PRODUCTIVITY SPR. CHINOOK/STEELHD Closed $918,244 2/1/2019 - 1/31/2020
BPA-011705 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Escapement & Productivity Spring Chinook Active $9,907 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
74313 REL 74 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP ESCAPEMENT/PRODUCTIVITY SPR. CHINOOK/STEELHD Closed $976,257 2/1/2020 - 1/31/2021
BPA-012076 Bonneville Power Administration FY21 PIT Tags Active $15,840 10/1/2020 - 9/30/2021
74313 REL 94 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP ESCAPEMENT/PRODUCTIVITY SPR. CHINOOK/STEELHD Closed $1,014,418 2/1/2021 - 1/31/2022
BPA-012829 Bonneville Power Administration FY22 PIT Tags Active $20,400 10/1/2021 - 9/30/2022
74313 REL 110 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP ESCAPEMENT/PRODUCTIVITY SPR. CHINOOK/STEELHD Closed $1,044,418 2/1/2022 - 1/31/2023
BPA-013286 Bonneville Power Administration FY23 PIT Tags Active $13,260 10/1/2022 - 9/30/2023
84041 REL 15 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998-016-00 EXP ESCAPEMENT/PRODUCTIVITY SPR. CHINOOK/STEELHD Issued $1,103,190 2/1/2023 - 1/31/2024



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):31
Completed:24
On time:24
Status Reports
Completed:124
On time:78
Avg Days Late:3

                Count of Contract Deliverables
Earliest Contract Subsequent Contracts Title Contractor Earliest Start Latest End Latest Status Accepted Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
498 REL 1 5840, 20364, 25467, 32193, 36462, 40876, 46071, 51809, 56008, 60983, 64517, 68303, 71583, 74969, 74313 REL 21, 74313 REL 49, 74313 REL 74, 74313 REL 94, 74313 REL 110, 84041 REL 15 1998-016-00 EXP ESCAPEMENT/PRODUCTIVITY SPR. CHINOOK/STEELHD Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 07/01/2000 01/31/2024 Issued 78 189 17 0 19 225 91.56% 3
15113 28894, 34466, 39054, 44049, 50129, 54926, 59806, 63516, 66581 1998-016-00 EXP IMPLEMENT EMAP IN JOHN DAY SUBBASIN Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 09/01/2003 01/31/2016 Closed 46 90 0 0 3 93 96.77% 0
BPA-4148 PIT Tags - Escapement/Productivity Spring Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2006 09/30/2007 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-3721 PIT Tags - Escapement/Productivity Spring Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2007 09/30/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-4321 PIT Tags - Escapement/Productivity Spring Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2008 09/30/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-4990 PIT Tags - Escapement & Productivity of Spg Chinook Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2009 09/30/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-5478 PIT Tags - Escapement & Productivity of Spirng Chinook Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2010 09/30/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-6384 PIT Tags - Escapement & Productivity of Spring Chinook Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2011 09/30/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-6983 PIT Tags - Escapement/Productivity Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2012 09/30/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-7624 PIT Tags - Escapement & Productivity Spring Chinook Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2013 09/30/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-8394 PIT Tags - Escapement & Productivity Spring Chinook Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2014 09/30/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-8917 PIT Tags - Escapement & Productivity Spring Chinook FY16 Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2015 09/30/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-9494 PIT Tags - Escapement & Productivity Spring Chinook Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2016 09/30/2017 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-10022 PIT Tags - Escapement & Productivity Spring Chinook Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2017 09/30/2018 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-10625 PIT Tags - Escapement & Productivity Spring Chinook Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2018 09/30/2019 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-11705 PIT Tags - Escapement & Productivity Spring Chinook Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2019 09/30/2020 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-12076 FY21 PIT Tags Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2020 09/30/2021 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-12829 FY22 PIT Tags Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2021 09/30/2022 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-13286 FY23 PIT Tags Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2022 09/30/2023 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 124 279 17 0 22 318 93.08% 3


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1998-016-00-NPCC-20230310
Project: 1998-016-00 - Escapement and Productivity of Spring Chinook and Steelhead
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Approved Date: 4/15/2022
Recommendation: Implement
Comments: Bonneville and Sponsor to take the review remarks into consideration in project documentation.

[Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/2021-2022-anadromous-habitat-and-hatchery-review/]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-016-00-ISRP-20230309
Project: 1998-016-00 - Escapement and Productivity of Spring Chinook and Steelhead
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Completed Date: 3/14/2023
Final Round ISRP Date: 2/10/2022
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:

In our preliminary review, we asked the proponents to lead the development of an M&E Matrix for the John Day River basin. The ISRP appreciates the proponents’ leadership, constructive response, and thorough summary of monitoring activities in the John Day River subbasin, for both their project and other collaborating projects. In many ways, the summary of monitoring and evaluation, matrix of monitoring activities, and maps of monitoring locations provided for the John Day River basin is an excellent example of cooperation among projects and identification of collaborative monitoring and evaluation in a geographic area that the ISRP envisioned in our request for M&E matrices.

In the revised proposal, the proponents provide an initial map and table illustrating the relationships between implementation actions and monitoring. The revised proposal thoroughly describes the project’s monitoring activities, includes maps of the locations of all monitoring actions, and provides a matrix of the structured implementation and monitoring plan for three John Day River steelhead populations. The proponents collaboratively developed a table of implementation projects associated with the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Focused Investment Partnership (Table 8). For each project, the table identifies the restoration strategy, monitoring tier, type of monitoring (implementation, effectiveness), potential metrics, use of drone monitoring, and project responsible for monitoring. They plan to incorporate the figure and table in ongoing annual reports to BPA. The revised proposal includes a preliminary map of implementation projects and associated monitoring in the John Day River basin. The map distinguishes the type of monitoring as implementation, effectiveness, or fish-in and fish-out for fish population productivity. The proposal also summarizes linkages between implementation projects and monitoring efforts in the North Fork John Day and Middle Fork John Day rivers. Basically, the proponents provided initial information on all aspects of M&E that the ISRP requested in the Response Loop. Their M&E matrix and summary could be used as an example for other geographic areas.

The proponents responded to the ISRP’s question about quantifying the effects of both flow and temperature and representing these factors in the model for the Middle Fork spring Chinook salmon population and indicated they agreed that it would be beneficial to update and extend these analyses. Given the importance of both flow and stream temperature as limiting factors in the John Day River basin, the ISRP encourages the project to continue their efforts to understand and model the effects of flow and temperature on spawner recruitment.

The ISRP repeats from its preliminary review that this is an exemplary project and is a model for other M&E projects.

Preliminary ISRP report comments: response requested

Response request comment:

The John Day River Salmonid Monitoring project is a status and trends study that has received positive reviews from the ISRP since its inception. The John Day River basin is one of the few basins in the interior Columbia region that has had no recent hatchery releases; however, straying from Snake River populations is a major concern. The project steadily has improved its experimental design and refined its field methods and analyses. Its data are critical for regional management, and the project is closely integrated with key management plans and habitat restoration projects. The proposal provides a thorough literature review, with much appreciated hyperlinks to key papers and reports. This is an exemplary project and is a model for other M&E projects.

The ISRP requests a response from this project to provide the following information:

  • M&E matrix - lead. Provide a summary of linkages between the monitoring conducted and the implementation projects in the John Day River basin. One of the challenges for ISRP reviewers is understanding the specific monitoring that is being conducted for multiple implementation projects. Habitat restoration projects or hatchery projects implement actions that are intended to address limiting factors and benefit fish and wildlife. Most of these projects do not directly monitor habitat conditions or biological outcomes, but most identify other projects in the basin that monitor aspects of physical habitat or focal fish species. The monitoring project(s) in the basin provides essential monitoring data for habitat, juvenile salmonid abundance and distribution, outmigration, survival, and adult returns for salmon and steelhead. Some monitoring projects focus on status and trends in basins, while others focus on habitat relationships and responses to local actions. It is unclear what monitoring the monitoring project(s) conducts for each implementation project.

