Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1999-003-01 - Evaluate Spawning of Fall Chinook and Chum Salmon Just Below the Four Lowermost Mainstem Dams Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1999-003-01 - Evaluate Spawning of Fall Chinook and Chum Salmon Just Below the Four Lowermost Mainstem Dams

Please Note: This project is the product of one or more merges and/or splits from other projects. Historical data automatically included here are limited to the current project and previous generation (the “parent” projects) only. The Project Relationships section details the nature of the relationships between this project and the previous generation. To learn about the complete ancestry of this project, please review the Project Relationships section on the Project Summary page of each parent project.

Project Number:
1999-003-01
Title:
Evaluate Spawning of Fall Chinook and Chum Salmon Just Below the Four Lowermost Mainstem Dams
Summary:
This project determines what conditions must exist to provide successful spawning and rearing below lower Columbia River mainstem dams and what measures must be taken to protect those fish. Specifically, this project describes the abundance, spatial and temporal distributions, and stock origins of spawning chum and fall Chinook salmon, as well as the emergence timing and emigration from local rearing areas. In addition, it identifies operational and physical habitat factors affecting spawning.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Govt - State)
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Govt - Federal)
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (Govt - State)
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
2000
Ending FY:
2020
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Basinwide - 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Chinook - Lower Columbia River ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
Chum - Columbia River ESU
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Sturgeon, White - Lower Columbia River
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

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 *
FY2019 (Previous) $42,150 $42,150 $42,150 $42,150 $36,050

General $42,150 $42,150 $42,150 $36,050
FY2020 (Current) $47,150 $47,150 $42,150 $42,150 $0

General $47,150 $42,150 $42,150 $0
FY2021 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Sep-2019

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2019 - FY2021)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2019 Expense $42,150 From: General Q1 FY19 Budgets 09/17/2018
FY2020 Expense $47,150 From: General FY20 SOY 06/05/2019

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2020
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
2015 (Draft)
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, 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
544 REL 1 SOW US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 99-003-03 EVALUATE SPAWNING OF FALL CHINOOK AND CHUM SALMON JUST Terminated $37,231 10/6/1998 - 10/5/2000
652 REL 1 SOW Pacific Northwest National Laboratory EVALUATE SPAWNING OF FALL CHINOOK & CHUM SALMON Terminated $75,918 10/1/1999 - 12/31/2000
623 REL 1 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1999-003-02 EVAL SPAWNING OF CHINOOK & CHUM BELOW 4 COL DAMS Terminated $122,299 10/6/1999 - 10/5/2000
624 REL 1 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 199900301 EVAL FALL CHINOOK/CHUM SPAWNING BELOW LOWER C DAMS Terminated $32,619 10/6/1999 - 10/5/2000
624 REL 2 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1999-003-01 EVALUATE SPAWNING OF FALL CHINOOK & CHUM SALMON Terminated $213,840 10/1/2000 - 9/30/2001
544 REL 2 SOW US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1999-003-03 EVALUATE SPAWNING OF FALL CHINOOK & CHUM SALMON Terminated $75,806 10/1/2000 - 9/30/2001
623 REL 2 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1999-003-02 EVALUATE SPAWNING OF FALL CHINOOK & CHUM SALMON Terminated $349,011 10/1/2000 - 9/30/2001
15 REL 2 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1999-003-05 EVAL. SPAWNING OF FALL CHINOOK & CHUM SALMON Terminated $53,655 10/1/2000 - 9/30/2001
4287 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1999-003-02 EVAL SPAWNING OF FALL CHINOOK & CHUM SALMON History $274,885 4/2/2001 - 4/1/2002
7583 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1999-003-01 EVALUATE SPAWNING OF FALL CHINOOK & CHUM SALMON History $1,018,242 10/1/2001 - 9/30/2005
56065 REL 20 SOW Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 1999-003-01 EXP CHUM SALMON SPAWNING BELOW 4 LOWER DAMS Issued $56,562 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
77529 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1999-003-01 EXP CHUM SALMON SPAWNING BELOW 4 LOWER DAMS Issued $16,490 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
56065 REL 22 SOW Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 1999-003-01 EXP CHUM SALMON SPAWNING BELOW 4 LOWER DAMS Issued $20,000 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
78040 REL 8 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1999-003-01 EXP CHINOOK SPAWNING SURVEY BELOW LWR-4 DAMS (PSMFC) Issued $17,150 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
56065 REL 27 SOW Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 1999-003-01 EXP CHUM SALMON SPAWNING BELOW 4 LOWER DAMS Issued $22,599 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
78040 REL 18 SOW Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1999-003-01 EXP CHUM SALMON SPAWNING BELOW 4 LOWER DAMS Signature $17,150 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
56065 REL 29 SOW Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 1999-003-01 EXP CHUM SALMON SPAWNING BELOW 4 LOWER DAMS Signature $25,000 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):40
Completed:31
On time:31
Status Reports
Completed:153
On time:92
Avg Days Late: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
4670 24484, 29306, 34980 1999-003-01 EVAL SPAWNING OF FALL CHINOOK & CHUM SALMON US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 10/1998 10/1998 Closed 13 34 7 0 3 44 93.18% 11
4028 24549, 29512, 35333 1999-003-01 EVALUATION SPAWNING OF FALL CHINOOK & CHUM SALMON Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 03/2001 03/2001 Closed 13 41 7 0 12 60 80.00% 4
652 REL 16 26934 REL 2, 26934 REL 11, 26934 REL 18, 26934 REL 25, 26934 REL 32, 26934 REL 36, 56065 REL 5, 56065 REL 8, 56065 REL 12, 56065 REL 17, 56065 REL 20, 56065 REL 22, 56065 REL 27, 56065 REL 29 1999-003-01 EVAL. SPAWNING OF F. CHINOOK & CHUM BELOW 4 LOW DAMS Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 08/2001 08/2001 Signature 57 64 7 0 0 71 100.00% 3
7583 24465, 29301, 34890, 38971, 44312, 49534, 54644, 59478, 63058, 66561, 70625, 73877, 77529, 78040 REL 8, 78040 REL 18 1999-003-01 EVALUATE SPAWNING OF FALL CHINOOK & CHUM SALMON Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 10/2001 10/2001 Signature 57 167 0 0 0 167 100.00% 4
4701 19562, 24485, 29307, 34979 1999-003-01 SPAWNING OF FALL CHINOOK & CHUM SALMON US Geological Survey (USGS) 10/2003 10/2003 Closed 13 28 0 0 11 39 71.79% 0
19932 23680 1999-003-01 PI EVAL SPAWN OF FALL CHIN & CHUM SALM BEL THE DAMS Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc. 10/2004 10/2004 Closed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 194 696 21 0 62 779 92.04% 24


Historical from: 2008-710-00
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
44293 50204, 59958, 63377, 67595, 73502, 74314 REL 14, 74314 REL 49 200871000 EXP BIOP CHUM RESTORATION Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 07/2009 07/2009 Pending 41 362 0 0 36 398 90.95% 2
Project Totals 194 696 21 0 62 779 92.04% 24


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: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1999-003-01-ISRP-20190404
Project: 1999-003-01 - Evaluate Spawning of Fall Chinook and Chum Salmon Just Below the Four Lowermost Mainstem Dams
Review: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support
Proposal Number: NPCC19-1999-003-01
Completed Date: None
First Round ISRP Date: 4/4/2019
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:

Response requested comment:

1.      Provide a synthesis of the overall approach and methodology used to achieve project objectives. Please include additional information on how the fall Chinook surveys are conducted. How often do they occur, how are redd locations identified and marked, are genetic samples being collected, are egg retention counts being made, are otoliths being collected for possible microchemistry analyses, and what type of length data are collected (e.g., FL, MEHP)? Provide variance measures of the spawning population estimates, as previously requested by the ISRP.

2.      Describe lessons learned and adaptive management resulting from past and ongoing research and monitoring. It is possible that the project consistently reviews its operations and methods on a regular basis to determine if anything might be improved. If this is the case, this procedure should be described in future reports. On the other hand, if a formal or quasi-formal adaptive management process is not yet in place, the proponents should establish one. This will provide them opportunities to discuss and possibly implement changes to existing procedures.

3.      Describe the extent to which FCRPS operators use information from this project to alter hydropower operations, as emphasized in the overall project goals. The ultimate goal of this project is to collect data that can be used to reduce potential impacts of hydropower operations on salmon spawning below the dams. The effectiveness of this effort should be reported in the proposal and annual reports. As part of this analysis, the proponents should describe and discuss the extent to which salmon redds were dewatered, if at all.

Comment:

1. Objectives, Significance to Regional Programs, and Technical Background

The purpose of this ongoing research and monitoring project is two-fold: (1) to assess the extent of spawning by ESA-listed fall Chinook salmon in the mainstem Columbia River so that the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) can be managed to protect and enhance these populations, and (2) to collect riverbed temperature data so that the emergence timing of ESA-listed chum salmon can be estimated. This allows managers to know when chum salmon emergence is complete and FCRPS operations can shift from protecting incubating chum salmon to supporting spring spill operations to aid other species.

Real-time water temperature and water surface elevation data supplied by the project, for example, are used by managers to prevent redd dewatering and estimate when chum salmon fry emergence has ended. Additionally, field surveys are used to count fall Chinook adults, carcasses, and redds, as well as collect biological information (scales, gender, length, fin clips, CWT retrieval etc.) from carcasses. This information is passed on weekly to another project for use in run-reconstruction, abundance forecasting, and VSP monitoring. The project seems to be well-integrated with other regional programs that use these data, and it addresses BiOp RPA Action 17.

2. Results and Adaptive Management

The project has routinely supplied environmental data to hydrosystem managers. This information has been used by managers to regulate hydrosystem flows to protect ESA-listed chum salmon spawning immediately below Bonneville Dam. Additionally, biological information on ESA-listed fall Chinook has consistently been sent to personnel supported by project 2010-036-00 who use it to track the status and trends of fall Chinook spawning below Bonneville Dam. Data from the project are helping to address questions in the Mainstem Habitat, Hydrosystem Flow, and Passage Operations, Population Structure and Diversity, and Climate Change categories of the Council's 2017 Research Plan. It is also directly linked to the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program which calls for sustaining abundant, productive, and diverse communities of fish and wildlife. Although the project reportedly collects and shares these data, the proposal and annual reports do not describe the extent to which this information was used to shift FCRPS operations as stated in its goals, nor do they discuss the extent to which salmon redds were dewatered.

Although an example of external adaptive management is described, no direct examples are provided on how the project has used adaptive management internally to modify or improve its objectives or methods. The proposal states that data supplied by the project are used by hydrosystem managers to adaptively manage flows to protect chum and Chinook using spawning and incubation habitats below Bonneville Dam. This is an important use of project's data for external adaptive management, but it does not address how or if the project has an internal process to refine its own operations. Clearly some changes in methods have occurred. The development of the real-time data system that is being used to convey hourly temperature and water height data would be one example how the project has changed. There are likely others as well.

In general, the results produced by the project are largely applicable to the project and its end users. However, the development and use of its "real time" data system to gather and send hourly water temperature and water height information could be a valuable tool for others examining the possible effects of dam operations on fish and wildlife populations.

Project reports have been produced on a timely basis, data has been provided to end users on a regular basis, and peer-reviewed publications on some of the project's results have been published.

While the information provided by this project are undoubtedly useful, there are some short-comings that need more discussion in the annual reports and proposal. For example, annual reports should describe the extent to which salmon redds were dewatered, if at all in response to water elevation fluctuations. To what extent were data from this project used to shift FCRPS operations as a means to protect salmon redds, as stated in its goals? To what extent has the project addressed previous ISRP qualifications, including the development of confidence intervals for spawning Chinook salmon? Specific information on lessons learned and adaptive management are needed.

3. Methods: Project Relationships, Work Types, and Deliverables

Methods seem appropriate but are not described in sufficient detail (or linked adequately via ~10 protocols) in the proposal. Methods for monitoring water temperature and elevation at chum spawning sites are described in detail in previous annual reports. Methods for estimating fall Chinook abundance below McNary, John Day and The Dalles dams were well documented in the Annual Report for 2001-2006, but no comparable documentation has been provided for surveys below Bonneville Dam. A qualification of the ISRP (2010-44b) review was to provide more detail on methods. For example, how often are boat and foot surveys conducted, how are redd locations identified and marked, are genetic samples being collected, are egg retention counts being made, are otoliths being collected for possible microchemistry analyses, and what type of length data are collected (e.g., FL, MEHP)?

No formal description is provided on how the project monitors whether it is meeting its objectives. However, the expected hourly delivery of environmental information and weekly submission of biological data to end users likely serves this purpose. Because of the immediate need for some of the project's data, any interruptions in data flow would be quickly recognized and corrected if possible. Nevertheless, the proposal and annual report should discuss these issues.

Documentation Links:
Assessment Number: 2008-710-00-ISRP-20190404
Project: 2008-710-00 - Chum Salmon Restoration in the tributaries below Bonneville Dam
Review: 2019-2021 Mainstem/Program Support
Proposal Number: NPCC19-2008-710-00
Completed Date: None
First Round ISRP Date: 4/4/2019
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:

Comment:

This is an ambitious, well-conceived restoration project that covers a broad geographical area in the lower Columbia River. The project includes habitat, fish propagation, and monitoring components and it addresses the critical conservation need to protect and recover lower Columbia River chum salmon populations, which are ESA-listed. Recovery actions have been prioritized by the proponents and their regional partners. Monitoring and evaluation has been adequate to demonstrate that life cycle productivity (adult returns per spawner, R/S) is typically higher for fish spawning in constructed channels than for fish collected as hatchery broodstock to produce progeny for release as fed-fry, and intermediate for fish that spawn naturally in Duncan Creek. However, productivity is highly variable from year to year, and greater than 1 in only ~50% of brood years, indicating the population may not yet be self-sustainable. Overall chum salmon abundance in the ESU is variable but generally increasing since the low in 2008. The proponents have made good progress toward the overall goal of chum salmon recovery and are working with ODFW to develop a coordinated recovery effort for chum salmon in both Washington and Oregon tributary populations.

1. Objectives, Significance to Regional Programs, and Technical Background

In 1999, chum salmon in the lower Columbia River were listed as threatened under the ESA, leading to the recovery plan for chum salmon and the efforts by this restoration project. Three broad/general objectives are clearly stated and partially quantitative: (1) provide habitat restoration and chum salmon spawning channel development in Washington State tributaries of the lower Columbia River, (2) create multiple self-sustaining spawning populations (>1,000 adult returns annually) in each of three strata (Coastal, Cascade, Gorge) in the lower Columbia River and its Washington tributaries, (3) implement monitoring that provides accurate and precise estimates of data for viable salmon population (VSP) analyses and data for managing and evaluating enhancement projects. Project objectives and anticipated results closely follow applicable goals presented in the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. Anticipated outcomes for biological objectives are not specified explicitly in the proposal, but one general expectation is to follow FCRPS prioritization criteria and HSRG guidelines to establish self-sustaining populations in each of the three strata. The proposal states that abundance targets for each population were included in Table 5 of the original proposal, but they were not shown in the current proposal. Results from ongoing chum salmon recovery efforts indicate that environmental conditions during spawning, incubation, fry migration and ocean residence can have substantial effects on productivity (R/S values), and this makes it difficult to predict when desired abundances might be achieved.

2. Results and Adaptive Management

The proposal provides a comprehensive listing of recent habitat actions. These include design and construction or rehabilitation of spawning channels, removal of non-native vegetation, inventories and assessments of prospective restoration sites, and groundwater investigations. Reintroduction efforts and the use of hatchery programs to augment natural chum populations were also described and are ongoing activities. Additionally, M&E activities are being employed to evaluate the project's habitat restoration, hatchery, reintroduction, and enhancement actions. Run reconstruction of the chum salmon populations is especially important for evaluating VSP criteria. Some objectives have already been achieved, while others are on track to be met. Results from the project will have direct applicability to the Council's 2017 Research Plan as project results directly address questions in the Tributary Habitat, Mainstem, Fish Propagation, Population Structure and Diversity, Climate Change, Human Development, and Monitoring and Evaluation Methods categories of the plan.

A number of improvements in methods have occurred in response to the project's M&E efforts. New procedures are being used to estimate population abundances in tributary and mainstem spawning locations. Methods used to collect and tag adults were changed to reduce stress and enhance the retention of tags used in capture-recapture studies. Methods to mark juveniles produced from the project were changed from strontium and otolith thermal marking to Parentage-Based Tagging (PBT) to increase sample sizes and reduce uncertainty in estimates. Additionally, environmental changes were made to the Duncan spawning channels to increase egg-to-fry survival rates. Changes to broodstock collection locations, fry release numbers, and rearing locations were made in response to project data. All these changes indicate that the program is using adaptive management to refine its actions. For completeness, the program should provide a description of its adaptive management process in its next annual report.

The lessons learned are generally specific to the project. However, the general recovery approach of identifying extant stock structure, determining the limiting factors faced by each population segment, assessing habitat and prioritizing recovery actions has broad application throughout the Basin and beyond.

Annual reports are routinely produced and made available. Project data are made available on many web-based sites, including Coordinated Assessments, Fish Passage Center, Fish Books, NOAA's Salmon Population Summary (SPS) Database, StreamNet, WDFW-JMX, WDFW Hatchery Future Brood, WDFW Salmonid Stock Inventory & SalmonScape, WDFW's Fish Ageing Database, and WDFW's website.

One of the identified threats to the success of this effort is further human development in key chum salmon spawning areas. If not already occurring, we encourage the proponents to work with others in the Basin to establish conservation easements or to use other suitable methods to protect such areas from further development.

3. Methods: Project Relationships, Work Types, and Deliverables

Given the numerous activities in the project, methods are only briefly described in the proposal and readers are referred to more detailed reports and to procedures at the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP) web site. Methods seem appropriate to evaluate success of the chum salmon recovery actions, but the methods were not reviewed by the ISRP in detail. The current monitoring plan is briefly described. Summaries of results to date show that monitoring has been adequate to compare trends in productivity among natural, channel, and hatchery spawners in several core populations.

The genetic identity of broodstock collected at local donor sites outside the target rivers and rationale for their use are not well explained. On the other hand, the decision to translocate all "volunteer adult returns" captured in Duncan Creek to the spawning channel seems sensible as a way to encourage local adaptation within the population.

The project includes one research project to compare the benefits of using adult spawners, releases of fed-fry, and natural straying to maintain, reintroduce, or enhance lower Columbia River chum salmon populations. Formal hypotheses and expected time lines for when this comparison might be completed should be described. However, given the high variation the proponents have documented in R/S values it seems reasonable to assume that it will take three or more generations for this assessment to be concluded.

Documentation Links:
Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1999-003-01-NPCC-20110113
Project: 1999-003-01 - Evaluate Spawning of Fall Chinook and Chum Salmon Just Below the Four Lowermost Mainstem Dams
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-1999-003-01
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement with condition through FY 2016: Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in 2012 contract.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Qualifications. Information is needed on variance measures of the spawning population estimates. How are they determined, what have they been, and are the end users satisfied with them? Details are needed on specific methods and survey techniques. Over what time periods are the redd surveys conducted, and how many times per week are they carried out? Are any shoreline surveys performed in areas inaccessible to jet sleds? Where are the piezometers located, relative to redd concentrations? How often do temperature loggers record intragravel water temperatures? Is dissolved oxygen ever measured in the egg pocket? A map of the principal spawning areas for Chinook and chum salmon below Bonneville Dam would be helpful, particularly if it highlighted sites where the majority of redds occur. Information on use of the Ives Island area by coho (mentioned in passing in the proposal) and lamprey would also be useful. Information about movement of sediments in the spawning grounds as the river channel migrates would be helpful. Is this metric being monitored? Have other potential limiting factors on chum fry emergence been considered, e.g., predation on eggs or recently emerged fry? Does boat activity in the area affect egg and alevin survival through substrate disturbance? To put this project in context, it would be useful to find out why was the decision made to remove data analysis from this project and place it in two related projects? Was this done for efficiency or for another reason?
Assessment Number: 2008-710-00-NPCC-20110113
Project: 2008-710-00 - Chum Salmon Restoration in the tributaries below Bonneville Dam
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-2008-710-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (In Part)
Comments: Implement with condition through FY 2016: Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications per August 12, 2009 Council decision.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 August 12, 2009 Council decision: The Council supports continued efforts at the Grays River Conservation Hatchery at the proposed $35,000 funding level until these activities and other supplementation/reintroduction strategies are confirmed through the anticipated step review as outlined in Objective 7 of the project. Therefore, based on the ISRP review (ISRP document 2009-29) the Council supports the project for implementation (i.e., Objectives 1, 2, 4 and 6) with the condition that the qualifications and responses identified by the ISRP (ISRP document 2009-29) for Objectives 3 and 5 be addressed as part the anticipated Step Review associated with Objective 7. Full implementation of these objectives (i.e., Objectives 3, 5 and 7) is dependant on future reviews by the ISRP and Council.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1999-003-01-ISRP-20101015
Project: 1999-003-01 - Evaluate Spawning of Fall Chinook and Chum Salmon Just Below the Four Lowermost Mainstem Dams
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1999-003-01
Completed Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Qualification: The following additional requests for information should be addressed in contracting and discussed in future proposals and annual reports. The ISRP is not asking for an immediate response.

1. Information is needed on variance measures of the spawning population estimates. How are they determined, what have they been, and are the end users satisfied with them?

2. Details are needed on specific methods and survey techniques. Over what time periods are the redd surveys conducted, and how many times per week are they carried out? Are any shoreline surveys performed in areas inaccessible to jet sleds? Where are the piezometers located, relative to redd concentrations? How often do temperature loggers record intragravel water temperatures? Is dissolved oxygen ever measured in the egg pocket?

3. A map of the principal spawning areas for Chinook and chum salmon below Bonneville Dam would be helpful, particularly if it highlighted sites where the majority of redds occur. Information on use of the Ives Island area by coho (mentioned in passing in the proposal) and lamprey would also be useful.

4. Information about movement of sediments in the spawning grounds as the river channel migrates would be helpful. Is this metric being monitored?

5. Have other potential limiting factors on chum fry emergence been considered, e.g., predation on eggs or recently emerged fry? Does boat activity in the area affect egg and alevin survival through substrate disturbance?

6. To put this project in context, it would be useful to find out why was the decision made to remove data analysis from this project and place it in two related projects? Was this done for efficiency or for another reason?

1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The proposal is reasonably clear about the importance of understanding the effect of hydrosystem operations on the reproductive success of mainstem-spawning fall Chinook and chum salmon immediately below Bonneville Dam. This field program is an important element of regional fish population monitoring.

The technical background and objectives were, in general, adequately described. A couple of issues need further explanation. First, why was the decision made to remove data analysis from this project and place it in two related projects? Was this done for efficiency or for another reason? Second, what is being done to track mainstem spawning in the Ives Island complex by species other than Chinook and chum salmon? The proposal mentions coho salmon in passing (in connection with carcass tagging), and it would be interesting to know if Pacific lamprey use the area too.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

The proponents have a good track of publications and reports. Results of fall Chinook population estimates for the Ives Island complex are presented for the last decade. A similar set of estimates for chum salmon would be useful, as would a summary of the temperature and water surface elevation monitoring over this period. The water elevation data would be especially helpful in demonstrating how the precursor to this project influenced hydrosystem operations by preventing redd dewatering. The mapping products provide habitat managers with managers to avoid development and damage to critical spawning habitat.

Adaptive management is not really shown by proponents – they describe how end users do modify their needs according to changes in the fish populations.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

Relationships to two other projects (Project Number 1982-013-01 titled “Coded Wire Tag Recovery Program” and Project Number 2010-036-00 titled “Expansion of Washington’s Tag Recovery Program in the Lower Columbia Region to Improve Fisheries and Viable Salmonid Population Monitoring”) are adequately described. The other projects will assume responsibility for analyses of tag recovery data collected through this project.

Throughout the proposal the implication is that hydrosystem operations causing redd dewatering limit reproductive success of fall Chinook and chum salmon spawning in the Ives Island complex, but have other potential limiting factors been considered, e.g., predation on eggs or recently emerged fry? Does boat activity in the area affect egg and alevin survival through substrate disturbance? Is there any evidence that channel movements (if they have occurred) have influenced hyporheic flow pathways, or that intragravel temperatures have changed over the monitoring period?

R&ME seems reasonable and the proponents have a good track record of data archiving.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Because this project does not include data analysis, deliverables consist of providing field data to the appropriate other projects for analysis and summary.

The work elements, metrics and methods are generally described; however, more details are needed for scientific review. A map of the principal spawning areas for Chinook and chum salmon below Bonneville Dam would be helpful, particularly if it highlighted sites where the majority of redds occur. Additional information on survey techniques is requested above under response item 2.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:
Qualification: The following additional requests for information should be addressed in contracting and discussed in future proposals and annual reports. The ISRP is not asking for an immediate response.

1. Information is needed on variance measures of the spawning population estimates. How are they determined, what have they been, and are the end users satisfied with them?

2. Details are needed on specific methods and survey techniques. Over what time periods are the redd surveys conducted, and how many times per week are they carried out? Are any shoreline surveys performed in areas inaccessible to jet sleds? Where are the piezometers located, relative to redd concentrations? How often do temperature loggers record intragravel water temperatures? Is dissolved oxygen ever measured in the egg pocket?

3. A map of the principal spawning areas for Chinook and chum salmon below Bonneville Dam would be helpful, particularly if it highlighted sites where the majority of redds occur. Information on use of the Ives Island area by coho (mentioned in passing in the proposal) and lamprey would also be useful.

4. Information about movement of sediments in the spawning grounds as the river channel migrates would be helpful. Is this metric being monitored?

5. Have other potential limiting factors on chum fry emergence been considered, e.g., predation on eggs or recently emerged fry? Does boat activity in the area affect egg and alevin survival through substrate disturbance?

6. To put this project in context, it would be useful to find out why was the decision made to remove data analysis from this project and place it in two related projects? Was this done for efficiency or for another reason?

1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The proposal is reasonably clear about the importance of understanding the effect of hydrosystem operations on the reproductive success of mainstem-spawning fall Chinook and chum salmon immediately below Bonneville Dam. This field program is an important element of regional fish population monitoring.

The technical background and objectives were, in general, adequately described. A couple of issues need further explanation. First, why was the decision made to remove data analysis from this project and place it in two related projects? Was this done for efficiency or for another reason? Second, what is being done to track mainstem spawning in the Ives Island complex by species other than Chinook and chum salmon? The proposal mentions coho salmon in passing (in connection with carcass tagging), and it would be interesting to know if Pacific lamprey use the area too.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

The proponents have a good track of publications and reports. Results of fall Chinook population estimates for the Ives Island complex are presented for the last decade. A similar set of estimates for chum salmon would be useful, as would a summary of the temperature and water surface elevation monitoring over this period. The water elevation data would be especially helpful in demonstrating how the precursor to this project influenced hydrosystem operations by preventing redd dewatering. The mapping products provide habitat managers with managers to avoid development and damage to critical spawning habitat.

Adaptive management is not really shown by proponents – they describe how end users do modify their needs according to changes in the fish populations.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

Relationships to two other projects (Project Number 1982-013-01 titled “Coded Wire Tag Recovery Program” and Project Number 2010-036-00 titled “Expansion of Washington’s Tag Recovery Program in the Lower Columbia Region to Improve Fisheries and Viable Salmonid Population Monitoring”) are adequately described. The other projects will assume responsibility for analyses of tag recovery data collected through this project.

Throughout the proposal the implication is that hydrosystem operations causing redd dewatering limit reproductive success of fall Chinook and chum salmon spawning in the Ives Island complex, but have other potential limiting factors been considered, e.g., predation on eggs or recently emerged fry? Does boat activity in the area affect egg and alevin survival through substrate disturbance? Is there any evidence that channel movements (if they have occurred) have influenced hyporheic flow pathways, or that intragravel temperatures have changed over the monitoring period?

R&ME seems reasonable and the proponents have a good track record of data archiving.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Because this project does not include data analysis, deliverables consist of providing field data to the appropriate other projects for analysis and summary.

The work elements, metrics and methods are generally described; however, more details are needed for scientific review. A map of the principal spawning areas for Chinook and chum salmon below Bonneville Dam would be helpful, particularly if it highlighted sites where the majority of redds occur. Additional information on survey techniques is requested above under response item 2.
Documentation Links:

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 1999-003-01-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 1999-003-01
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1999-003-01
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Response Requested
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: No BiOp Workgroup Comments

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: (50.6)
All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and
All Deleted RPA Associations (50.2)
Proponent Response:

We agree with BIOP RM&E Workgroup decision to delete RPA Association with (50.2)

Assessment Number: 2008-710-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 2008-710-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2008-710-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Response Requested
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: For compliance with RPA 50.7: This RPA action is for hatchery fish marking only. Confirm that the scope of work proposed is for 100% marking of fish (visible or non visible) from the hatchery supported. If this project is marking fish for the hatchery, please specify the hatchery name and populations affected. If marking is conducted under another project or program, please let us know the name of that project/program.

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: (63.1)
All Questionable RPA Associations (50.7) and
All Deleted RPA Associations ( )
Proponent Response:

Yes, 100% of hatchery-origin fish produced under this project are marked, thermal marking of the otolith, to enable monitoring of hatchery-origin fish in natural spawning areas and the assessment of status of wild populations.

This project produces hatchery-origin chum salmon fed-fry at two locations

1)  Grays River Hatchery, Coastal Strata of the lower Columbia River chum salmon ESU, Chinook/Grays River population group.

2)  Washougal Hatchery, Gorge Strata of the lower Columbia River chum salmon ESU, Bonneville population group.

In addition to marking all hatchery-origin production, 100% of the naturally produced chum salmon fry in the Duncan Creek spawning channel, progeny of adult supplementation in the spawning channel, are marked using strontium.

Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1999-003-01-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1999-003-01 - Evaluate Spawning of Fall Chinook and Chum Salmon Just Below the Four Lowermost Mainstem Dams
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Scope expansion not accepted. Budget at the FY 2006 level.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1999-003-01-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1999-003-01 - Evaluate Spawning of Fall Chinook and Chum Salmon Just Below the Four Lowermost Mainstem Dams
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 is an extremely well-prepared and well-documented proposal. The background on technical and scientific issues is thoroughly presented. The project history appears complete and identifies that management calls upon the project for information to support hydrosystem operations, and that system operation modifications are under consideration because of the products of the project. There is a clear statement of objectives with a well-established need. The rationale and significance are clearly identified. Information on chum and fall chinook spawning and adaptation to the hydrosystem is crucial to system modifications to accommodate fish. The data will undoubtedly lead to management that will provide persisting benefits.

The project is directed by experienced personnel who have an appropriate mix of expertise. The methods employed are sound, usual practices in fisheries investigations with the exception of the DIDSON sonar, which is rather new. The correct population parameters are being measured. The proposed activities are well integrated with past work and other agency projects.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1999-003-01-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1999-003-01
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: Spawning studies below FCRPS dams.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1999-003-01-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1999-003-01
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 Depends On 2008-710-00 effective on 6/10/2010
Relationship Description: Starting in FY11, work and budgets from projects 1999-003-01 (Part of budget will stay with 1999-003-01), 2001-053-00 and 2008-710-00 are combined into 2008-710-00. 6


Name Role Organization
Ron Roler Interested Party Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Evan Arntzen Project Lead Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
George Nandor Administrative Contact Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Steven Vigg Interested Party Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Janie Vickerman Administrative Contact Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Kenneth Keller Supervisor Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Joe Hymer (Inactive) Interested Party Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Timothy Ludington Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Andre L'Heureux Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Catherine Clark Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration