Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2010-050-00 - Evaluation of the Tucannon endemic stock Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2010-050-00 - Evaluation of the Tucannon endemic stock
Project Number:
2010-050-00
Title:
Evaluation of the Tucannon endemic stock
Summary:
Evaluation of the Tucannon River Summer Steelhead Endemic Stock Hatchery Program
Proposer:
Proponent Orgs:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
2011
Ending FY:
2021
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau Tucannon 100.00%
Purpose:
Artificial Production
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Trout, Bull
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"

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

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2020 - FY2022)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2020 Expense $235,382 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY20 SOY 06/05/2019
FY2020 Expense $66,687 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) 5/7/20 Transfer 05/07/2020
FY2021 Expense $305,825 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY21 SOY 06/09/2020

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2021
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
2020 (Draft)
2019
2018 $0 0%
2017 $0 0%
2016 $0 0%
2015 $150,000 38%
2014 $124,000 41%
2013 $141,750 47%
2012 $17,750 9%
2011 $3,500 3%

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
BPA-006594 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Tucannon Endemic Program Eval FY12 Active $29,040 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-006953 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Tucannon Endemic Program Eval FY13 Active $28,052 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-007748 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Tucannon Endemic Program Eval FY14 Active $27,836 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
BPA-008409 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Tucannon Endemic Program Eval FY15 Active $47,210 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
BPA-009093 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Tucannon Endemic Program Eval Active $48,295 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
BPA-009542 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Tucannon Endemic Program Eval Active $47,631 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
BPA-010025 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Tucannon Endemic Program Eval Active $47,694 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
BPA-010779 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags/Readers - Tucannon Endemic Program Eval Active $58,616 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
74314 REL 73 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-050-00 EXP EVALUATION OF TUCANNAN ENDEMIC STOCK Issued $251,223 7/1/2019 - 6/30/2020
BPA-011712 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Tucannon Endemic Program Eval Active $51,118 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
74314 REL 107 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-050-00 EXP EVALUATION OF TUCANNAN ENDEMIC STOCK Issued $251,223 7/1/2020 - 6/30/2021
BPA-012097 Bonneville Power Administration FY21 Pit Tags Active $0 10/1/2020 - 9/30/2021



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):8
Completed:5
On time:5
Status Reports
Completed:37
On time:5
Avg Days Late:15

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
53444 57970, 61639, 65752, 69542, 72775, 74314 REL 12, 74314 REL 45, 74314 REL 73, 74314 REL 107 2010-050-00 EXP EVAL TUCANNON STEELHEAD ENDEMIC PROG Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 06/2011 06/2011 Issued 36 110 0 0 6 116 94.83% 1
BPA-006594 PIT Tags - Tucannon Endemic Program Eval FY12 Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006953 PIT Tags - Tucannon Endemic Program Eval FY13 Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007748 PIT Tags - Tucannon Endemic Program Eval FY14 Bonneville Power Administration 10/2013 10/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008409 PIT Tags - Tucannon Endemic Program Eval FY15 Bonneville Power Administration 10/2014 10/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009093 PIT Tags - Tucannon Endemic Program Eval Bonneville Power Administration 10/2015 10/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009542 PIT Tags - Tucannon Endemic Program Eval Bonneville Power Administration 10/2016 10/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
BPA-010025 PIT Tags - Tucannon Endemic Program Eval Bonneville Power Administration 10/2017 10/2017 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-010779 PIT Tags/Readers - Tucannon Endemic Program Eval Bonneville Power Administration 10/2018 10/2018 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-011712 PIT Tags - Tucannon Endemic Program Eval Bonneville Power Administration 10/2019 10/2019 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 36 110 0 0 6 116 94.83% 2


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: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2010-050-00-NPCC-20101101
Project: 2010-050-00 - Evaluation of the Tucannon endemic stock
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-2010-050-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement through FY 2016. Expansion and or continuation is dependent upon LSRCP review of Steelhead in 2011 and future step review. Implementation subject to regional hatchery effects evaluation process described in programmatic recommendation #4.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #4 Hatchery Effectiveness—subject to regional hatchery effects evaluation process
Council Condition #2 Qualification: This project should be included in the CRHEET supplementation evaluation umbrella

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2010-050-00-ISRP-20101015
Project: 2010-050-00 - Evaluation of the Tucannon endemic stock
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2010-050-00
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: This project should be included in the CRHEET supplementation evaluation umbrella.

This is a proposal for tagging and data collection for evaluation of a steelhead supplementation program in the Tucannon River that is implemented under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan.

The monitoring is essential to evaluate the conversion of hatchery steelhead production in the Tucannon River from the release of out-of-subbasin Lyons Ferry production stock to an endemic (local) stock primarily reared and released in the Tucannon River subbasin. The transition is an effort to maintain mitigation fisheries under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan and US v. Oregon while protecting the native population in the Tucannon River. There are complicated circumstances (i.e., apparently half the returning hatchery and natural-origin steelhead bypass the Tucannon and enter other Snake River tributaries, and others spawn below a hatchery weir) that may compromise this effort to obtain data that will provide meaningful analysis. The proponents, however, have a good track record of evaluating hatchery programs.

If there is expansion of LSRCP hatchery facilities, it would be reasonable to have those reviewed through the Three-Step Process used in the Fish and Wildlife Program, since the LSRCP is BPA funded, and reviewed as part of the “reimbursable” program.

Although the proposed data collection is essential for the supplementation to be evaluated, the description of the actual field data collection methodology, vital statistic estimation, and supplementation evaluation is not yet detailed enough for scientific review.

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

As stated, “The primary goal of this project is to monitor and evaluate the status and trends of both natural and hatchery origin summer steelhead in the Tucannon River.”


In addition, there are four main objectives for this proposal:
1. Document change in productivity of steelhead above the Tucannon Weir
2. Estimate total adult steelhead returns to the Tucannon River
3. Estimate distribution of hatchery and wild spawners in Tucannon River
4. Document in-hatchery survival performance of supplementation steelhead.

Although these were all clearly laid out in a logical progression, it is not clear how a system can be designed for supplementation in the Tucannon that is restricted to the area above the hatchery, when the population above and below the weir are not clearly independent. The objectives for monitoring, to evaluate adult and juvenile abundance, and ultimately estimate adult-to-adult productivity, are the correct essential data to collect. It is not clear from the proposal how well this can be accomplished. The evaluation of supplementation requires using these essential data in statistical comparisons of before/after and control/reference or perhaps some other design. These evaluations need to be carefully assessed. It is not clear from the presentation how the comparisons will be made.

Significance to regional programs is amply described; the relationship to LSRCP, the BiOp, US v. Oregon, etc. is succinct.

Technical background: The current status of steelhead in the Tucannon River is not described, and the anticipated system capacity, goals of the hatchery program, and performance of the hatchery fish in the system are not clearly described. A discussion of supplementation of other steelhead in the Columbia River Basin is not presented. There is or has been supplementation of steelhead in the Hood River, Umatilla, and Imnaha rivers, and the performance of those programs was not included in the technical background.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

There is a general discussion of past history of using Lyons Ferry steelhead in the Tucannon to develop a harvest program for steelhead. The results of using local fish beginning in 2000 is only briefly presented, and not in a fashion that is interpretable in terms of whether the feasibility stage yielded performance justifying the proposed project’s moving to an expanded pilot stage.

Throughout the proposal there are some troubling statements, e.g., that the BiOp expects supplementation to improve productivity of steelhead. Supplementation may increase abundance, but there is not a conceptual foundation for supplementation that it will increase productivity. Under supplementation, productivity is likely to decrease owing to both density dependence and fitness effects. The ISRP is under the impression that preliminary analyses from a number of systems demonstrate that natural productivity is reduced in the presence of hatchery fish. There is a lack of attention to the need for objectives for natural-origin steelhead abundance (although mention is made of 285 fish). Supplementation has as its primary objective the goal of maintaining or increasing the abundance of natural-origin adults. This increase in generation 0+1 is to be achieved by increasing total abundance in generation 0 by permitting hatchery-origin adults to spawn naturally. This phenomenon has not yet been demonstrated (see CRHEET proposal).

So, the project needs a better description and basis for adaptive management in the Tucannon itself, and adaptive management systemwide for steelhead supplementation. The ISRP does appreciate and acknowledge the discussion of transitioning from using the Lyons Ferry hatchery steelhead to provide harvest mitigation to conservation. Discussion in various areas of the proposal to suggest that harvest of a significant portion of the “endemic” production is anticipated. That “other” hatchery programs could be implemented (including supplementation) following the cessation of supplementation above the hatchery weir appears to conflict with guidance in the Fish and Wildlife Program.

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

The relationships with other projects are explained adequately.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The set of expected deliverables is reasonable. The workplan was laid out clearly, but a better description is needed of the subbasin layout, where the new PIT tag array will be, and how various data will be collected and then evaluated.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:
Qualification: This project should be included in the CRHEET supplementation evaluation umbrella.

This is a proposal for tagging and data collection for evaluation of a steelhead supplementation program in the Tucannon River that is implemented under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan.

The monitoring is essential to evaluate the conversion of hatchery steelhead production in the Tucannon River from the release of out-of-subbasin Lyons Ferry production stock to an endemic (local) stock primarily reared and released in the Tucannon River subbasin. The transition is an effort to maintain mitigation fisheries under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan and US v. Oregon while protecting the native population in the Tucannon River. There are complicated circumstances (i.e., apparently half the returning hatchery and natural-origin steelhead bypass the Tucannon and enter other Snake River tributaries, and others spawn below a hatchery weir) that may compromise this effort to obtain data that will provide meaningful analysis. The proponents, however, have a good track record of evaluating hatchery programs.

If there is expansion of LSRCP hatchery facilities, it would be reasonable to have those reviewed through the Three-Step Process used in the Fish and Wildlife Program, since the LSRCP is BPA funded, and reviewed as part of the “reimbursable” program.

Although the proposed data collection is essential for the supplementation to be evaluated, the description of the actual field data collection methodology, vital statistic estimation, and supplementation evaluation is not yet detailed enough for scientific review.

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

As stated, “The primary goal of this project is to monitor and evaluate the status and trends of both natural and hatchery origin summer steelhead in the Tucannon River.”


In addition, there are four main objectives for this proposal:
1. Document change in productivity of steelhead above the Tucannon Weir
2. Estimate total adult steelhead returns to the Tucannon River
3. Estimate distribution of hatchery and wild spawners in Tucannon River
4. Document in-hatchery survival performance of supplementation steelhead.

Although these were all clearly laid out in a logical progression, it is not clear how a system can be designed for supplementation in the Tucannon that is restricted to the area above the hatchery, when the population above and below the weir are not clearly independent. The objectives for monitoring, to evaluate adult and juvenile abundance, and ultimately estimate adult-to-adult productivity, are the correct essential data to collect. It is not clear from the proposal how well this can be accomplished. The evaluation of supplementation requires using these essential data in statistical comparisons of before/after and control/reference or perhaps some other design. These evaluations need to be carefully assessed. It is not clear from the presentation how the comparisons will be made.

Significance to regional programs is amply described; the relationship to LSRCP, the BiOp, US v. Oregon, etc. is succinct.

Technical background: The current status of steelhead in the Tucannon River is not described, and the anticipated system capacity, goals of the hatchery program, and performance of the hatchery fish in the system are not clearly described. A discussion of supplementation of other steelhead in the Columbia River Basin is not presented. There is or has been supplementation of steelhead in the Hood River, Umatilla, and Imnaha rivers, and the performance of those programs was not included in the technical background.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

There is a general discussion of past history of using Lyons Ferry steelhead in the Tucannon to develop a harvest program for steelhead. The results of using local fish beginning in 2000 is only briefly presented, and not in a fashion that is interpretable in terms of whether the feasibility stage yielded performance justifying the proposed project’s moving to an expanded pilot stage.

Throughout the proposal there are some troubling statements, e.g., that the BiOp expects supplementation to improve productivity of steelhead. Supplementation may increase abundance, but there is not a conceptual foundation for supplementation that it will increase productivity. Under supplementation, productivity is likely to decrease owing to both density dependence and fitness effects. The ISRP is under the impression that preliminary analyses from a number of systems demonstrate that natural productivity is reduced in the presence of hatchery fish. There is a lack of attention to the need for objectives for natural-origin steelhead abundance (although mention is made of 285 fish). Supplementation has as its primary objective the goal of maintaining or increasing the abundance of natural-origin adults. This increase in generation 0+1 is to be achieved by increasing total abundance in generation 0 by permitting hatchery-origin adults to spawn naturally. This phenomenon has not yet been demonstrated (see CRHEET proposal).

So, the project needs a better description and basis for adaptive management in the Tucannon itself, and adaptive management systemwide for steelhead supplementation. The ISRP does appreciate and acknowledge the discussion of transitioning from using the Lyons Ferry hatchery steelhead to provide harvest mitigation to conservation. Discussion in various areas of the proposal to suggest that harvest of a significant portion of the “endemic” production is anticipated. That “other” hatchery programs could be implemented (including supplementation) following the cessation of supplementation above the hatchery weir appears to conflict with guidance in the Fish and Wildlife Program.

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

The relationships with other projects are explained adequately.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The set of expected deliverables is reasonable. The workplan was laid out clearly, but a better description is needed of the subbasin layout, where the new PIT tag array will be, and how various data will be collected and then evaluated.
Documentation Links:

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 2010-050-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 2010-050-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2010-050-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Supports 2008 FCRPS BiOp
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: (63.2)
All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and
All Deleted RPA Associations ( )
Proponent Response:

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Daniel Gambetta Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Joe Bumgarner Supervisor Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Todd Miller Project Lead Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Russell Scranton Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Brady (USGS) Allen Project SME US Geological Survey (USGS)