The ISRP is requesting a response from this project to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the basin. The summary should provide a table or matrix that specifically identifies what is being monitored for each implementation project, as well as where and when the monitoring occurs. The summary also should explain how the projects are working together to evaluate progress toward addressing limiting factors and identify future actions. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard. The monitoring information should clearly explain whether the biological monitoring is local information for the specific implementation site or basin scale monitoring of status and trends or fish in/fish out. We are asking all relevant implementation projects to assist your project in producing this summary. In particular, the John Day Partnership recently hired Nick Bouwes to help map and coordinate their M&E efforts, and they will be asked to assist.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The proposal clearly identifies four major goals for the monitoring and evaluation, and identifies key management questions addressed by the monitoring and analyses. Quantitative implementation objectives are identified for each major goal. There are no SMART objectives for physical or biological outcomes, but these are not directly relevant for an M&E project designed to provide critical data and analyses for the region and for habitat projects therein. The project generates information used by multiple projects in the John Day River basin and the region, and the activities appear to be well coordinated.

Q2: Methods

The ISRP has reviewed the proponents’ methods previously and has found them to be scientifically rigorous and excellent examples of Tier 2 statistical monitoring at the subbasin scale. The project continues to refine and strengthen their methods. They combined probabilistic sampling for steelhead populations and census sampling for adult Chinook populations. Their data are stored in regional databases and are incorporated into regional planning and evaluation. When BPA budget cuts prevented them from continuing their monitoring for certain population and habitat parameters, they obtained external funding for some measurements. Most notably, they obtained alternative funding for Chinook escapement assessments, which allowed them to continue to estimate SARs, a critical need for the Fish and Wildlife Program. They have used a spatial model (Falke et al. 2013) to provide quantitative predictions of redd occurrence probability and probability of spawning at a landscape scale. This information provides an important context for planning and prioritizing restoration actions.

The proposal thoroughly describes study designs, field and laboratory methods, and analytical procedures. Methods, data, sampling locations, and metadata are located in NRIMP, MonitoringResources.org, and Annual Reports. The ISRP appreciates the thorough descriptions of the methods.

The proposal includes a Gantt chart to describe the general operations of the project monthly for 2023 through 2025. While this helps reviewers understand general distribution of the project efforts through time, it does not provide information on the subcomponents of the project. This information should be provided in annual reports and work plans.

In the Survival, Age Structure, and Productivity portion of the Methods section, the proponents mention that environmental covariates and restoration metrics can be incorporated into the models with more time series data. Given the changes in temperature and flow occurring throughout the basin and the tremendous effort going into restoration activities throughout the basin, this is especially critical. Quantifying effects of these factors on fish will be key to manage for future conditions and ensure that restoration is effective. Could the authors attempt to run models that include these factors now, even if results are preliminary? If not, when do the authors anticipate that enough data will be available?

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The proposal describes a thorough adaptive management process based on regularly scheduled internal meetings, annual reports, and consultation with BPA. They also describe a formal process of meeting with the John Day Basin Partnership to inform habitat restoration planning and implementation. Their explanation is much more complete than that provided by other related projects in the Partnership.

It is less clear what triggers modifications to the program. How are changes to the project proposed and implemented? For example, the proposal mentions the need for more information on bull trout migration, possible challenges due to increasing numbers of invasive smallmouth bass, and changing climate, including asynchronous hydrology between the Columbia River and the John Day River. What prompts a redirection of the project to better account for these factors? Does each component have a “threshold of probable concern” that would result in changes to the activities? If so, what are they? As well, when is each action deemed successful, and when is it not?

The proposal also describes potential confounding factors related to climate change and expansion of nonnative predators. Rather than simply identifying and discussing the nature of these confounding factors, they present studies they are currently implementing to address these confounding factors and develop methods to implement and assess future management actions. They also have developed an approach for identifying coldwater refuges that could serve as the basis for habitat protection and restoration in the face of climate change. Equally importantly, they are conducting experiments to determine whether smallmouth bass predation is additive or compensatory, a complex and important question in the Columbia River Basin at this point.

The proponents provide an excellent description of their responses to past Council recommendations and ISRP reviews. They have responded positively and creatively to past suggestions, making improvements that exceed recommendations from the ISRP. This constructive communication between the proponents and the ISRP is an example of how the scientific review process is intended to function.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The proposal provided 13 pages with informative tables and figures of past progress and outcomes to benefit fish and wildlife from the project since 2000. The proponents identified the importance of this information for management decisions within the Columbia River Basin and groups that are using their information for conservation and restoration actions. They clearly have identified lessons learned from their results and how they are being used for management. The indirect benefits of his project are large as this project strongly contributes to status and trend monitoring for steelhead and Chinook salmon, life-cycle models, regional actions, and management of the hydrosystem.

Documentation Links:
Review: Fast Track ISRP Review 2010

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-016-00-ISRP-20100623
Project: 1998-016-00 - Escapement and Productivity of Spring Chinook and Steelhead
Review: Fast Track ISRP Review 2010
Completed Date: None
First Round ISRP Date: 2/24/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

This project has a good track record and is managed by qualified scientists. It will contribute useful information for managing adaptively within the John Day subbasin. 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The technical justification and scientific background was reasonably thorough. There appear to be two major topic areas in this work. First, there is evidence that straying of hatchery Chinook salmon and steelhead into the John Day River system is adding to the difficulty of determining the status and trends of naturally produced fish in this (primarily) wild fish production subbasin, and there is the possibility that interbreeding of wild and hatchery fish may be contributing to a loss of fitness among naturally spawning and rearing stocks. This project proposes to extend the existing genetic monitoring program to further assess the significance of straying of Chinook and steelhead from hatcheries in other subbasins into the John Day River's natural production areas. Second, the project proposes to expand the aquatic and riparian habitat status and trend monitoring efforts. This is of interest because of the strong emphasis on habitat restoration in the John Day subbasin. The project is consistent with a number of RPAs in the BiOp and with other programmatic emphasis areas in the region. The approach is clearly spelled out, and the ISRP appreciates that the project proponents have responded directly to our suggestions from previous reviews and incorporated them into this plan. The proposal references specific recommendations from the RPA workshop and identifies the RPAs in the BiOp that the work will address. Additional linkages are given to the John Day subbasin plan and to the Council's Fish & Wildlife Program. The 2008 FCRPS BiOp identified the Upper John Day as a priority subbasin for recovery of the Mid-Columbia steelhead DPS. The John Day River is an important reference subbasin for comparisons to other anadromous stocks in more highly impacted subbasins of the Columbia River. Further, the John Day is unique among Columbia River subbasins because its Chinook and steelhead populations have had little influence from hatchery introductions. The project, initiated in 1998, is one of the more extensive monitoring and evaluation programs in the Columbia River Basin. The proposed work is consistent with the monitoring needs identified by the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, the BiOp, and the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. The project also directly addresses several important needs specified in the John Day Subbasin Plan. 2. Project History and Results The project’s history is thoroughly described, including tables summarizing results of the previous nine years of work in this project. The maps were very helpful, although most of the material referred to existing redd count, adult holding areas, and genetic sampling. It would also have been useful to have included maps or tables describing the locations of significant habitat restoration projects (perhaps by category, if available) and sites where there are records of juvenile salmonid presence-absence or abundance, because these are included in this project's objectives. The project has generated much information on smolt production and adult escapement. The discussion of results could have been improved if the proponents would have discussed how the results to date have influenced management decisions. For example, what useful information was derived from the stock-recruitment relationship? 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods The objectives and work elements are generally complete and appropriate. Several questions did arise in reviewing this section: 1) Obj. 1 Are 4000 PIT tags enough to estimate SAR given the relatively few adults that will be produced from this number of smolts? 2) Obj. 1 Is a 100% detection of PIT tagged adults at the FCRPS PIT tag facilities a reasonable assumption? 3) Obj. 2 How does one obtain cost-free flight time for redd surveys? 4) Obj. 4 If habitat assessments are conducted only on channels 5th order and smaller, will some areas potentially used by Chinook for spawning or rearing be excluded? 5) Obj. 4 Ignoring fast-water habitat when snorkeling could lead to some error in estimating abundance if a substantial proportion of the populations using fat-water habitat. This is not likely to be a problem for Chinook but could be for steelhead. Could several fast-water habitats in each sample area be electro-fished to address this problem? The two elements for which Fast-Track review were requested (Chinook portion of Obj. 2 and Obj. 6) were very complete. Three of the five work objectives apply to ongoing efforts by the project's proponents, and two objectives (habitat status and trends, juvenile salmonid monitoring) have been called for by the ISRP but not yet funded. The objective of operating the rotary screw traps from October 1 to May 31 is admirable, but mechanical problems, weather-related issues, and other unforeseen problems will inevitably occur. It would be useful to state what back-up equipment and procedures are in place to deal with such events. The spawner escapement estimation procedures were thoroughly described, and the project proponents have a lot of experience in this aspect of the work effort. It was nice to see that the proposed 2010 surveys will include some randomly selected reaches to check for Chinook salmon spawning range expansions. The ISRP wonders if any research has been done to determine the error rate for identifying hatchery fish based on adipose fin clipping in the John Day or nearby subbasins. What is the probability of mis-identifying a hatchery fish with an imperfect adipose clip, or a wild fish that has lost part of its adipose fin? The location of the habitat survey sites will be determined by a GRTS (EMAP-type) randomized design. While there will be some inevitable compromises due to landowner access issues, we wonder if there is any value in intentionally locating some of the habitat survey sites at (1) the same locations as the spawning index sites or the juvenile survey reaches, or (2) within or near riparian or channel restoration projects. We agree that the GRTS approach is appropriate for assessing overall habitat status and trends within the subbasin, but additional and very useful information might be gained by co-locating the habitat survey sites with sites where fish will be censused either as spawners or juveniles. Within the list of habitat attributes, we recommend expanding the surveys of large trees (>0.5 m DBH) to all species, not just conifers. Owing to past logging practices and wildfire history there are very few conifers of this size within 30 m of the stream channel throughout much of the John Day subbasin, but there are other species (in particular, black cottonwood) that meet this size criterion. While it is true that cottonwood will not persist as long in the streams, it is currently the best candidate for LWD recruitment. To estimate escapement of Chinook and steelhead from redd counts, the proponents propose to use data on fish/redd from another subbasin. This approach seems reasonable given that weirs are not present in the John Day to enumerate the number of adults potentially spawning above the weirs. Why are there no weirs in John Day tributaries? Steelhead redds will be enumerated in five tributaries thought to support independent populations. From this information subbasin escapement will be estimated. Why not estimate redd densities and escapement for each of the five tributaries (populations) rather than just for the subbasin as a whole? This approach could provide greater resolution and information about redd and escapement levels especially if the tributaries differ significantly in quality and quantity of spawning habitat. For Objective 3, pertaining to habitat status and trend monitoring, are any of the sample sites likely to be in reaches where restoration activities have taken place? How will data analysis deal with information from both sites where habitat enhancement has been implemented and sites that have not been treated? Will there be an attempt to distinguish between the two in analyses? Water temperature and thermal refugia are not being monitored. Is availability of cool water during summer not a limiting factor in the John Day basin? For Objective 4, will juvenile sampling be concurrent with habitat sampling? Estimation of juvenile abundance will be based upon snorkel counts of juveniles in pools. Pools will be ranked according to a visibility rating. Pools ranked 0 or 1 (poor visibility, high amount of hiding cover) will not be used in data analysis if the reach also contains pools ranked 2 and/or 3 (moderate to little hiding cover, good visibility). However, if all pools within a reach are ranked < 2, then the pools will be electrofished rather than snorkeled. This could introduce bias because for some reaches pools ranked 0 or 1 (probably the best fish habitat) will be excluded from analysis while in others (electrofished reaches) they will be included and, further, the reach data may not be comparable because two different methods of estimating fish density were employed (snorkel and electrofish). Density estimates of electrofished reaches may be greater than those of snorkeled reaches both because better quality habitat is being sampled and electrofishing may be a more effective way of counting fish. Why not electrofish all reaches and eliminate the potential problem? 4. M&E The M&E program proposed by this project has been carefully planned and well conducted to this point. The proposed additions to the ongoing M&E effort (Chinook and steelhead escapement, habitat and juvenile monitoring, genetic characterizations) would round out the program and provide much needed additional information. As in the past, the ISRP supports both juvenile and habitat monitoring to identify productive rearing habitats, establish quantitative relationships between habitat quantity and quality and juvenile abundance and distribution, quantify limiting factors for juvenile survival, and guide habitat enhancement actions.

Documentation Links:
Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1998-016-00-NPCC-20110628
Project: 1998-016-00 - Escapement and Productivity of Spring Chinook and Steelhead
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-1998-016-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: See Programmatic Issue #2. Also see Fast Track April-May Council decision.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #2 Habitat effectiveness monitoring and evaluation—.
Council Condition #2 Fast Track April-May Council decision - Prior to contracting, sponsors to address ISRP Qualifications on procedures for site selection, analysis of habitat data and snorkeling counts.

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-016-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 1998-016-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1998-016-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Response Requested
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: BPA would like to discuss further the coordination and data management needs of this project to support RPA 72 and potentital coordination with PNAMP Data workgroup.

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. 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: (50.4 50.6 56.1 56.2 56.3 57.3 62.5 63.1 )
All Questionable RPA Associations (72.1) and
All Deleted RPA Associations ( )
Proponent Response:

We are in agreement and are willing to cooperate closely with the PNAMP data workgroup to make our data more avaialble. We are in the process of hiring a database position for our program to support database development for all of our BPA contracts.

Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1998-016-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1998-016-00 - Escapement and Productivity of Spring Chinook and Steelhead
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Budget reductions not specific. Project to be implemented with reduced scope. Sponsors should take the ISRP comments into account.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-016-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1998-016-00 - Escapement and Productivity 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 (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This is a large and well-designed data collection project promising important information on key species in the basin. Strong benefits to anadromous and resident fish over the long term should result from ongoing monitoring of population status and trends and of habitat restoration effectiveness. This project is to continue monitoring in the sub-basin, identified as a priority watershed in the 2000 BiOp, to quantify status and trends of fish populations. Index sites identified in the 1960s are still monitored and the project has expanded beyond index sites to include census surveys of all known spawning habitat. The proposal is to quantify status and trends of Chinook and steelhead populations and their habitats in the sub-basin. Benefits to non-focal species could result from ongoing monitoring of population status and trends and of habitat restoration effectiveness. The trapping and surveys have the potential to provide considerable information on other species if planned properly. It would be useful to make certain that they see and gain these side benefits from the extensive (and expensive) sampling involved.

Previous data from the project have been used by NOAA's Technical Recovery Team. The project cooperates with the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP), provides juvenile steelhead data to BOR research, data on bull trout to BPA project, smolt data to the Comparative Survival Studies, and habitat data to the Nature Conservancy. There is ongoing discussion of collaboration potential with other ODFW projects.

The proposers are well qualified and experienced for this work. The project's objectives are defined over monitoring areas (e.g. life-cycle metrics, spawner escapement, habitat) and tied to strategies of the SBP. Appropriate methods are described in detail for each objective and related to specific work elements with detailed deliverables and timelines. Appropriate literature is cited. The proposed probabilistic sampling and BACI experimental designs are linked to the Fish and Wildlife Program, ISRP recommendations, NOAA, BOR, and Streamnet database development, the 2000 BiOp RPAs for monitoring and the subbasin plan.

BACI is used to evaluate effectiveness of restoration activities. The proposal includes clear descriptions of sampling issues, history, and development of approaches. The proposal is weak on analysis procedures and how the data will be used to inform management activities (i.e., adaptive management). Strong collaborations in data provision and compliance monitoring mean that information is routinely transferred among collaborators. Information is also transferred through reports and provision of data to regional databases. Outreach publications and peer-reviewed journal articles may also be appropriate.

The budget seems high even for the fairly ambitious work planned.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1998-016-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1998-016-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 3 - Does not appear reasonable
Comment: RM&E for salmonids in John Day subbasin to support restoration efforts; fishery managers authorized/required; other actors may also be authorized/required; query whether cost-share is sufficient.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-016-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1998-016-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: This project Merged To 2023-007-00 effective on 9/18/2023
Relationship Description: Starting with FY24 contracts, all work/budget associated with projects 1992-026-04, 1989-024-01 and 1998-016-00 are merged into new project 2023-007-00. This effort was coordinated between BPA and ODFW.


Name Role Organization
James Ruzycki Project Lead Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Richard (ODFW) Carmichael (Inactive) Supervisor Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
John Skidmore Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Russell Scranton Project SME Bonneville Power Administration
Joshua Ashline Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration