cbfish.org - Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Program - Proposal RMECAT-1989-024-01 - Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival

Proposal RMECAT-1989-024-01 - Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival

View the dynamic Proposal Summary

This Proposal Summary page updates dynamically to always display the latest data from the associated project and contracts. This means changes, like updating the Project Lead or other contacts, will be immediately reflected here.

Download a snapshot PDF

To view a point-in-time PDF snapshot of this page, select one of the Download links in the Proposal History section. These PDFs are created automatically by important events like submitting your proposal or responding to the ISRP. You can also create one at any time by using the PDF button, located next to the Expand All and Collapse All buttons.

Proposal History

Archive	Date	Time	Type	From	To	By
Download	7/30/2010	4:18 PM	Status	Draft	ISRP - Pending First Review	<System>
	10/15/2010	5:55 PM	Status	ISRP - Pending First Review	ISRP - Pending Response	<System>
Download	11/15/2010	4:16 PM	Status	ISRP - Pending Response	ISRP - Pending Final Review	<System>
	1/14/2011	10:43 AM	Status	ISRP - Pending Final Review	Pending Council Recommendation	<System>
	7/7/2011	11:28 AM	Status	Pending Council Recommendation	Pending BPA Response	<System>

This online form is dynamically updated with the most recent information. To view the content as reviewed by the ISRP and Council for this review cycle, download an archived PDF version using the Download link(s) above.

Basics

Proposal Number:		RMECAT-1989-024-01
Proposal Status:		Pending BPA Response
Proposal Version:		Proposal Version 1
Review:		RME / AP Category Review
Portfolio:		RM&E Cat. Review - Artificial Production
Type:		Existing Project: 1989-024-01
Primary Contact:		Joshua Hanson (Inactive)
Created:		6/3/2010 by (Not yet saved)
Proponent Organizations:		Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Project Title:		Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival

Proposal Short Description:		This project proposes to continue ongoing smolt monitoring activities of the ESA-listed Umatilla River steelhead population, to intensively monitor steelhead population responses to habitat restoration activities, and to expand the scope of smolt monitoring activities to include Chinook salmon. We also propose to collaborate in the development and implementation of a standardized habitat status and trend monitoring program that spans the Columbia Basin that is being proposed by ISEMP.

Proposal Executive Summary:		This project originally began in 1994 as the Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival Project (1989-024-01); following initial studies beginning in 1989 that evaluated the passage of juvenile fish at irrigation diversion facilities [Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Bypass Facilities and Passage at Water Diversions on the Lower Umatilla River]. The project was requested by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) based on both a local and regional high priority need for information on life history characteristics, survival, and success of hatchery- and naturally-reared salmon and steelhead in the Umatilla River (Boyce 1986; CTUIR and ODFW 1989; NPPC 1994). The project provided co-managers with annual estimates of smolt abundance, migration timing and survival, life history characteristics and productivity status and trends for all anadromous salmonid species in the Umatilla River basin. Project objectives were primarily accomplished through trapping and tagging juvenile outmigrants on the lower river. The project coordinated with ODFW’s Umatilla Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation Project (1990-005-00) and CTUIR’s Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project (1990-005-01) to provide managers with information in support of the Umatilla River Fisheries Restoration Program (CTUIR and ODFW 2004). At the request of the ISRP, the three projects produced the "Comprehensive Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Plan for Umatilla Subbasin Summer Steelhead and Chinook Salmon" (Schwartz and Cameron 2006) to guide future RME in the Umatilla Subbasin. However, funding for the Outmigration and Survival Project was eliminated in 2007. In 2006 the ISRP expressed the need for a complete Umatilla Program review to help the panel understand the complexity and relationships among the Umatilla River Fisheries Restoration Program's projects. This review was completed in 2007, and included an ISRP site visit on May 16-17, 2007, and presentations made to the panel by ODFW and CTUIR personnel. In their review (ISRP 2007b), the panel noted that "…the biological effectiveness of habitat restoration is not being adequately evaluated. Habitat restoration effectiveness monitoring and evaluation within the Umatilla is needed." Panel comments were positive regarding the Juvenile Outmigration and Survival Project, and recognized that the information this project provided was essential to establishing benefits from habitat enhancement. In 2009, the Outmigration and Survival Project was restarted, but with a narrowed focus that only included ESA-listed Umatilla River steelhead. This project proposal is to continue ongoing activities of the Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration and Survival Project. We also propose additional activities, integrated with the goals of existing Umatilla M&E projects, to intensively monitor the response of the natural steelhead population to watershed-scale habitat restoration. This portion of the project will provide statistically valid estimates of steelhead population viability parameters and rigorous assessments of temporal habitat changes at multiple spatial scales. Finally, in 2008 Umatilla co-managers implemented HSRG recommend hatchery reform strategies (HSRG 2004) that are aimed at establishing locally-adapted natural spring and fall Chinook salmon populations. Therefore, we also propose to expand the scope of smolt monitoring activities to once again include all anadroumous salmonid species. Specifically, we propose to 1) operate PIT tag detection system at Three Mile Falls Dam to monitor movement; 2) operate smolt traps to estimate smolt abundance and mark smolts for survival and migration characteristics assessment; 3) conduct spawning surveys to determine spawner distribution; 4) conduct juvenile fish surveys to determine rearing distribution and density; 5) conduct habitat surveys to characterize the quantity, quality, and distribution of steelhead habitat in the Umatilla River Subbasin. Data analyses will integrate life stage specific survival and life history information to derive and assess the key performance metrics. The monitoring of habitat status/trends will be conducted in the Umatilla under the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) that is being proposed under a related project by the Integrated Status and Trend Monitoring Program (ISEMP). This work will include: monitoring of habitat/channel/riparian/macroinvertebrate conditions using the ISEMP recommended habitat protocol at an annual panel of twenty-five (25) sites selected using a general random-tessellation stratified (GRTS) design guided by the ISEMP site selection protocol, and other ISEMP tools, standards, and training provided by ISEMP. Data collected under this deliverable will be entered and controlled for accuracy and quality by the proposer within data management tools provided by ISEMP and will be stored/archived for analysis in the STEM data bank.

Purpose:		Programmatic
Emphasis:		RM and E
Species Benefit:		Anadromous: 100.0% Resident: 0.0% Wildlife: 0.0%
Supports 2009 NPCC Program:		Yes
Subbasin Plan:
Fish Accords:		None
Biological Opinions:		FCRPS 2008 (RPA 50.1, RPA 50.3, RPA 50.6, RPA 56.1, RPA 50.2, RPA 50.8, RPA 56.2, RPA 56.3, RPA 72.1)

Contacts

Contacts:

Project Significance & Problem Statement

Project Significance to Regional Programs:

The proposed project will assist in answering management questions and monitoring the success of management actions included within the Northwest Power and Conservation Council Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (Council FWP), Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (FCRPS BO), Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan, Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead Populations in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment (Mid-C Plan), and Middle Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan.

The proposal implements key monitoring actions and addresses critical uncertainties that were identified in the Comprehensive Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Plan for Umatilla Subbasin Summer Steelhead and Chinook Salmon (Umatilla RM&E Plan), Columbia River Basin Research Plan, and Mid-C Plan.  The proposed work is designed to be consistent with the guidelines, priority monitoring, and addressing information gaps for viable salmonid population parameter, habitat effectiveness, and hatchery effectiveness monitoring for the Umatilla steelhead population as outlined in the Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid Monitoring Strategy (ASMS) and RM&E Recommendations Report and uses the metrics, methods and scales recommended in NOAA’s RM&E guidance.  The process used to develop this proposal and intent of the proposed work reflects the goal of the MERR Plan to “design and operate RME and reporting under the Fish and Wildlife Program in an efficient, integrated, cost-effective manner by focusing on biological and ecosystem priorities, addressing key management questions, identifying priority data gaps, and by eliminating redundant RME efforts”.

2009 Council FWP - This project proposal addresses both Biological Objective components of the 2009 Council FWP.  Biological performance (1) describes responses of populations to habitat conditions in terms of abundance, productivity, and life history diversity, and (2) describes the environmental conditions experienced by those populations.  All aspects of the proposed project relate to the Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation program and are relevant to the Scientific Foundation and Framework.

2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and RM&E Recommendations Report - The proposed project addresses RPA 50 (Fish Population Status Monitoring), 56 (Monitor and Evaluate Tributary Habitat Conditions and Limiting Factors), and 72 (Data Management).  Subactions addressed include 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.6, 50.8, 56.1, 56.2, 56.3, and 72.1.

RPA 50.1 - PIT tag data collected by the proposed project will be uploaded to PTAGIS from fish tagged and recaptured during juvenile and smolt sampling activities.  The detection system operated and maintained by the project at Three Mile Falls Dam is one of 5 interrogation systems in the Umatilla River Subbasin.

RPA 50.2 - Juvenile steelhead PIT tagged by the proposed project will be detected as known-origin adults at mainstem hydroelectric dams and adults tagged at mainstem dams will be detected at Three Mile Falls Dam.

RPA 50.3 – Juvenile steelhead PIT tagged by the proposed project will be detected at mainstem dams to monitor migration characteristics and estimate life-stage specific survival.  Power analysis was conducted to determine tagging rates needed to provide three levels of precision (CV = 5, 10, and 20%) and can be found in Schwartz and Cameron 2006.

RPA 50.6 - The proposed project focuses on monitoring VSP parameters for the Umatilla steelhead population, including abundance, productivity, distribution, and diversity.

RPA 50.8 – A VSP parameter database for the Umatilla steelhead population will be maintained by the proposed project and synthesis and analysis of steelhead viability will be reported annually and provided to the Interior Columbia River Basin Technical Recovery Team and NOAA Fisheries for use in updating COMPASS and Matrix Life Cycle models.

The habitat status and trends work proposed is directly in response to the guidance on implementing FCRPS RPA 56.3 (FCRPS AA 2010).  Recommended actions are to facilitate and participate in an ongoing collaboration process to develop and implement a regional program for habitat status and trend monitoring for key ESA fish populations.

The proposed habitat monitoring is also integrated with ongoing PNAMP and Recovery Planning efforts as well as the collaborative process across Columbia Basin fish management agencies and tribes and other state and federal agencies that are monitoring anadromous salmonids and/or their habitat.  These collaborative processes produced a Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid Monitoring Strategy (ASMS) (CBFWA, 2010) and identified additional monitoring projects or project expansions that contribute to FCRPS BO critical viable salmonid population and hatchery and habitat action effectiveness monitoring.  The FCRPS BO components of the ASMS and associated projects identified to implement it have been incorporated into the strategy to meet RPA 56.3, RPA 57, and RPA 3 by characterizing stream and fish responses to watershed restoration and/or management actions in at least one population within each steelhead and Chinook MPG.  

FCRPS AA (2010) Table 3 (reproduced in Problem Statement) identifies one or more populations per MPG that should be monitored for habitat status and trend. The recommended populations were identified as populations with relatively large habitat/survival gaps in Table 5 in the FCRPS BiOp (NOAA 2008) and have, or will have, fish in-fish out monitoring (identified in RPA 50.6). This information will help evaluate expected benefits of habitat actions.  FCRPS AA (2010) contains programmatic prescriptions for the habitat monitoring, all of which are incorporated into the proposed work.
 
•The habitat status and trend monitoring design should follow the GRTS-based, master-sample  management tools for sampling design and metadata management.

•For project response design, implement the recommendations in the report “Tributary Habitat Monitoring Summary Report: A recommendation for a standardized fish habitat monitoring program implemented under the Federal Columbia River Power System’s Biological Opinion” (Bouwes et al, 2010). 

•Habitat restoration actions occurring in these population watersheds should be monitored, ideally a representative set thereof, for their physical and biological habitat effects. 

•Coordinate with increased PIT-tagging of adults at mainstem dams (see RPA 50.1) and juveniles in tributaries (see RPA 50.3) as this fish-based monitoring will directly relate a variety of fish population process metrics (growth rate, survival, movement) to juvenile rearing habitat condition.

Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan – The Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan identifies the need for research, monitoring, and evaluation of the Umatilla River Subbasin that is consistent with and complements regional efforts to track the status and trends of fish populations and their habitat as needed for assessing management actions and the results of these actions. The Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan identifies steelhead as a focal species and includes recommendations for monitoring status and trends of fish and their habitat at multiple scales.

Mid-C Plan - The Mid-C Plan is one piece of a larger integrated recovery plan for the entire Middle-Columbia River Demographic Population Segment (DPS) (NOAA Middle Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan).  The plan provides recovery goals and objectives, site-specific management actions, time and cost requirements, and direction for monitoring and evaluation and adaptive management.  The current status of the Umatilla steelhead population was based on a viability assessment.  This assessment will need to be updated periodically, as part of the NOAA five-year review process. Completion of the objectives and deliverables outlined in this proposal will provide much of the information needed to determine if there are significant changes in the viability of the Umatilla steelhead population. This data will be a critical part of the review process, and will be required to justify any proposed changes in listing status for the DPS.  Data collected by the proposed project will also be used to address several critical uncertainties and objectives identified in the Mid-C Plan.

Critical Uncertainties:

What are the status and trends of steelhead and their habitat in the Umatilla basin?

To what extent will supplementation alter the genetic diversity and life history characteristics of the native steelhead population?

To what extent will supplementation enhance natural production of summer steelhead?

How will habitat protection and enhancement actions influence abundance, productivity, life history diversity, and long-term sustainability of Umatilla steelhead?

Objectives:

Monitor and assess the status and trends of abundance and productivity of natural- and hatchery-origin adult steelhead.
Determine the status of the spatial structure of the population based on current and historically utilized habitat.

Monitor and assess the abundance, timing, life history characteristics, and in-stream survival of out-migrating steelhead.

Determine the current status and change in status of life history and genotypic diversity in the population.

Identify and assess factors limiting viability of Umatilla River steelhead.

Determine the status and trend of current and historically utilized steelhead habitat in the Umatilla subbasin.

Monitor and assess the impact of flow enhancement on steelhead survival, habitat, and migration.

Determine the effect of mainstem hydropower operations and operational improvements on viability of Umatilla River steelhead population.

Umatilla RM&E Plan - The purpose of salmonid research, monitoring, and evaluation in the Umatilla River is to monitor the status and trends of natural and hatchery salmonids and their ecosystems, research the factors that influence salmonid population viability, assess the effectiveness of management actions, and provide information to resolve critical uncertainties using sound adaptive management application.  Data collected by the proposed project will complement and integrate ongoing monitoring in the Umatilla River Subbasin.  Population viability parameters generated by the proposed project will address the following objectives identified in the Umatilla RM&E Plan.

Monitor and assess the status and trends of abundance and productivity of naturally- and
hatchery-reared adult salmonids.

Monitor and assess the distribution and density of spawners on the spawning grounds and juveniles on the rearing grounds.

Monitor and assess the abundance, timing, life history characteristics, and survival of outmigrating Chinook salmon and steelhead.

Monitor and assess the distribution, condition and utilization of essential salmonid habitat in the Umatilla Subbasin.

Assess limiting factors for Umatilla steelhead and Chinook salmon.

Assess the impact of habitat improvement and protection on salmonid production in the
Umatilla Subbasin.

Monitor and assess the abundance, spawner escapement, natural production, and productivity of Umatilla steelhead.

Monitor and assess the life history characteristics of naturally reared steelhead.

Monitor and assess whether life history characteristics of hatchery-reared steelhead mimic those of naturally-reared steelhead.

Conduct collaborative study planning, implementation, synthesis of results, and results
dissemination.

Adopt locally and regionally standardized protocols.

Coordinate with local and regional management groups and integrate information from these groups into assessments of Umatilla Subbasin fisheries program.

2006 Columbia River Basin Research Plan - The proposed project specifically addresses two objectives of the Columbia River Basin Research Plan:

1.  Improve monitoring, evaluation, and the application of results

2.  Address critical uncertainties identified in subbasin plans 
The proposed project directly addresses tributary habitat critical uncertainties (IV.3.1) and will also contribute to addressing critical uncertainties associated with artificial production (IV.1.3 thru 7) and hydrosystem (IV.2.1 thru 4).

ASMS – The rationale guiding monitoring approach decisions for the Mid-Columbia River Basin is modified from the ASMS and outlined below:

Rationale – 1) Assess and maintain population status and trends using VSP criteria and TRT viability criteria.  2) Characterize existing physical habitat related to watershed hydrology and aquatic biotic productivity. Document changes in physical habitat structure/function due to natural processes (climate change) and changes resulting from human manipulation of physical habitat, which includes both degradation and restoration. Validate fish response to habitat changes.  3) Assess and adaptively manage hatchery programs to respond to mitigation goals, recovery criteria, and supplementation effectiveness. 

Prioritization Criteria – 1) Focus assessment of habitat action effectiveness where intensive VSP parameter assessments are in place.  2) High precision status and trends in at least one population guideline is being addressed for steelhead within the Mid Columbia River by sampling the following populations: Umatilla, Touchet, Middle Fork, South Fork, Toppenish, and Fifteenmile.  3) Habitat effectiveness will be conducted for steelhead within the Mid-Columbia River by sampling the following populations: Umatilla, Touchet, Middle Fork, South Fork, Toppenish, and Fifteenmile. 

Approach 

Viable Salmon Population Criteria: 
Ensure moderate to high precision estimation monitoring approaches are in place for abundance, productivity, spatial structure and diversity. Strengthen salmonid status and trend monitoring in the DPS, improve effectiveness monitoring, and facilitate the implementation of a regionally standardized monitoring and evaluation program. 

Habitat Effectiveness: 
Adequately assess habitat status and trends. 
Assess effectiveness of specific habitat actions that address key limiting factors. 
Determine the effectiveness of habitat restoration actions and to detect fish response in the IMWs (fish in/fish out). 

Hatchery Effectiveness: 
Evaluate the benefits and risks of supplementation by monitoring natural origin abundance, productivity, life history, relative reproductive success and make comparisons of hatchery and natural origin fish.

Problem Statement:

Overview

Populations of summer steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss) were substantially reduced and Chinook (O. tshawytscha) and coho salmon (O. kisutch) were extirpated from the Umatilla River in the early 1900s as a result of extensive agricultural and irrigation development that resulted in habitat destruction, compromised fish passage, and inadequate stream flows (USBR 1988). In the early 1980s the Umatilla Basin Fisheries Restoration Program was initiated by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) to mitigate for population losses. A comprehensive plan incorporating habitat restoration, flow enhancement, fish passage improvements, and artificial production was developed in 1986 (Boyce 1986). The Northwest Power and Conservation Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program authorized construction of the Umatilla Fish Hatchery in 1986, the Umatilla Hatchery Master Plan (CTUIR and ODFW 1990) was approved in 1990, and the hatchery was completed in 1991. Implementation of fish passage improvements began in 1984, whereas habitat restoration efforts began in 1987 and flow enhancement strategies were implemented in the 1990s (St. Hilaire 2007; USBR and BPA 1989).

The Umatilla Fish Hatchery is the foundation for rehabilitating Chinook salmon and supplementing steelhead in the Umatilla River (CTUIR and ODFW 1990). Annual return goals for naturally-produced adults of each species were established in the Umatilla Subbasin Plan (DeBano et al. 2004), but they have rarely, if ever, been reached. In 1999, NOAA Fisheries listed natural steelhead within the Middle-Columbia River Distinct Population Segment (DPS), which includes the Umatilla River population, as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Umatilla steelhead population viability is currently rated as “maintained” and the MPG is currently below viability criteria. The Umatilla population must reach and remain at viable status for the DPS to attain delisting criteria (Carmichael and Taylor 2009; NOAA 2009).

In 2009, managers began implementation of recommendations made by the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG 2009) to establish Conservation Groups of hatchery fall and spring Chinook salmon broodstock, which will be maintained concurrently with Harvest broodstock groups. Eggs for the Conservation Groups are from adults that were naturally produced in the Umatilla River basin whereas Harvest Group eggs are from Umatilla Fish Hatchery- produced adults. The goal of this program is to develop sustainable natural Chinook salmon populations while maintaining harvest benefits.

Juvenile Outmigration and Survival Monitoring Activities

The Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin (O&S Project; 1989-024-01) was established in 1994; following initial studies beginning in 1989 that evaluated the passage of juvenile fish at irrigation diversion facilities. The O&S Project was requested by the ODFW and CTUIR based on both a local and regional high priority need for information on life history characteristics, survival, and success of hatchery- and naturally-reared salmon and steelhead in the Umatilla River (Boyce 1986; CTUIR and ODFW 1989; NPPC 1994). More specifically, the project was intended to supplement ongoing efforts by the Umatilla Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation (1990-005-00) and Umatilla River Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation (1990-005-01) projects to address the following questions:

1. Are juvenile salmon and steelhead surviving and successfully migrating out of the Umatilla River basin?

2. What is the natural production potential for salmon and steelhead in the Umatilla River basin?

3. What are the effects of supplementation on steelhead in the Umatilla River basin?

Ongoing habitat enhancement projects, identified in the Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan (DeBano 2004), are expected to result in significant improvements to salmon and steelhead productivity. Additionally, implementation of recommendations made by the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG 2009) to establish Conservation Groups of hatchery fall and spring Chinook salmon broodstock may aid in creating self-sustaining natural populations. This project will provide important population-level survival, productivity and life history information that is necessary to better understand the relationships between habitat conditions, hatchery programs, and the production of smolts within the basin. Managers will use information we provide to judge the success of habitat enhancement and hatchery reform.

Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) Activities

Including the ongoing Juvenile Outmigration and Survival Project, the Umatilla River basin currently has four monitoring and evaluation projects in place to track the status and viability of natural or hatchery fish populations. However, the current fish monitoring program has significant weaknesses. For example, steelhead redd surveys do not employ a spatially balanced sampling design and there is no tributary-specific monitoring of juvenile steelhead densities and distributions within the basin. Therefore, a portion of the IMW activities will focus on tributary-specific fish population monitoring that will be required to determine with an adequate level of scientific certainty whether management actions implemented to recover steelhead and establish natural Chinook salmon populations are working as intended. The focal species for the project will be ESA-listed steelhead, but information on salmon populations will be collected opportunistically to support existing Umatilla M&E goals. Metrics measured will relate to juvenile steelhead population density and spatial distribution, and abundance and distribution of steelhead spawners and redds. Data gathered from this work will also be used by CTUIR’s Biomonitoring Project (2009-014-00), whose objective is to evaluate habitat restoration efforts implemented by CTUIR to improve salmon, steelhead, and bull trout habitat within five Columbia subbasins (John Day, Grande Ronde, Umatilla, Tucannon, and Walla Walla) that constitute their ceded lands.

Our generalized null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in the population metrics we measure between treatment and reference watersheds. We will evaluate our hypothesis with a Before-After-Control-Impact type design, and by time series analysis on the measured metrics.

A second portion of the IMW activities will focus on habitat monitoring. The habitat monitoring goal of this project is to implement a standard set of fish habitat monitoring methods in select watershed of the Columbia River basin. The fish habitat monitoring methods have been developed to capture habitat features that drive fish population biology and the 26 watersheds chosen maximize the contrast in current habitat conditions and also represent a temporal gradient of expected change in condition through planned habitat actions. The data from this project will be used to evaluate the quantity and quality of tributary fish habitat available to salmonids across the Columbia River basin. When combined with parallel fish monitoring metrics from related projects, these data will also be used assess the impact of habitat management actions on fish population processes.

In support of habitat restoration, rehabilitation and conservation action performance assessments and adaptive management requirements of the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion (BiOp), the Bonneville Power Administration is working with NOAA and other regional fish management agencies to implement a tributary habitat action effectiveness strategy across the Columbia River basin (FCRPS BO RPA 56.3).

The strategy has three basic approaches to addressing the question of, “can we quantify the impact of stream habitat management actions in terms of changes in fish population processes?” The first approach is through watershed-scale experimental manipulations where an explicit cause-and-effect framework is established around stream habitat management actions with fish population process metrics as the response variable. These Intensively Monitored Watersheds (IMW) are the most direct manner by which a connection between the quantity and quality of stream habitat and fish population processes can be established; however, they are expensive, difficult to coordinate and implement, and cannot be run everywhere as the experimental designs are sufficiently restrictive on when and where actions of a specified type can be implemented such that they aren’t compatible with all watershed management scenarios. Two alternative to IMWs have been suggested, both dependent on modeling to connect habitat condition to fish population response: reach-scale habitat action effectiveness monitoring and watershed-scale habitat and fish status and trends monitoring. In both cases, habitat action implementation and habitat and fish monitoring are not coordinated to explicitly demonstrate changes in fish population processes as caused by changes in habitat quality and quantity, but through statistical modeling, fish and habitat metrics can be correlated, and in an observational studies manner, their relationships can be quantified. Habitat action effectiveness and status and trends monitoring are less restrictive in terms of when and where they can be implemented, and thus are ideally suited to broad-scale comparisons.

The habitat status and trends monitoring proposed in the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) is a Columbia River basin wide habitat status and trends monitoring program built around a single habitat monitoring protocol (a protocol being a set of methods and associated metrics, Oakely 2003), with a program-wide approach to data collection and management. This program will result in systematic habitat status and trends information that will be used to assess basin-wide habitat condition and correlated with biological response indicators to evaluate habitat management strategies.

The Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program includes monitoring the status and trends of fish habitat for at least one population per major population group (MPG) as identified in the AA/NOAA/NPCC BiOp RM&E Recommendations Report (FCRPS AA 2010) and the table below (Table 1). The program is designed to maximize the information content of the habitat monitoring data through coordinated, standardized implementation of a single habitat monitoring protocol (Bouwes et al. 2010) across multiple watersheds and projects. To meet this goal, CHaMP collaborators will be supported by cross-project data management, stewardship and analysis staff. All participants’ work in the program will be coordinated through a single project manager and a set of annual pre- and post-season meetings. Finally, all collaborators will participate in annual field protocol and data management tool implementation training sessions. The support, coordination and training is critical to ensure the results of these monitoring projects can be combined effectively in the development of relationships and models under FCRPS BO RPA 57.5 and needed assessments in the future under FCRPS BO RPA 3.

Table 1. Major population groups identified for fish habitat status and trends monitoring.

Background and Assumptions – Anadromous salmonids spawn and rear in most of the streams of the Pacific Northwest, and it is reasonable to assume that the quality and quantity of habitat in these environments determines multiple population processes of these fishes. Monitoring programs are expected to describe the physical and biological characteristics of stream habitat across the Pacific Northwest. Recovery and management plans are expected to be based on this information to assess current conditions and to predict future salmonid production under multiple scenarios, from status quo, alternative land and river management strategies, to stream restoration and conservation, and determine if these predictions hold true. Since we are dealing with listed species, it suggests that we have not been effective at using past monitoring information to make sound management decisions meant to preserve these resources. Possible explanations for the inability to use monitoring information in the development of effective management strategies could include, but are not limited to, a fundamental misinterpretation or misunderstanding of fish natural history, a failure to characterize physical and biological habitat in a manner relevant to fish population processes, or an inability to develop large-scale data in a consistent enough manner to support broad-scale analyses and application. While it is probably a combination of all three, the latter two factors are likely dominant and thus the most critical components to build into the regional habitat monitoring program.

Making progress in linking habitat quality and quantity to fish population processes requires minimizing sampling and measurement error and maximizing information content in habitat monitoring metrics. The former is an issue dealt with best by rigorous sampling design and the latter, through the development of targeted habitat metrics. The implementation of CHaMP is based on elements of both, but also on the continual testing, evaluation and development of methods to allow regional programs to meet the key management objectives of being able to quantify fish tributary habitat and predict the fish-biological response to habitat management actions.

As a structure for statistically rigorous habitat data collection, CHaMP is based on a Generalized Random-Tessellation Sampling design with a 3 year rotating 1-to-1 split panel structure to distribute sampling effort in space and time (Stevens and Olsen 2004). In this case, sampling is spatially balanced but random – sites are maximally dispersed, but still contain a random spatial location so that coverage is efficient and estimation is not compromised. The temporal structure hybridizes annual and rotating panels to gain the power of both status and trends designs. Status monitoring provides information on the quantity and quality of current habitat and thus maximizes spatial coverage at fixed temporal points. Trend monitoring is optimized to detect changes in habitat through time and thus is best done by repeatedly sampling fixed locations. A split panel design, 50:50 in this case, fixes the location of half of each year’s samples (the annual panel) and allocates the remaining half to a rotating panel set – in this case, 3 additional panels, each of the same size as the annual panel, one being implemented each year on a three year rotation.

Detecting patterns in the habitat data (spatial and temporal) as well as relating these data to other, independent metrics such as fish population processes, is fundamentally a matter of managing variability – habitat conditions vary across space and through time, and our ability to measure them varies between methods and within methods across crews. Thus, to detect any patterns or form any modeled associations, requires the ability to partition the variability in the data in a useful manner. Implementing a rigorous design and minimizing sampling and measurement error will be crucial in order to partition variance into 4 key components – spatial, temporal, space x time, and residual. The sampling design allows estimation of the spatial and temporal terms. Adding repeat visits within the index sampling period allows the estimation of the space-time interaction. At this point, all residual variation is “unexplained”, and thus the key determinant of a metric’s relative information content. Recent research and discussions have been carried out to improve the precision and accuracy of stream habitat protocols in the Columbia River Basin (Kaufmann et al. 1999; Whitacre et al 2007; Roper et al. 2010). Through better coordination of regional monitoring programs, increased training of field crews, and greater standardization of terminology there has been a general trend towards improving protocols to reduce the internal, relative error, or the residual variance.

The information content of a habitat metric also needs to be evaluated on an absolute scale—that is, these metrics need to characterize physical and biological habitat in a manner relevant to fish population processes. The Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program (ISEMP, BPA 2003-017) has been developing descriptors of physical and biological habitat to predict fish population processes by reviewing the basic principles of fish habitat requirements and matching these needs with measurable habitat indicators (Bouwes et al., 2010). For example, spawning adults have specific substrate size requirements, hyporheic flow preferences, and proximities to cover that define an optimal redd construction location. Another example is rearing juveniles must balance the need to occupy areas with high flow velocities that allow effective foraging while remaining in proximity to low velocity holding areas and overhead cover to avoid predators. Realizing these types of complex interactions forms the basis for developing fish monitoring programs. However, in doing so we assume to have complete knowledge of the habitat requirements of fish, and since that is certainly not the case, habitat monitoring programs must collect information that is rich enough to allow further discovery of un-described and potentially important interactions between fish and their habitat.

Finally, the sampling design and the habitat metrics are not independent – the scale of inference addressed by the design must be appropriate based on the scale of the metrics developed by the site level response design. Monitoring programs must be sensitive to the physical and biological processes across multiple scales. Specific habitat characteristics result from physical and biological processes that function at process specific spatial and temporal scales. For example, pool-riffle complexes form as a result of stream power and substrate size and mobility, and will be formed and maintained by watershed specific dynamics and land-use. Similarly, stream productivity depends on watershed-scale thermal regimes and water chemistry, so will be similar at reach scales, but diverse across a river basin. These features of spatial and temporal autocorrelation exist in all physical and biological stream characteristics and in the fish populations that depend on them. This determines the amount of information any measurement in the stream shares with a measurement at the same spot at a different time, or at a different spots at the same time. Without incorporating or understanding these “information scales” we cannot make independent measurements of stream physical and biological processes, and thus cannot build quantitative relationships to predict their interdependence.

Objectives

Objectives:

Collaborate in the development and implementation of a standardized habitat status and trend monitoring program that spans the Columbia Basin. (CHaMP)

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) seeks to assist the Bonneville Power Administration develop and implement a standardized habitat status and trend monitoring program that spans the Columbia Basin. To this effect, ODFW will implement habitat monitoring for status/trends in the Umatilla under a new program proposed and coordinated by the Integrated Status and Trend Monitoring Program (ISEMP) called the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program, referred to herein by the acronym “CHaMP” that spans the Columbia Basin.

Monitor the status and trend of the abundance and productivity of salmon and steelhead in the Umatilla River Subbasin. (OBJ-1)

Annual estimates and time-series trends of spawner abundance, smolt abundance, smolts/spawner, and adult recruits per spawner for natural origin salmon and steelhead.

Monitor the status and trend of the spatial structure of juvenile and adult steelhead in the Umatilla River Subbasin. (OBJ-2)

Annual estimates and time-series trends of the distribution and density of spawners on the spawning grounds and juveniles on the rearing grounds.

Monitor the status and trend of the survival of Umatilla River Subbasin salmon and steelhead. (OBJ-3)

Annual estimates and time-series trends of life-stage specific survival for natural origin salmon and steelhead.

Monitor the status and trend of the diversity of salmon and summer steelhead in the Umatilla River Subbasin. (OBJ-4)

Annual characterization and time-series trends of spawn timing, age at emigration, size at emigariton, condition at emigration, and emigration timing for natural origin salmon and steelhead.

Determine if restoration actions increase steelhead survival and productivity at the population and watershed scale. (OBJ-5)

Quantification of relationships between individual and cumulative restoration actions and fish survival and productivity at the population and watershed scale.

Project History

Financials

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

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

Expense	SOY Budget	Working Budget	Expenditures *
FY2019	$443,850	$499,254	$524,734

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord)		$499,254	$524,734

FY2020	$499,254	$532,210	$532,840

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord)		$532,210	$532,840

FY2021	$542,070	$585,718	$541,480

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord)		$585,718	$541,480

FY2022	$553,250	$560,389	$511,891

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord)		$560,389	$511,891

FY2023	$625,440	$625,440	$637,349

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord)		$625,440	$637,349

FY2024	$0	$0	$92,667

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord)		$0	$92,667

FY2025		$0	($3,829)

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord)		$0	($3,829)

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Mar-2025

Actual Project Cost Share

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

Current Fiscal Year — 2025

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
2024
2023	$5,040	1%
2022	$5,040	1%
2021	$5,040	1%
2020	$4,830	1%
2019
2018	$5,000	1%
2017	$5,000	1%
2016	$5,000	1%
2015	$5,000	1%
2014	$5,000	1%
2013	$5,000	1%
2012	$5,000	1%
2011	$5,000	1%
2010	$23,000	9%
2009	$18,500	8%
2008	$23,500	10%
2007	$52,240	27%

Explanation of Recent Financial Performance:

The project spent 97% of its working budget between FY 2004 and FY 2009.  Financial records shown above indicate that in FY 2009 project dollars were under spent by approximately 40%; however, internal records indicate project expenditures were 100%.  The disparity is likely a result of within contract modifications made in FY 2009 and temporal variation in accounting processes between agencies not being accurately represented in the above financial records.  Confirmed cost share contributions were only 34% of the proposed contributions primarily due to in-kind contributions from PSMFC going unrealized as a result of project uncertainty and the failure to secure funding for improvements to the PIT tag detection system within the adult ladder at Three Mile Falls Dam.

Explanation of Financial History:

Project budgets have ranged from $256,971 in FY 1995 to $306,958 in FY 2004. On average, the project has spent 92% of its working budget.  In FY 2007 BPA funding was for project close out purposes only with funding for project implementation provided by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board.  No funding was secured for implementation in FY 2008, but funding was awarded by BPA in the later part of the fiscal year (September) at a reduced amount and subsequently used for implementation in FY 2009.  With a reduction in funding came a narrowing in scope.  Objectives in FY 2009 were similar to past years, but only included VSP parameter monitoring of ESA-listed steelhead.

Reporting & Contracted Deliverables Performance

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):	17
Completed:	16
On time:	16

Status Reports
Completed:	93
On time:	52
Avg Days Late:	4

								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
4340	20425, 24721, 39455, 45075, 50567, 55329, 59392, 63486, 67055, 70542, 74267, 74313 REL 14, 74313 REL 41, 74313 REL 65, 74313 REL 87, 74313 REL 105, 84041 REL 11	1989-024-01 EVALUATE UMATILLA JUVENILE SALMONID OUTMIGRATION	Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife	04/04/2001	10/31/2023	Closed	93	209	0	0	5	214	97.66%	2
BPA-4205		PIT Tags - Eval Umt Juv Outmig	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2008	09/30/2009	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-4571		PIT Tags - Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2009	09/30/2010	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-5620		PIT tags- Eval Umatilla Juvenile Salmon Outmigration	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2010	09/30/2011	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-6319		PIT Tags- Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2011	09/30/2012	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-7015		PIT Tags - Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2012	09/30/2013	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-7719		PIT Tags - Eval Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2013	09/30/2014	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-8421		PIT Tags - Eval Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration 15	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2014	09/30/2015	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-8901		PIT Tags - Eval Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration 16	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2015	09/30/2016	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-9512		PIT Tags - Eval Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2016	09/30/2017	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-10206		PIT Tags - Eval Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2017	09/30/2018	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-10703		PIT Tags - Eval Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2018	09/30/2019	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-11697		FY20 Internal Services/PIT tags	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2019	09/30/2020	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-12058		FY21 Pit Tags	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2020	09/30/2021	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-12832		FY22 PIT Tags	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2021	09/30/2022	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
BPA-13274		FY23 PIT Tags	Bonneville Power Administration	10/01/2022	09/30/2023	Active	0	0	0	0	0	0		0
Project Totals							93	209	0	0	5	214	97.66%	2

Selected Contracted Deliverables in CBFish (2004 to present)

The contracted deliverables listed below have been selected by the proponent as demonstrative of this project's major accomplishments.

Contract	WE Ref	Contracted Deliverable Title	Due	Completed
24721	F: 162	Migration timing and survival estimates to TMFD and JDD.	1/31/2007	1/31/2007
39455	F: 162	Annual life history characteristics of natural origin steelhead smolts.	9/30/2009	9/30/2009
39455	D: 162	Natural smolt abundance, migration timing, smolts per spawner, and smolt-to-adult returns.	9/30/2009	9/30/2009

View full Project Summary report (lists all Contracted Deliverables and Quantitative Metrics)

Explanation of Performance:

The project has a very low number of "Red" deliverables (4) and all incomplete deliverables are associated with an active contract.  The project has a good track record for providing timely Annual Progress Reports and Pisces Status Reports.  Consultation with BPA has been conducted and deliverable deadlines amended whenever in jeopardy of being missed.  The project places a high priority on meeting all contract obligations in a timely manner and will continue to work with BPA whenever it is anticipated that a deadline cannot be met.

Results: Reporting, Accomplishments, and Impact

Please do the following to help the ISRP and Council assess project performance:
List important activities and then report results.
List each objective and summarize accomplishments and results for each one, including the projects previous objectives. If the objectives were not met, were changed, or dropped, please explain why. For research projects, list hypotheses that have been and will be tested.
Whenever possible, describe results in terms of the quantifiable biological and physical habitat objectives of the Fish and Wildlife Program, i.e., benefit to fish and wildlife or to the ecosystems that sustain them. Include summary tables and graphs of key metrics showing trends. Summarize and cite (with links when available) your annual reports, peer reviewed papers, and other technical documents. If another project tracks physical habitat or biological information related to your project’s actions please summarize and expand on, as necessary, the results and evaluation conducted under that project that apply to your project, and cite that project briefly here and fully in the Relationships section below. Research or M&E projects that have existed for a significant period should, besides showing accumulated data, also present statistical analyses and conclusions based on those data. Also, summarize the project’s influence on resource management and other economic or social benefits. Expand as needed in the Adaptive Management section below. The ISRP will use this information in its Retrospective Review of prior year results. If your proposal is for continuation of work, your proposal should focus on updating this section. If yours is an umbrella project, click here for additional instructions. Clearly report the impacts of your project, what you have learned, not just what you did.

All Proposals:

Umbrella Proposals:

Objectives present throughout a significant proportion of the project history and proposed during the 2007-2009 review process were: (1) operate PIT tag detection system at Three Mile Falls Dam, (2) monitor migration timing, abundance and survival of naturally-produced juvenile salmonids and trends in natural production, (3) monitor juvenile life history characteristics and evaluate trends over time, and (4) participate in planning and coordination activities within the Columbia and Umatilla river basins and disseminate results.

Objective 1. Operate PIT tag detection system at Three Mile Falls Dam.

PIT tag technologies have been the cornerstone to the proposed project. Detection equipment was first installed within the juvenile bypass at Three Mile Falls Dam in 1998 and progressed from a 400 kHz detection system with a single antenna and manual data transmission to a 134 kHz detection system with 3 antennas and automated data transmission. Detection within the adult ladder began in 2001 with two 2001F Portable Transceivers and associated paddle style antennas duct tapped to the adult fish viewing window. The system currently includes a custom fabricated PVC antenna mounted within the backlight chamber of the adult fish viewing window, an FS1001M transceiver, and fully automated and integrated data transmission. Upgrades to the system have lead to significant improvement in detection of both juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead at Three Mile Falls Dam (Figure 1 and Table 1). However, the ODFW and CTUIR continue to seek funding for upgrades to PIT tag detection within the adult fish ladder that would facilitate determination of fish directionality, increased detection efficiency, and data redundancy. Detailed documentation of PIT tag improvements and design and construction specifications for the adult fish ladder detection system can be found in White et al. 2007 (https://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/documentviewer.aspx?doc=00024721-1).

Figure 1. Detection probability of PIT tagged smolts at Three Mile Falls Dam, 1998-2007.

Table 1. Number of PIT tagged adults detected at Three Mile Falls Dam, 2001-2009.

Objective 2. Monitor migration timing, abundance and survival of naturally-produced juvenile salmonids and trends in natural production.

The proposed project has derived annual estimates of smolt abundance, smolt survival, and emigration timing for naturally-produced salmon and steelhead in the Umatilla River since 1995. In addition, estimates of smolts-per-spawner, egg-to-smolt survival, and smolt-to-adult return for naturally-produced steelhead have been generated.

Smolt abundance of natural fish has fluctuated since 1995. Trends reflect an increase in the production of fall Chinook smolts, a leveling off in the production of spring Chinook, and little or no change in summer steelhead smolt production (Figure 2 and Table 2). Trend analysis showed a positive, but weak relationship between the number of summer steelhead smolts emigrating from the Umatilla River and summer low flow, suggesting that summer rearing space may be limiting freshwater production (Figure 3).

Figure 2. Abundance estimates ± 95% CI for natural spring (top panel) and fall (middle panel) Chinook salmon and summer steelhead (bottom panel), Three Mile Falls Dam, 1995-2009.

Table 2. Abundance estimates ± 95% CI and CV for natural Chinook salmon and summer steelhead smolts at Three Mile Falls Dam, 1995-2009.

Figure 3. Abundance of summer steelhead smolts at Three Mile Falls Dam, as a function of the mean August and September flow the previous two summers before emigration.

Estimated survival for natural Chinook salmon and summer steelhead was substantially higher in 2007 compared to the 8-year average (1999-2006; Table 5). Estimated survival for spring Chinook salmon from TMFD to JDD in 2007 was 114%, fall Chinook salmon was 39%, and summer steelhead was 82%. Survival estimates for natural summer steelhead remained relatively constant from 1999 to 2006 with a minimum survival of 44% observed in 2004. Survival for spring Chinook salmon was more variable with a low of 31% observed in 2004. Estimates for fall Chinook salmon were only available for 2001 and 2005 to 2007. The 2007 estimate was more than twice the previous high of 19% recorded in 2005. Survival of summer steelhead was 61% in 2009. Mechanisms associated with survival of fish tagged by the proposed project have not been fully investigated.

Table 3. In- and out-of-basin survival estimates for juvenile natural salmon and summer steelhead emigrating from the Umatilla River, 1999-2009. Standard errors are in parentheses.

Mean egg-to-smolt survival for summer steelhead was less variable but significantly lower over the last five brood years (0.4%; 2001-2005) compared to brood years 1993 to 2000 (mean = 0.9%), resulting in a decreasing trend (Figure 4). Smolt-to-adult return was 2.8% or above in all years except 1995 and 1996, therefore resulting in an increasing trend (Figure 4). The relatively constant survival rate for summer steelhead smolts from TMFD to JDD (mean = 61%; SD = 10%) suggests variation in smolt-to-adult returns is a result of survival variability downstream of JDD, including the estuary and marine environment. The observed low egg-to-smolt survival and downward trend over the last 13 years suggests in-basin factors are limiting steelhead viability in the Umatilla River. Limiting factors likely include spawning, rearing, and quality of smolt migration habitat.

Figure 4. Egg-to-smolt survival (top panel) and smolt-to-adult return (bottom panel) for Umatilla River summer steelhead, 1993-2007.

Median emigration for naturally and hatchery produced spring Chinook salmon occurs in mid April (Table 4). Median emigration of natural fall Chinook salmon is approximately one week later than hatchery conspecifics, while median emigration for natural summer steelhead is roughly one week earlier than their hatchery counterparts (Tables 5 and 6). More rigorous investigation into emigration timing divergence between hatchery and natural summer steelhead was conducted in 2006 and 2007. Results from these investigation showed that the cumulative distribution of weekly abundance estimates for hatchery and natural summer steelhead were statistically different; however, no large-scale seasonal divergence appeared evident (Figure 5).

Table 4. Week of 10^th, 50^th, and 90^th percentiles of spring Chinook salmon at Three Mile Falls Dam, 1995-2009.

Table 5. Week of 10^th, 50^th, and 90^th percentiles of fall Chinook salmon at Three Mile Falls Dam, 1995-2009.

Table 6. Week of 10^th, 50^th, and 90^th percentiles of summer steelhead at Three Mile Falls Dam, 1995-2009.

Figure 5. Hatchery and natural summer steelhead emigration timing to Three Mile Falls Dam, 2006 (top panel) and 2007 (bottom panel). Bars represent percent of total abundance (y-axis left) and lines represent cumulative percent of total abundance (y-axis right).

Female spawning escapement for summer steelhead in brood year 2005 (1,406) was slightly below the 12-year average (1,468; brood year 1993-2004), with natural fish dominating escapement (Figure 6). The number of smolts produced per spawning female (21) was 42% below the 12-year average (36; Figure 8). Smolt recruitment remained relatively constant irrespective of fluctuations in adult recruitment. This resulted in a downward trend for smolts produced per spawning female (Figure 6) and a strong relationship between female escapement and smolts-per-female (Figure 7). This declining relationship suggests habitat enhancement has not resulted in a significant improvement for summer steelhead and that the system may be at capacity for production of the species. However, the relationship may be related to climatic factors such as drought or the integration of hatchery steelhead in the naturally spawning population across multiple generations. Further analysis of the available data and continued trend monitoring is necessary to better understand the mechanisms influencing the production and productivity of steelhead.

Figure 6. Smolt and adult recruitment for Umatilla River summer steelhead, brood years 1993-2005.

Figure 7. Relationship between female spawning escapement and smolts-per-female for Umatilla River summer steelhead, brood years 1993-2005.

Objective 3. Monitor juvenile life history characteristics and evaluate trends over time.

Size and age at emigration for natural origin Chinook salmon and summer steelhead in the Umatilla River is similar to that of surrounding subbasins (Contor 2004; Fast et al. 1991; Gallinat et al. 2003; Lindsay et al. 1986; Mayer and Schuck 2004; Peven et al. 1994). Spring Chinook salmon are emigrating as yearlings (mean FL = 105 mm), fall Chinook salmon as subyearlings (mean FL = 77 mm), and summer steelhead at a broad distribution of ages (mean FL = 175 mm; Tables 7). One, two, and three-year freshwater rearing accounted for 24.9%, 73.9%, and 1.2% of natural summer steelhead emigrating past TMFD in 2007 (Table 7). The percentage of age-1 summer steelhead emigrants increased, while age-3 decreased, over the past five years. Age and size at emigration for summer steelhead was influenced by egg deposition for brood years 2001-2006 (Figure 8).

Based on smolt age at emigration natural origin summer steelhead appear to be shifting toward a shorter residency time in the Umatilla River. However, freshwater age derived from returning adult scales does not support this observed trend. Possible explanations include age-specific differences in survival, winter rearing in the Columbia River, or an overestimation of age-1 smolts. A longer time series of data, larger sample size, and validation of aging technique is required to confirm a possible life history shift by steelhead.

Table 7. Natural summer steelhead smolt size and age at Three Mile Falls Dam, 1995-2009.

Figure 8. Relationship between percent age-1 smolts and size at emigration (top panel), percent age-1 smolts and egg deposition (middle panel), and age-2 fork length and egg deposition (bottom panel). Brood years 2002-2006 and 2001-2005 for age-1 and age-2 smolts; respectively.

Objective 4. Participate in planning and coordination activities within the Columbia and Umatilla river basins and disseminate results.

All annual progress reports, except for 2009, have been delivered to the Bonneville Power Administration and are available at: https://efw.bpa.gov/searchpublications/. The 2009 report is currently in preparation, with some data reported in the above summaries. Personnel from the proposed project attend the Umatilla Monitoring and Evaluation Oversight Committee on a monthly basis and the Umatilla River Operations group as needed. Data from the project has been critical to both local (Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan and Umatilla Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Plan for Umatilla Subbasin Summer Steelhead and Chinook Salmon) and regional (Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead Populations in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment, and Middle Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan) planning and recovery efforts. Personnel and data from the project have also contributed to the Umatilla Hatchery and Basin Annual Operations Plan, Umatilla Hatchery Genetic Management Plan, and United States Bureau of Reclamation Monitoring and Evaluation Plan.

The proposed project has consistently achieved its purpose and outputs, has been innovative in finding ways to implement PIT tag technologies, and helped guide management decisions in the Umatilla River. Data generated by the proposed project has provided a greater understanding of the successes and failures of restoration and recovery efforts in the Umatilla River by monitoring status and trend of the abundance, productivity, survival, and diversity of natural Chinook salmon and summer steelhead. This information has been critical for both local and regional planning and recovery efforts. The project has been successful at working collaboratively across organizational boundaries and has established a baseline data set that will be critical for tracking changes in fish habitat quality and quantity and relating observed changes to steelhead viability in response to actions implemented under the Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion, Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan, Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead Populations in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment, and Middle Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan.

Past Council Recommendations and ISRP Reviews

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:	1989-024-01-NPCC-20230310
Project:	1989-024-01 - Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration
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. This project supports hatchery mitigation authorized under the Northwest Power Act (Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program) for the Umatilla Hatchery program. See Policy Issue I.b., II.a. and II.b. [Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/2021-2022-anadromous-habitat-and-hatchery-review/]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Final Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	1989-024-01-ISRP-20230309
Project:	1989-024-01 - Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration
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
This is a well-written proposal for a project with a long history of critical data acquisition and adaptive changes to increase information and understanding about steelhead in the Umatilla River. The project provides information on population-level survival, productivity, and life history data that is useful for assessing effects of habitat conditions, and restoration and hatchery programs. Of particular interest to the ISRP are the data which show declining smolts-per-female spawner with increasing female escapement (Fig. 3) and the interpretation of it that freshwater habitat is sufficiently seeded (p. 9). The proponents take the interpretation further, suggesting that supplementing the natural population with hatchery-origin fish may not have been an appropriate management strategy. This is a great example of interpreting M&E data to the point where it can be used by decision-makers. However, as the data indicate that spawner numbers are not limiting juvenile production, then there should be a sufficient number of natural origin spawners to supply all the broodstock for the hatchery. Thus, the ISRP found it surprising that the hatchery program was using some hatchery origin returns for broodstock. Clearly, this program is providing lots of useful information for decision-makers, though some of the decisions regarding hatchery production appear to be ignoring some of the findings presented in the proposal. M&E matrix – support. As habitat projects and monitoring projects are not presented as part of an integrated proposal or plan, the need for a crosswalk to identify the linkages between implementation and monitoring is extremely important for basins or geographic areas. The ISRP is requesting a response from the Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project (199000501) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the basin. As a key M&E project and partner in the basin, we ask your project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what, where, and when your monitoring occurs and what is being monitored for and shared with implementation projects in the basin. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard. Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes The section on goals and objectives was brief and some were not specific enough. Stating objectives using the SMART format would be helpful and should be presented in the next round of proposal reviews and annual reports. For Objective 4 for example, how the diversity of steelhead will be assessed is unclear. Also, for Objective 5, it is not clear how or when this this will be accomplished. Q2: Methods The methods are generally sound, but there are four areas for potential improvement. Smolt run size is estimated by a series of independent closed-abundance estimates for each period (sampling interval). The length of each period was not specified in the proposal (except for TMF where it is one month), and the ISRP is concerned about the assumption that all marked fish pass the trap during the interval and/or that capture probability is constant over the interval. If this is not the case, capture probability and abundance estimates will be biased. To what extent have these assumptions been tested? If the length of the interval has increased to meet the passage assumption, is it likely that capture probability is not constant over the longer period? A more flexible approach would be to use the Bonner and Schwarz (2011 and 2014, BT SPAS R library) time-stratified estimator. This model can be useful when recaptures for some periods are sparse, or when the trap(s) cannot be operated due to high flows (e.g., Fig. 6 of Hanson et al. 2020), and allows for finer temporal intervals that may lead to more accurate estimates of abundance and run timing. This approach avoids problems with arbitrary pooling of data across periods that is needed if sample sizes are low or trapping is not conducted over some periods. Given the intense effort to mark fish and trap smolts, this analytical upgrade seems well worth it. The precision of smolt run size estimates at TMFD is very high (CVs 1995-2018 =5.4%) and may be an artifact of the analytical procedure (too much pooling). A better model may be more useful in Birch Creek where there are few strata which cover long periods where capture probability is unlikely to be constant as currently assumed (Table 7 of Hanson et al. 2020). Improved estimates of smolt run size at Birch Creek will lead to improved estimates of survival to TMF, which is highly relevant given concerns about survival rates in low-flow years. See Bonner and Schwartz (2011), Bonner and Schwartz (2014), and Hanson et al. (2020) for possible analytical approaches. Egg deposition estimates could be improved by using a fork length-fecundity relationship rather than age-specific fecundity average. This would better account for the decreasing size and age-at-return that has been seen in many Chinook populations over the last decade or more (e.g., Lewis et al. 2015). Would it be possible to develop a corrected SAR value that accounts for losses from fisheries? This would allow for better evaluation of effects of downstream/upstream mainstem passage or marine survival. Currently these effects are confounded with changes in exploitation rate. Would it be possible to calculate the variance on the hatchery:natural ratio using the same binomial likelihood described for the smolt analysis? This error could be substantial for some tributaries where few spawners are observed or where the presence/absence of an adipose fin is difficult to distinguish. Q3: Provisions for M&E The proposal provides very little information on how effects of hatchery supplementation, flow, and habitat improvements on smolt run size or juvenile survival rates will be quantified. We suggest fitting a Ricker model with covariates: log(R/S) = a + bS + dX where R is the number of smolts from brood year t, S is egg deposition or female escapement that produced those smolts, a is the log of productivity (R/S when there is no density dependence because S is 0), b is a density-dependent effect, X is a covariate such as flow or some measure of habitat restoration, and d is the coefficient for the covariate (the strength of the effect per unit increase in X). Another covariate to assess could be pHOS, though it could also be included through adjustment of S via, S = S(1-pHOS) + SpHOSe where the first group of terms on the right side of the equation is the contribution of eggs or females from natural origin spawners, the second group of terms is the contribution from hatchery-origin fish where “e” is the estimated effect of hatchery-origin fish on survival from egg-smolt. Essentially S is a weighted average spawner abundance, that accounts for reduced spawning success or lower survival rates of juvenile fish produced from hatchery-origin spawners. It may be challenging to estimate e, depending on the extent of variation in pHOS and survival rates over time. Survival rates between release locations could be evaluated using log(Surv) = b0 +b1X where b0 and b1 are estimated and X is the covariate to be evaluated. Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife The proposal provides an excellent summary of the many project actions, what was learned from the results, and how the objectives and actions were modified as a result. It also provides information about how these results have influenced management and informed other projects that are closely aligned. The results have contributed to broader efforts in status and trend monitoring, and can be used in future life-cycle modeling. One key problem in the subbasin is that both habitat restoration and hatchery supplementation affect steelhead abundance and survival in the Umatilla River, and so the effects are confounded. The proponents propose tributary-specific monitoring to allow separating the effects of these actions, and this is a high priority for funding. References Bonner, S.J. and Schwarz, C.J. 2014. BTSPAS: Bayesian Time Stratified Petersen Analysis System. R package version 2014.0901. Bonner, S.J. and Schwarz, C.J. 2011. Smoothed estimates for time-stratified mark-recapture experiments using a Bayesian P-spline approach. Biometrics 67:1498-1507. Hanson, J.T. Jewett, S.M. and S. Remple. 2020. Evaluation of juvenile salmonid outmigration and survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin. 2019 Annual Report BPA Project #1989-024-01. Lewis, B., W.S. Grant, R.E. Brenner, and T. Hamazaki. 2015. Changes in size and age of Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha returning to Alaska. PLoS ONE 10(6):e0130184. Ohlberger, J., E.J. Ward, D.E. Schindler, and B. Lewis. 2018. Demographic changes in Chinook salmon across the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Fish and Fisheries 19:533-546.
Documentation Links:	Proponent Presentation (7/22/2021, 4.8 MB)

Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number:	1989-024-01-NPCC-20110124
Project:	1989-024-01 - Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration
Review:	RME / AP Category Review
Proposal:	RMECAT-1989-024-01
Proposal State:	Pending BPA Response
Approved Date:	6/10/2011
Recommendation:	Fund (Qualified)
Comments:	Implement with condition through 2016: Implementation subject to regional hatchery effects evaluation process described in programmatic recommendation #4.
Conditions:
	Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #4 Hatchery Effectiveness—subject to regional hatchery effects evaluation process

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Final Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	1989-024-01-ISRP-20101015
Project:	1989-024-01 - Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration
Review:	RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number:	RMECAT-1989-024-01
Completed Date:	12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date:	12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria
The ISRP’s comments were addressed in a thoughtful, comprehensive manner. The response was thorough and gave frank consideration of issues raised by ISRP. The proponents provided detailed answers to ISRP questions and comments that clarified issues concerning the M&E program, especially the IMW project. The proponents provided a reasonable justification for the design of the IMW project, which involves comparison between two treatment streams and a reference stream to assess effectiveness of habitat restoration in the treatment streams. Although the proponents argued that the treatment and reference streams were physiographically and biologically similar enough to provide valid results when compared, they were forthright and objective in discussing the limitations of the design, limitations that likely will be common to many future IMW projects. Given the differences among the treatment and reference tributaries in many biological and physical habitat features, and past management actions, the strongest comparisons may be Before-After comparisons within tributaries in response to habitat restoration. Additional comparisons among tributaries that depend on similar "background" effects of supplementation can be made, but regression analysis using key covariates may be a more useful approach, as the proponents suggest. One of the limitations of concern to the ISRP is the uncertainty of the degree of hatchery influence which could affect comparability of the treatment and reference streams. Another potential problem is that habitat restoration actions in the treatment streams have been ongoing for some time. The effects of these actions will continue beyond the initiation of the IMW project making it difficult to separate biological and habitat responses resulting from pre-treatment habitat enhancement actions from those occurring post-treatment, after project initiation. This residual effect of pre-treatment actions may complicate before-after comparisons. Finally, given the extent of habitat degradation in the treatment streams, will the proposed restoration actions in these streams, especially Meacham Creek, be great enough to produce a significant, detectable biological response? The proponents should consider how they will deal with these problems analytically or through modification of their design.
First Round ISRP Date:	10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating:	Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
This project proposes status and trend monitoring of ESA-listed Umatilla River steelhead and Chinook salmon, and collaboration in an Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) project intended to evaluate the effectiveness of habitat restoration actions in two tributaries of the Umatilla. Work related to status and trends monitoring in Objectives 1-4 meets scientific criteria. A response is needed that expands, clarifies, and provides more detail concerning the IMW project and Objective 5. The study design needs more thorough explanation, and more background information on the reference and treatment streams needs to be provided. Comparative metrics and data analyses need further explanation. Overall, this is a thorough proposal for continuation of a centrally important project in the Umatilla Basin. The investigators describe a highly integrated project to collect critical data on production and survival of wild steelhead and spring and fall Chinook salmon. This project could provide critical data to assess whether the habitat restoration projects in the Umatilla River basin are effective in increasing abundance, survival, and productivity of naturally-spawning steelhead and salmon. In addition, it provides key data to determine the success of the new integrated hatchery supplementation program, whereby separate groups of Conservation and Harvest smolts are produced. These data are necessary to determine if the integrated hatchery program is contributing to the recovery of steelhead and salmon, or just another factor leading to their demise (or no change is detected). 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The project is consistent with many regional programs and projects including the NPPC Fish and Wildlife Program and the Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan. It addresses several RPAs in the BiOp. This work is of great significance to regional programs, because it provides critical data to assess how natural populations of steelhead and two life history types of Chinook are responding to a variety of conditions, including in-river habitat, flow, migration corridors, and ocean conditions. Without it, little will be known about the performance of the newly created Conservation groups of salmon and steelhead. The proposal includes status and trends monitoring and a new Intensively Monitored Watershed project. The main goal of the Umatilla IMW project is to determine whether habitat enhancement results in higher abundance, survival, and productivity of natural spawned steelhead and salmon. A confusing aspect of the proposal is that several of the objectives and deliverables include work related to both status and trends monitoring as well as to the IMW habitat effectiveness evaluation. The objectives and deliverables for the status and trends work and those for the IMW work should be separated so that these two aspects of the project are clearly distinguishable. Several projects are addressing components of the IMW work, although this project seems to have the bulk of the responsibility for its conduct. Dividing the work among projects makes scientific evaluation of the IMW effort difficult. Why was the IMW work not consolidated in a single proposal? 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management This project has been ongoing in various forms since 1994, but underwent an extensive review in 2006 by the ISRP. It was restarted in 2009, after reformulating goals. This proposal is characterized by carefully planned sampling designs for the redd surveys and juvenile abundance in tributaries, and for habitat monitoring. The project can point to various results that have allowed managers to make important decisions based on the data that was collected. Based upon the results presented, the project appears to have been productive and has accomplished it objectives since it inception in 1994. Data collected through this project are critical for monitoring salmon and steelhead populations in the basin. A notable conclusion drawn from data analysis was that “habitat enhancement has not resulted in a significant improvement for summer steelhead and that the system may be at capacity for production of the species.” The negative relationship between smolts/female and number of females supports this conclusions and suggests that density-dependence may be affecting smolt survival. This conclusion is tentative but it argues for a more rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of habitat restoration actions in the Umatilla Basin, which the proponents propose to undertake. In addressing adaptive management, the proponents indicate that the information they obtained has assisted with management decisions and provide some examples. They did not specifically address how their project has changed based on previous results. However, their decision to participate in CHaMP is indicative of their willingness to shift the direction of the project. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) The proposed project is one of four collaborative BPA funded projects aimed at monitoring the status and trends of Chinook salmon and summer steelhead in the Umatilla River. The project is tied to several other BPA funded projects in the Umatilla Basin. It also relates to several other IMW projects in the Columbia Basin that are collaborating in the development and implementation of CHaMP. In particular, this project and another in-basin project (1990-050-01; Umatilla Basin Natural Production M&E) are cooperating in conducting the IMW habitat evaluation in the Umatilla. Some discussion of the new C & H / Integrated Segregated hatchery production scheme would have been helpful, but it seems that the proposed project, without explicitly discussing it, will deal with it effectively. In addressing emerging factors the proponents make the general statement that the data collected by this project could assist in determination of fish population response to emerging threats but do not offer anything more specific. Climate change and predation by birds and native and non-native fish predators are key emerging limiting factors which are dealt with in other proposals. It will be important to determine how this project can link with those data, such as estimating loss of this DPS of steelhead from Caspian tern and cormorant predation at the mouth of the Columbia River. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods This proposal has components pertaining to both routine status and trend monitoring and evaluation of habitat effectiveness under the IMW program. Methods and metrics for assessing status and trends in Objectives 1-4 are fairly standard and are appropriate for this type of work. The ISRP views positively the proponent’s willingness to engage in rigorous habitat effectiveness evaluation under the auspices of CHaMP and according to ISEMP protocols. Properly conducted, this evaluation could yield the most valuable information to date on effectiveness of habitat enhancement in the Umatilla Basin. Several issues, however, need clarification. Several objectives and deliverables (e.g., deliverables 4, 6, 9, and 10) in the proposal apparently include work related to both status and trends monitoring and to the IMW habitat effectiveness evaluation, complicating scientific review of the proposal. It would be helpful if the objectives and deliverables for the status and trends work and those for the IMW work could be separated so that these two aspects of the project are clearly distinguishable. The study design for the IMW project needs more thorough explanation, and more background information on the reference and treatment streams should be provided. The proposed approach for evaluation of the effectiveness of habitat enhancement actions is to compare a control or reference stream with each of two treatment streams that have undergone habitat enhancement. A main difficulty is that appropriate treatment and control streams are difficult to find. The Upper Umatilla, a reference stream, receives supplementation, whereas Meacham Creek, a treatment stream, has been subject to habitat restoration and also is supplemented. Steelhead use both tributaries for spawning and rearing. Therefore, a comparison between these tributaries should yield information on the effectiveness of the habitat projects in Meacham Creek, assuming there is no interaction between the habitat work and supplementation, and other physical and biological differences between the tributaries are negligible. In contrast, Birch Creek, another treatment stream, receives no supplementation but connectivity and fish passage has been restored. Since the Upper Umatilla is supplemented, it is not an adequate control stream to compare with Birch Creek, although trend monitoring (i.e., before-after) can be conducted to assess changes. How will this apparent problem be resolved? The proponents need to deal with several other questions pertaining to the IMW project. How do the reference and treatment basins compare physiographically and biologically? The history of land use, habitat loss, and hatchery influence in reference and treatment tributaries should be summarized. What habitat restoration actions have been and will be implemented, and on what time frame? What is the fish distribution and abundance in these streams? Comparative metrics and data analyses need further explanation. What metrics (fish and habitat) will be compared between treatment and reference basins to evaluate the effectiveness of habitat restoration actions? Will the proponents be responsible for collection of habitat and fish data, data integration, and data analysis? What data will be collected by other projects? An extremely large amount of data will be collected. How will it be analyzed? It should be possible to use model selection to assess how, for example, smolt production relates to habitat restoration, by fitting models with and without this covariate. ISEMP proposes a long list of habitat variables that can be measured. How will the decision be made as to which of these variables are most important for this work?
Documentation Links:

Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number:	1989-024-01-NPCC-20090924
Project:	1989-024-01 - Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration
Review:	FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date:	10/23/2006
Recommendation:	Do Not Fund
Comments:

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Final Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	1989-024-01-ISRP-20060831
Project:	1989-024-01 - Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration
Review:	FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date:	8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date:	None
Final Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria
This is a very thorough proposal with thorough methods that justify continuation. A history of the project to date was covered in detail in over ~ 20 pages. This project should assist in providing critical evaluation information to the set of Umatilla projects. And the ISRP encourages the proponent to publish results and observations in the formal fisheries literature. Monitoring and evaluation of smolt yields and survivals is the focus of the investigations. Some adaptive management is evident (e.g., steelhead releases moved to lower reaches), clearly indicating the benefits of this type of work. The project should provide data on egg-to-smolt survival and/or smolts-per-spawner as a function of spawner density to augment the information provided in table 4 (p 33). This is the key response variable in monitoring population dynamics and towards evaluation of management actions. There may also be a possibility, worth exploring, to collaborate with other tagging studies (e.g., POST), and to explore alternative methods for estimation of adults to relate smolt yields to spawner abundance more effectively. See ISRP comments on the "Umatilla Initiative" under proposal 198343600.
Documentation Links:

Response to past ISRP and Council comments and recommendations:

In the past, the ISRP noted that project results have not been widely distributed or published in referred journals. The project has a strong history of completing annual BPA progress reports, and project personnel made substantial contributions to the “Comprehensive Assessment of Summer Steelhead and Chinook Salmon Restoration and Enhancement Efforts in the Umatilla River Subbasin” (Grant et al. 2007). Project personnel also attend monthly meetings of the Umatilla Management Monitoring and Evaluation Oversight Committee, where we provide regular updates of project findings. In addition, data we collect is provided to the Interior Columbia River Basin Technical Recovery Team and NOAA Fisheries for use in updating COMPASS and Matrix Life Cycle models. Finally, we intend to broaden the distribution of project findings through presentation at professional society meetings and publication of journal articles. The ISRP also recommended that the project provide data on egg-to-smolt survival and smolts-per-spawner as a function of spawner density. The project responded by providing much of the requested data in White et al. 2007 and Grant et al. 2007 (also see major accomplishments in this proposal). In addition to individual project reviews, the ISRP conducted a comprehensive review of Northwest Power and Conservation Council Fish and Wildlife Program funded projects within the Umatilla River Subbasin in 2007 (ISRP 2007b, see <a href="http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2007-15.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2007-15.htm</a> ). They were impressed with the current habitat enhancement work, but recommended that additional monitoring was needed to assess the biological effectiveness of habitat restoration. They concluded that “an effort to quantify the relationship between adults returning and smolts migrating out of tributaries that have significant habitat enhancement projects would be very useful for determining whether restoration projects are addressing real habitat limiting factors”. They also lent support to a study design that included monitoring of productivity and capacity in intensively restored tributaries compared to reference tributaries and suggested potential gains in fish production from habitat enhancement were partially lost by poor survival in the lower river travel corridor, but measurements were lacking. In past reports, the ISRP recommended probabilistic sampling approaches as a good example of Tier 2 statistical monitoring at the subbasin scale. The ISRP also recommended before-after-control-impact (BACI) experimental designs to make comparisons among treatment (restoration reaches) and reference (control) areas. The ISRP has stated: “Cumulative effects of many small habitat improvement projects in a watershed are probably best monitored by larger scale probabilistic based status and trend monitoring.” The probabilistic sampling, BACI approach, and partitioning of life-stage survival proposed by this project is strongly driven by past ISRP reviews.

Adaptive Management

Management Changes:

The proposed project has acted as the primary linkage (smolt abundance data) between the Umatilla Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation and Umatilla River Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation projects to facilitate comprehensive assessment of fisheries restoration efforts in the Umatilla River and guide management actions through the adaptive management process.  Assessment of management actions in the Umatilla River relies primarily on using previous year(s) data as a baseline for comparison for deducing cause and effect due to the lack of pre-treatment data for steelhead supplementation, habitat restoration, and salmon reintroduction.  Project data can be directly or indirectly tied to several management decisions.  More importantly, the project has established baseline data that will be used to guide future management of fisheries restoration efforts in the Umatilla River and determining the viability of ESA-listed summer steelhead.  Management changes made as a result of information gained by the project include:

 Annual estimates of spring Chinook salmon smolt abundance were utilized for stock-recruitment modeling resulting in adjustment to harvest and spawning escapement goals.

 Annual estimates of smolt abundance, smolts-per-spawner, egg-to-smolt survival and smolt-to-adult return have provided feedback to managers on the feasibility of Chinook salmon reintroduction, donor stocks, and limiting factors.

 Baseline data collected on Chinook and steelhead populations will be critical for monitoring response to future management actions.

 More precise management of water exchange, water release, and trap and haul operation have been realized by providing near real-time information on smolt emigration timing.

 Output from reach-survival experiments in combination with low smolt-to-adult return rates prompted managers to release summer steelhead and subyearling fall Chinook salmon lower in the basin.

 Observation of injury to smolts passing through the adult fish ladder resulted in the ladder being operated with the lead gate fully open.

Project Documents & Reports

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

Public Attachments in CBFish

ID	Title	Type	Period	Contract	Uploaded
01385-1	Evaluation of Juvenile Fish Bypass and Adult Fish Passage Facilities at Three-Mile Falls Dam	Progress (Annual) Report	10/1989 - 09/1990		9/1/1990 12:00:00 AM
01385-2	Evaluation of Juvenile Fish Bypass and Adult Fish Passage Facilities at Water Diversions in the Umat	Progress (Annual) Report	10/1990 - 09/1991		6/1/1992 12:00:00 AM
01385-3	Evaluation of Juvenile Fish Bypass and Adult Fish Facilities at Water Diversions in the Umatilla Riv	Progress (Annual) Report	10/1991 - 09/1992		3/1/1993 12:00:00 AM
01385-4	Evaluation of Juvenile Fish Bypass and Adult Fish Passage Facilities at Water Diversions in the Umat	Progress (Annual) Report	10/1992 - 09/1993		3/1/1994 12:00:00 AM
01385-5	Evaluation of Juvenile Fish Bypass and Adult Fish Passage Facilities at Water Diversions on the Umat	Progress (Annual) Report	10/1993 - 09/1994		1/1/1995 12:00:00 AM
01385-6	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	10/1994 - 09/1995		12/1/1995 12:00:00 AM
01385-8	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	10/1995 - 09/1996		1/1/1997 12:00:00 AM
01385-7	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Bypass Facilities and Passage at Water Diversions on the Lower Umati	Progress (Annual) Report	10/1990 - 09/1995		7/1/1997 12:00:00 AM
01385-9	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	10/1996 - 09/1997		9/1/1998 12:00:00 AM
01385-10	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	10/1997 - 09/1998		6/1/2000 12:00:00 AM
00004340-1	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	10/1998 - 09/1999	4340	5/1/2001 12:00:00 AM
00004340-2	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmon Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	10/1999 - 09/2000	4340	4/1/2002 12:00:00 AM
00004340-3	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2000 - 09/2001	4340	4/11/2003 12:00:00 AM
00004340-4	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2001 - 09/2002	4340	1/1/2004 12:00:00 AM
00024721-1	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2003 - 09/2006	24721	2/1/2007 12:00:00 AM
P102566	Evaluation of Jevenile Salmonid Outmigratin and Survival in the lower Umatilla River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2002 - 09/2003	4340	6/13/2007 9:30:46 AM
P102666	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	10/1995 - 09/2006	24721	6/28/2007 10:57:27 AM
P114603	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2007 - 12/2007	39455	12/22/2009 10:10:46 AM
P118310	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	09/2008 - 10/2009	45075	10/7/2010 3:47:08 PM
P123085	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	11/2009 - 10/2010	50567	9/28/2011 10:53:46 AM
P128502	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	11/2010 - 10/2011	55329	10/8/2012 2:30:44 PM
P133670	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin; 11/11 - 10/12	Progress (Annual) Report	11/2011 - 10/2012	59392	9/11/2013 10:36:10 AM
P136803	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin 2013 Annual Report	Progress (Annual) Report	10/2012 - 12/2013	63486	6/4/2014 10:03:30 AM
P143491	Evaluation of Juvenile Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2014 - 12/2014	67055	4/15/2015 2:10:18 PM
P149313	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin; 1/15 - 12/15	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2015 - 12/2015	70542	6/24/2016 10:51:29 AM
P154646	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2016 - 12/2016	74267	6/5/2017 3:00:17 PM
P159735	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin; 1/17 - 12/17	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2017 - 12/2017	74313 REL 14	3/15/2018 4:17:56 PM
P164338	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin; 1/18 - 12/18	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2018 - 12/2018	74313 REL 41	3/8/2019 1:14:09 PM
P171666	Evaluation of juvenile salmonid outmigration and survival in the lower Umatilla River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2019 - 12/2019	74313 REL 65	3/14/2020 1:59:59 PM
P175152	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin	Photo	-		5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P191331	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2021 - 12/2021	74313 REL 105	4/4/2022 2:56:54 PM
P199182	Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin	Progress (Annual) Report	01/2022 - 12/2022	84041 REL 11	4/20/2023 6:58:10 PM

Project Relationships

The Project Relationships tracked automatically in CBFish provide a history of how work and budgets move between projects. The terms "Merged" and "Split" describe the transfer of some or all of the Work and budgets from one or more source projects to one or more target projects. For example, some of one project's budget may be split from it and merged into a different project. Project relationships change for a variety of reasons including the creation of efficiency gains.

Project Relationships:	This project Merged To 1990-005-00 effective on 4/26/2007 Relationship Description: Core Hatchery monitoring (ongoing tasks for Umatilla and mainstem PIT tagging of hatchery fish) that used to be covered under project 1989-024-01 ($81,928) was added for 1-year only. Out years for ongoing Umatilla PIT tagging of hatchery fish is reduced, with the exception of increased cost sharing 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.

Project Relationships:

This project Merged To 1990-005-00 effective on 4/26/2007
Relationship Description: Core Hatchery monitoring (ongoing tasks for Umatilla and mainstem PIT tagging of hatchery fish) that used to be covered under project 1989-024-01 ($81,928) was added for 1-year only. Out years for ongoing Umatilla PIT tagging of hatchery fish is reduced, with the exception of increased cost sharing

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.

Additional Relationships Explanation:

The proposed project is one of four BPA funded projects aimed at monitoring the status and trends of reintroduced Chinook salmon and ESA-listed summer steelhead populations in the Umatilla River and assessing the effectiveness of management actions implemented as part of the Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan.  The proposed project, along with the Umatilla Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation (1990-005-00), Umatilla River Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation (1990-005-01), and Develop Progeny Marker for Salmonids to Evaluate Supplementation (2002-030-00) projects work collaboratively in the design and implementation of experiments and share responsibility in the collection, storage, analysis, synthesis, and dissemination of results and for identifying management implications (Schwartz and Cameron 2004; Grant et al. 2007).

The research partnership framework is described in detail in the Umatilla Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Plan for Umatilla Subbasin Summer Steelhead and Chinook Salmon (Schwartz and Cameron 2004) and implemented primarily through the Umatilla Management Monitoring and Evaluation Oversight Committee.  The proposed project utilizes adult escapement, age structure, and fecundity data populated by the aforementioned projects and BPA project 1988-022-00 (Umatilla River Fish Passage Operations) to calculate egg-to-smolt survival, smolt-to-adult survival, smolts-per-female.  The proposed project also uses smolts PIT tagged by and/or metrics calculated (i.e. smolt survival, emigration timing, and travel time) by projects 1990-005-00 and 1990-005-01 for comparative purposes and will use smolt production data from Meacham Creek and the Upper Umatilla collected by 1990-005-01 to evaluate the biological response of steelhead to habitat restoration.

The proposed project can also be tied to numerous other BPA funded projects in the Umatilla Subbasin through data sharing, field support, facility maintenance and oversight, and equipment sharing.  These include projects 1983-435-00, 1983-436-00, 1987-100-01, 1987-100-02, 1989-027-00, 1989-035-00, and 1994-026-00.  The proposed project will also complement and enhance monitoring requirements necessary to successfully implement the CTUIR sponsored Biomonitoring project (2009-014-00).

Finally, the proposed project relates to several other projects who are collaborating in the development and implementation of the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) including the ISEMP project 2003-017, PNAMP 2004-002-00, Grande Ronde Chinook Early Life History Study 1992-026-04, Escapement and Productivity of Spring Chinook and Steelhead in the John Day Basin 1998-016-00, Wind River Watershed Studies 1998-019, Nez Perce Tribe Watershed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 2002-068-00, the Salmon River Basin Nutrient Enhancement Project 2008-904-00, the Abundance, Productivity, and Life History of Fifteenmile Creek Steelhead project 2010-035-00, and the the Okanogan Basin Monitoring and Evaluation Program 2003-022-00.

Focal Species

Primary Focal Species

Steelhead (O. mykiss) - Middle Columbia River DPS (Threatened)

Secondary Focal Species

Chinook (O. tshawytscha) - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU

Coho (O. kisutch) - Unspecified Population

Lamprey, Pacific (Entosphenus tridentata)

Trout, Bull (S. confluentus) (Threatened)

Trout, Interior Redband (O. mykiss gairdnerii)

Threats to program investments and project success:

A description of how the project's focal species and their habitat are vulnerable to potential impacts from climate change and predation was described by Carmichael and Taylor (2009):

"Climate change is expected to increase the loss and degradation of steelhead habitat. Many of the environmental attributes that will be influenced by climate change (temperature and hydrograph) are those that have already been influenced significantly by past land use and are currently considered key limiting factors. Environmental changes associated with climate change that pose particular threats to salmonid viability include: increased air and stream temperatures; reduced snow pack and a shift in precipitation from snow to rain; altered hydrographs with earlier and higher peak flows, and lower summer-fall flows; more frequent extreme storm events; increased periods of drought; changing ocean temperatures and current patterns; and more frequent severe fire events (O'Neal 2002; Mote et al. 2003; ISAB 2007a; Michael and O'Brien 2008). Such environmental changes will impact all life stages of Oregon's Mid-Columbia River steelhead. The magnitude of environmental change will vary considerable across ecoregions; however, habitats at lower elevations east of the Cascade Mountains in the southern portion of the Columbia River basin will generally experience the greatest level of change (ISAB 2007a)."

"Predation by pinnipeds, birds, and piscivorous fish in the mainstem Columbia River has become a contributing factor affecting the viability of the Mid-Columbia River steelhead DPS. Anthropogenic changes in the Columbia River have altered the relationships between salmonids and other fish, bird, and pinniped species. Some species’ abundance levels have increased dramatically, particularly in localized areas, with associated changes in predation of steelhead juveniles and adults (LCREP 2006)."

No strategies or actions were proposed by Carmichael and Taylor (2009) to address climate change, but they provided several strategies and actions for addressing predation. These include reduction, relocation, and hazing of pinniped, avian, and piscivorous fish populations in the mainstem Columbia River.

The project has been monitoring the status and trend of the abundance, survival, productivity, and life history characteristics of salmon and steelhead in the Umatilla River Subbasin for 15+ years. The project does not quantify piscivorous or non-native fish populations, but we do document presence/absence during annual trapping operations in the lower river. The data collected by this project could assist in determination of fish population response to threats such as climate change and increases in non-native and piscivorous fish populations. The habitat monitoring under the proposed Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program is designed to collect data that could assist in the determination of habitat-based limiting factors.

Types of Work

Work Classes

Work Elements

RM & E and Data Management:

157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
158. Mark/Tag Animals
159. Transfer/Consolidate Regionally Standardized Data
160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database
161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
162. Analyze/Interpret Data
70. Install Fish Monitoring Equipment

Tagging

Please explain why the tagging technology used in this project was selected. Include a discussion of how the cost and applicability of the selected tagging technology influenced your selection. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.

The proposed project has utilized a suite of marking technologies, including branding and color marking, to monitor the status and trend of naturally and hatchery produced juvenile salmon and steelhead populations in the Umatilla River.  However, variability in marking quality and the inability to recapture sufficient numbers of marked fish to generate data of sufficient precision without handling mass quantities of fish made these technologies less than ideal for long term application.  The development of PIT tag technologies in the Columbia River, most notably, significant expansion of juvenile fish detection capabilities at John Day Dam in the spring of 1998 prompted the use of PIT tags by the proposed project.  Since that time significant effort and cost has been dedicated toward development of PIT tag technologies within the Umatilla River.  Current PIT tag detection capabilities within the Umatilla River include detection capabilities at Three Mile Falls Dam, Maxwell Canal, Feed Dam, the mainstem Umatilla River near rivermile 80, and near the mouth of the North Fork Umatilla River.  The robust detection capabilities within the Umatilla and Columbia rivers, along with the proven ability of PIT tags to provide timely and accurate information make them a logical tagging choice for the proposed project.  The CHaMP habitat monitoring work does not involve the tagging of fish.

Describe any of the innovative approaches that your projects proposes that are in direct support of the ISAB/ISRP's recommendations to improve techniques for surgical insertion of internal tags, or external attachment of acoustic, radio, or data storage tags that reduce handling time, fish injury and stress. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.

The proposed project will operate and maintain current juvenile and adult PIT tag detection capabilities at Three Mile Falls Dam in cooperation with the BOR and USFWS.  The proposed project will work in cooperation with CTUIR to secure funding for upgrades to PIT tag detection within the adult ladder at Three Mile Falls Dam to enable determination of fish directionality, data redundancy, and improved detection efficiency.  The proposed project will also continue to improve and expand PIT tag detection capabilities within the Umatilla River Subbasin as opportunities are presented.  In-stream detection for treated watersheds (Meacham Creek and Birch Creek) being a high priority.  The CHaMP habitat monitoring work does not involve the tagging of fish.

For specific tagging technologies, please address the tagging report's recommendations for genetic markers, otolith thermal marking, PIT tags, acoustic tags and radio tags for improving technologies in any way applicable. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.

The project is currently working with a graduate student from Washington State University to investigate in situ physiological and behavioral response by summer steelhead smolts to PIT tagging and determine the degree to which they influence estimates of population size, survival, and emigration timing.  This work is in direct support of the ISAB/ISRP’s recommendation “to evaluate and monitor the effects of handling and tagging on salmon growth, survival, migratory behavior, and other biological characteristics and to determine whether estimates of vital rates using data from tagged hatchery fish are representative of wild fish”.  The CHaMP habitat monitoring work does not involve the tagging of fish.

If your project involves ocean port sampling and lower river sampling for coded wire tag (CWT) recovery, address the tagging and tag recovery issues (statistical validity of tagging rates, tag recovery rates, and fishery sampling rates) presented in the Pacific Salmon Commission's Action Plan to Address the CWT Expert Panel (PSC Tech. Rep. No. 25, March 2008).

NA.

Explain how your tagging and tag recovery rates ensure a statistically valid result for your project. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.

The SampleSize program (Lady et al. 2003) was used to determine tagging rates for the proposed project at three levels of precision (5%, 10%, and 20% CV). A single-population, single-release design, was employed using survival and capture probabilities from PIT tagged fish released in the Umatilla River between 1999 and 2005 (Schwartz and Cameron 2004). An exercise similar to that employed by Schwartz and Cameron (2006) for coded-wire tags was used to determine PIT tagging rates required to detect a minimum of 35 tagged adults at TMFD to generate statistically valid smolt-to-adult survival estimates. Based on these exercises, a tagging goal of 3,000 summer steelhead per smolt monitoring station will provide statistically valid (≤20% CV) estimates for both smolt survival and smolt-to-adult survival. It should be noted that the observed levels of precision are likely to be more robust then the modeled levels because the modeled values do not take into account recent improvements to the PIT tag detection system at Three Mile Falls Dam (White et al. 2007; Hanson and Carmichael 2009). The CHaMP habitat monitoring work does not involve the tagging of fish.

Data Management

What tools (e.g., guidance material, technologies, decision support models) are you creating and using that support data management and sharing?

Describe the process used to facilitate receiving and sharing of data, such as standardizing data entry format through a template or data steward, including data exchange templates that describe the data collection methods, and the provision of an interface that makes data electronically accessible.

Please describe the sources from which you are compiling data, as well as what proportion of data is from the primary source versus secondary or other sources?

Please explain how you manage the data and corresponding metadata you collect.

Describe how you distribute your project's data to data users and what requirements or restrictions there may be for data access.

RM&E

What type(s) of RM&E will you be doing?

Status and Trend Monitoring

Action Effectiveness Research

Where will you post or publish the data your project generates?

DART - Data Access in Real Time

NOAA Status, Trend, and Effectiveness Monitoring (STEM) Databank

PTAGIS Website

Location

Loading ...

Layers

Legend

Name (Identifier)	Area Type	Source for Limiting Factor Information
Name (Identifier)	Area Type	Type of Location	Count
Umatilla (17070103)	HUC 4	EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment)	275

Project Deliverables

Project Deliverables:

Operate PIT tag detection system at Three Mile Falls Dam. (DELV-1)

The proposed project, in cooperation with the BOR and USFWS, will operate and maintain a PIT tag detection system at Three Mile Falls Dam to detect PIT tagged juvenile and adult salmonids. The system consists of four independent antennas; two hand wrapped antennas with FS1001 juvenile readers and 2 PVC antennas with FS1001M readers. Three antennas are located in the juvenile bypass system and one within the adult ladder. PIT tag data collected at Three Mile Falls Dam will be uploaded to PTAGIS every three hours using a desktop computer, internet connection, and the Minimon software program.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
159. Transfer/Consolidate Regionally Standardized Data
70. Install Fish Monitoring Equipment

Provide estimates of smolt abundance for natural origin steelhead. (DELV-2)

Natural smolts will be captured and enumerated at Three Mile Falls Dam using an incline plane trap and in Birch Creek using a rotary screw trap. Captured fish will be anesthetized with a stock solution of tricaine (40 mg/l) prior to sampling. Fish will be enumerated by species, race, and origin.

The trap at Three Mile Falls Dam will be operated 24 hours per day and 7 days per week from February through July. The rotary screw trap will be operated 24 hours per day and 7 days per week from December through May. Both traps will be checked and fish sampled, at minimum, once per day

Mark-recapture methods will be used to estimate the abundance of natural steelhead smolts and bootstrapping of mark-recapture data will be used to generate estimates of precision. Approximately 25-300 smolts per week will be tagged with passive integrated transponders (PIT tag) and released above trap sites to generate estimates of trap efficiency. Mark-recapture trials will be maximized during periods of peak migration and high flow to reduce error in abundance estimates. Fish will be PIT tagged according to standards outlined in the PIT Tag Marking Procedures Manual (CBFWA, PIT Tag Steering Committee, 1999).

PIT tag data will be uploaded weekly to PTAGIS from fish we tag and recapture. PIT tag data will be downloaded from PTAGIS on fish tagged and released to provide capture histories at Three Mile Falls Dam and Columbia River dams.

Smolt monitoring in Meacham Creek and the Upper Umatilla will be conducted by CTUIR (project 1990-005-01).

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
158. Mark/Tag Animals
159. Transfer/Consolidate Regionally Standardized Data
162. Analyze/Interpret Data
70. Install Fish Monitoring Equipment

Provide estimates of smolt survival for natural origin steelhead. (DELV-4)

The proposed project will PIT tag and release natural origin steelhead smolts at the Birch Creek trap and estimate their survival from the trap site to Three Mile Falls Dam. We will also PIT tag and release natural origin steelhead smolts at Three Mile Falls Dam and estimate their survival through the Columbia River dams. Up to 3,000 steelhead (depending on availability) will be tagged at each trap site. Fish will be PIT tagged according to standards outlined in the PIT Tag Marking Procedures Manual (CBFWA, PIT Tag Steering Committee, 1999).

PIT tag data will be uploaded weekly to PTAGIS from fish we tag and recapture at Three Mile Falls Dam and in Birch Creek. PIT tag data will be downloaded from PTAGIS on fish tagged and released at Three Mile Falls Dam and from upstream traps to provide capture histories at Three Mile Falls Dam and Columbia River dams.

Cormack-Jolly-Seber survival probabilities of PIT tagged fish to Three Mile Falls and Columbia River dams will be calculated using the PIT Pro 4 program with a single release-recapture model (Westhagen and Skalski 2009).

Smolt monitoring in Meacham Creek and the Upper Umatilla will be conducted by CTUIR (project 1990-005-01).

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
158. Mark/Tag Animals
159. Transfer/Consolidate Regionally Standardized Data
162. Analyze/Interpret Data
70. Install Fish Monitoring Equipment

Determine juvenile life history characteristics and condition for natural origin salmon and steelhead. (DELV-5)

Size and condition at emigration will be determined from length and weight data collected at Three Mile Falls Dam and at the Birch Creek trap (see DELV 2). Freshwater age for steelhead will be determined from scales collected at both trap sites.

The number of fish captured at West Extension Canal will be expanded to characterize emigration timing of natural smolts to Three Mile Falls Dam. Weekly abundance estimates from upstream traps will be used to characterize tributary specific emigration timing for steelhead and PIT tag detections at Three Mile Falls Dam from steelhead tagged at upstream traps will be expanded to determine tributary specific migration timing past Three Mile Falls Dam.

Migration timing of steelhead past John Day and Bonneville dams will be estimated by expanding the weekly number of PIT tag detections based on the proportion of water passing through the powerhouse for fish tagged at each trap site.

Smolt monitoring in Meacham Creek and the Upper Umatilla will be conducted by CTUIR (project 1990-005-01).

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
158. Mark/Tag Animals
159. Transfer/Consolidate Regionally Standardized Data
162. Analyze/Interpret Data
70. Install Fish Monitoring Equipment

Provide estimates of egg-to-smolt survival for natural origin salmon and steelhead. (DELV-6)

Natural smolts will be captured and smolt abundance estimated at Three Mile Falls Dam using an incline plane trap (see DELV-2) and adults will be enumerated by trap counts and video monitoring in the adult fish ladder. A complete count of escapement past Three Mile Falls Dam will be obtained, as all returning adults must use the fish ladder. Adult enumeration, age structure, and fecundity information will be provided by projects 1988-022-00, 1990-005-00, and 1990-005-01. Egg-to-smolt survival will be estimated by brood year for naturally spawning salmonids as the ratio of eggs deposited to smolts produced. Adult steelhead escapement estimates generated from GRTS-based redd counts (see DELV-8) and Iskuulpa Creek weir counts (project 2002-030-00) and smolt abundance estimates from tributary traps (see DELV-2) will be used to generate egg-to-smolt survival for treated and untreated tributaries. Egg-to-smolt survival will be compared between treated and untreated tributaries.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
162. Analyze/Interpret Data
70. Install Fish Monitoring Equipment

Evaluate adult returns of PIT tagged fish. (DELV-8)

To calculate smolt-to-adult survival for natural origin steelhead we will rely on returning tagged adults being detected at Three Mile Falls Dam. We will use the PTAGIS database to monitor PIT tagged fish detections at Three Mile Falls Dam. The proportion of fish PIT tagged as smolts, migrating upstream past the dam as all ages of adults will be used for smolt-to-adult survival estimates. To estimate smolt-to-adult survival, this project relies on a high probability of detection (>75%) of returning adults at Three Mile Falls Dam. If insufficient detection data is available at Three Mile Falls Dam we will use detections at Bonneville Dam to estimate smolt-to-adult survival. The proposed project will also estimate smolt-to-adult return for naturally produced salmon using smolt abundance estimates and adult enumeration at Three Mile Falls Dam.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

159. Transfer/Consolidate Regionally Standardized Data
162. Analyze/Interpret Data

Provide estimates of productivity for natural origin salmon and steelhead. (DELV-10)

Natural smolts will be captured and abundance estimated at Three Mile Falls Dam using an incline plane trap (see DELV-2) and adults will be enumerated by trap counts and video monitoring in the adult fish ladder. A complete count of escapement past Three Mile Falls Dam will be obtained, as all returning adults must use the fish ladder. Adult enumeration and age-structure information will be provided by projects 1988-022-00, 1990-005-00, and 1990-005-01. An annual census count of spring Chinook redds will be provided by project 1990-005-01. This data will be used to calculate brood year specific productivity metrics for naturally spawning salmon and steelhead. In addition to population level productivity metrics, tributary level metrics for natural steelhead will be estimated. Natural steelhead smolts will be captured and abundance estimated at tributary smolt monitoring stations (see DELV-2) and adult escapement estimates will be generated from GRTS-based redd counts (see DELV-8) and Iskuulpa Creek weir counts (project 2002-030-00). Brood year specific metrics will be calculated from and trends compared between treated and untreated tributaries.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
162. Analyze/Interpret Data

Maintain databases and dissemination of results. (DELV-12)

Annually update existing status and trend databases for natural origin salmon and steelhead to facilitate assessment of management actions and viability analysis. Produce and provide quarterly status reports to BPA COTR regarding significant issues regarding project implementation and annual report summarizing results of monitoring each year. Provide written summaries and oral presentation of significant project findings to local managers through the Umatilla Monitoring and Evaluation Oversight Committee and Umatilla River Operations Group. The data collected by this project will continue to be stored in databases developed by ODFW and supplied to the Interior Columbia River Basin Technical Recovery Team and NOAA Fisheries for use in updating COMPASS and Matrix Life Cycle models. Significant project findings will be shared with broader set of scientists and managers through presentation at professional society meetings and submittal of manuscripts to referred journals.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

159. Transfer/Consolidate Regionally Standardized Data
160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database
161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
162. Analyze/Interpret Data

Provide estimates of parr-to-smolt survival rates for natural origin steelhead. (DELV-7)

The proposed project will PIT tag and release between 500-1,000 natural origin steelhead parr in treated and untreated tributaries during juvenile density/distribution surveys (see DELV-11) and estimate their survival (Cormack-Jolly-Seber survival probabilities) to Three Mile Falls Dam. PIT tag data will be uploaded weekly to PTAGIS from fish we tag and recapture. PIT tag data will be downloaded from PTAGIS on fish tagged and released to provide capture histories at Three Mile Falls Dam and Columbia River dams. Fish will be PIT tagged according to standards outlined in the PIT Tag Marking Procedures Manual (CBFWA, PIT Tag Steering Committee, 1999). Parr-to-smolt survival rates will be adjusted by tributary-specific smolt survival rates (see DELV-3) to provide a tributary scale overwinter survival index. Overwinter survival will be compared between treated and untreated tributaries.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
158. Mark/Tag Animals
159. Transfer/Consolidate Regionally Standardized Data
162. Analyze/Interpret Data

Provide estimates of abundance and distribution of steelhead redds and spawners. (DELV-9)

A complete count of escapement past Three Mile Falls Dam will be obtained, as all returning adults must use the fish ladder. Adult enumeration and age structure information is generated by projects 1988-022-00, 1990-005-00, and 1990-005-01. Brood year specific recruits-per-spawner will be determined based on total spawner estimates and the resulting adult recruits back to the Umatilla River. This data will be provided by project 1990-005-01.

A generalized random tessellation stratified (GRTS) sampling design will be used to select individual stream reaches for redd counts. The sampling universe will be the known spatial extent of spawning and rearing areas within the Umatilla River Subbasin. Adult steelhead redd surveys will be conducted from March 1 – June 1 annually based on standard ODFW methods for conducting steelhead redd surveys (Susac and Jacobs 1999; Jacobs et al. 2000; Jacobs et al. 2001). Fifty sites will be selected for the subbasin and will be visited on a bi-weekly basis throughout the season to quantify the cumulative redd count at each site. Redd densities within the survey sections will be determined and expanded to tributary and subbasin scale estimates. Redd based spawner escapement estimates will be derived by expanding total redds to fish with a fish per redd expansion from Iskuulpa Creek (project 2002-030-00). Brood year specific recruits-per-spawner will be determined based on total spawner estimates and the resulting adult recruits back to treated and untreated tributaries. Estimates will be compared between treated and untreated tributaries.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
162. Analyze/Interpret Data

Status/Trend Habitat Monitoring within the CHaMP Program: Umatilla (CHaMP1r)

The monitoring of habitat status/trends will be conducted in the Umatilla under the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) following habitat monitoring protocols recommended by the Integrated Status and Trend Monitoring Program (ISEMP). This work will include: monitoring of habitat/channel/riparian/macroinvertebrate conditions using the ISEMP recommended habitat protocol at an annual panel of twenty-five (25) sites selected using a general random-tessellation stratified (GRTS) design guided by the ISEMP site selection protocol, and other ISEMP tools, standards, and training provided by ISEMP. Data collected under this deliverable will be entered and controlled for accuracy and quality by the proposer within data management tools provided by ISEMP and will be stored/archived for analysis in the STEM data bank.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data

Provide estimates of density and distribution of steelhead parr. (DELV-11)

Juvenile steelhead will be inventoried at all sites selected for habitat surveys (see DELV-10) using standard juvenile monitoring protocol adopted by ODFW (Rodgers 2001). Juvenile fish surveys will use single pass snorkel, electrofisher, or a combination of the two methods to enumerate juvenile steelhead in pools > 6 m2 in surface area and > 40 cm deep. Juvenile steelhead sampling will determine the current distribution and abundance of steelhead in the subbasin and trends in distribution and abundance of steelhead over time.

Data analysis will involve calculating the percentage of survey sites that contain at least one juvenile steelhead, the percentage of pools per site that contain juvenile steelhead, the number of juvenile steelhead observed per square meter, and an estimate of the total number of juvenile steelhead in the subbasin. These data will not be used to compare absolute abundance, but rather will be used in population trend analysis. Trends will be compared between treated and untreated tributaries.

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
162. Analyze/Interpret Data

Provide estimates of smolt abundance for natural origin Chinook salmon. (DELV-3)

Natural smolts will be captured and enumerated at Three Mile Falls Dam using an incline plane trap. Captured fish will be anesthetized with a stock solution of tricaine (40 mg/l) prior to sampling. Fish will be enumerated by species, race, and origin.

The trap will be operated 24 hours per day and 7 days per week from February through July. The trap will be checked and fish sampled, at minimum, once per day

Mark-recapture methods will be used to estimate the abundance of natural Chinook salmon smotls and bootstrapping of mark-recapture data will be used to generate estimates of precision. Approximately 25-300 smolts per week will be tagged with passive integrated transponders (PIT tag) and released above the trap site to generate estimates of trap efficiency. Mark-recapture trials will be maximized during periods of peak migration and high flow to reduce error in abundance estimates. Fish will be PIT tagged according to standards outlined in the PIT Tag Marking Procedures Manual (CBFWA, PIT Tag Steering Committee, 1999).

PIT tag data will be uploaded weekly to PTAGIS from fish we tag and recapture. PIT tag data will be downloaded from PTAGIS on fish tagged and released to provide capture histories at Three Mile Falls Dam and Columbia River dams.

Smolt monitoring in Meacham Creek and the Upper Umatilla will be conducted by CTUIR (project 1990-005-01).

Types of Work:

Work Class

Work Elements

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management

157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
158. Mark/Tag Animals
159. Transfer/Consolidate Regionally Standardized Data
162. Analyze/Interpret Data

Objectives & Project Deliverables

Objective: Collaborate in the development and implementation of a standardized habitat status and trend monitoring program that spans the Columbia Basin. (CHaMP)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Status/Trend Habitat Monitoring within the CHaMP Program: Umatilla (CHaMP1r)

Objective: Monitor the status and trend of the abundance and productivity of salmon and steelhead in the Umatilla River Subbasin. (OBJ-1)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Operate PIT tag detection system at Three Mile Falls Dam. (DELV-1)

Provide estimates of smolt abundance for natural origin steelhead. (DELV-2)

Provide estimates of productivity for natural origin salmon and steelhead. (DELV-10)

Maintain databases and dissemination of results. (DELV-12)

Provide estimates of abundance and distribution of steelhead redds and spawners. (DELV-9)

Provide estimates of density and distribution of steelhead parr. (DELV-11)

Provide estimates of smolt abundance for natural origin Chinook salmon. (DELV-3)

Objective: Monitor the status and trend of the spatial structure of juvenile and adult steelhead in the Umatilla River Subbasin. (OBJ-2)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Maintain databases and dissemination of results. (DELV-12)

Provide estimates of abundance and distribution of steelhead redds and spawners. (DELV-9)

Provide estimates of density and distribution of steelhead parr. (DELV-11)

Objective: Monitor the status and trend of the survival of Umatilla River Subbasin salmon and steelhead. (OBJ-3)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Operate PIT tag detection system at Three Mile Falls Dam. (DELV-1)

Provide estimates of smolt abundance for natural origin steelhead. (DELV-2)

Provide estimates of smolt survival for natural origin steelhead. (DELV-4)

Provide estimates of egg-to-smolt survival for natural origin salmon and steelhead. (DELV-6)

Evaluate adult returns of PIT tagged fish. (DELV-8)

Maintain databases and dissemination of results. (DELV-12)

Provide estimates of parr-to-smolt survival rates for natural origin steelhead. (DELV-7)

Provide estimates of smolt abundance for natural origin Chinook salmon. (DELV-3)

Objective: Monitor the status and trend of the diversity of salmon and summer steelhead in the Umatilla River Subbasin. (OBJ-4)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Operate PIT tag detection system at Three Mile Falls Dam. (DELV-1)

Provide estimates of smolt abundance for natural origin steelhead. (DELV-2)

Determine juvenile life history characteristics and condition for natural origin salmon and steelhead. (DELV-5)

Maintain databases and dissemination of results. (DELV-12)

Provide estimates of abundance and distribution of steelhead redds and spawners. (DELV-9)

Provide estimates of density and distribution of steelhead parr. (DELV-11)

Provide estimates of smolt abundance for natural origin Chinook salmon. (DELV-3)

Objective: Determine if restoration actions increase steelhead survival and productivity at the population and watershed scale. (OBJ-5)

Project Deliverables	How the project deliverables help meet this objective*


Operate PIT tag detection system at Three Mile Falls Dam. (DELV-1)

Provide estimates of smolt abundance for natural origin steelhead. (DELV-2)

Provide estimates of egg-to-smolt survival for natural origin salmon and steelhead. (DELV-6)

Provide estimates of productivity for natural origin salmon and steelhead. (DELV-10)

Maintain databases and dissemination of results. (DELV-12)

Provide estimates of parr-to-smolt survival rates for natural origin steelhead. (DELV-7)

Provide estimates of abundance and distribution of steelhead redds and spawners. (DELV-9)

Provide estimates of density and distribution of steelhead parr. (DELV-11)

*This section was not available on proposals submitted prior to 9/1/2011

RM&E Protocols and Methods

RM&E Protocol	Deliverable	Method Name and Citation
Umatilla Steelhead Redd Surveys (1989-024-01) v1.0		Redd Count Survey v1.0 (Gallagher, S.P., Hahn, P.K., & Johnson, D.H. 2007) Calculating the number of females per redd v1.0 (Beasley, C.A., Berejikian, B.A., Carmichael, R.W., Fast, D.E., Galbreath, P.F., Ford, M.J., Hesse, J.A., McDonald, L.L., Murdoch, A.R., Peven, C.M., & Venditti, D.A. 2008)
Umatilla IMW (1989-024-01) v1.0		Basic Snorkel Survey Procedures v1.0 (O'Neal, J.S. 2007) Pre-smolt Survival v1.0 (Peter Westhagen, John R. Skalski 2009)
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Umatilla River Steelhead Life-Cycle Monitoring v1.0		Video Methodology - Field Setup and Operation v1.0 (O'Neal, J.S. 2007) Calculating the smolt to adult return rate (SAR) v1.0 (Coordinated Assessments Data Exchange Standard Development Team 2014) Calculation of Wild Kokanee Egg-to-Fry survival v1.0 (Wahl, N. C., Dux, A. M., Ament, W. J., and Harryman, W. 2010) Off Ladder Adult Trapping Procedures v1.0 (Murdoch, A.R., Ford, M.J., Hughes, M.H., and Villagecenter, S. 2011) Downloading PIT tag observation data from PTAGIS v1.0 (Fryer, Jeffrey K. 2019) Hood River Creel Survey Data Collection v1.0 (Carmichael, R.W., B.A. Miller, and R.T. Messmer. 1988) Percent Hatchery Origin Spawners (pHOS) v1.0 (Peter F. Galbreath , Chris A. Beasley , Barry A. Berejikian , Richard W. Carmichael , David E. Fast , Michael J. Ford , Jay A. Hesse , Lyman L. McDonald , Andrew R. Murdoch , Charles M. Peven , David A. Venditti 2008) Recruits per Spawner (RperS) Calculation v1.0 (Peter F. Galbreath , Chris A. Beasley , Barry A. Berejikian , Richard W. Carmichael , David E. Fast , Michael J. Ford , Jay A. Hesse , Lyman L. McDonald , Andrew R. Murdoch , Charles M. Peven , David A. Venditti 2008) Adult salmonid overshoot rate and migration patterns based on PIT tag dataset v1.0 (Josh Hanson 2021)
Juvenile Steelhead Surveys (1989-024-01) v1.0		Redd Count Survey v1.0 (Gallagher, S.P., Hahn, P.K., & Johnson, D.H. 2007) Basic Snorkel Survey Procedures v1.0 (O'Neal, J.S. 2007) Pre-smolt Survival v1.0 (Peter Westhagen, John R. Skalski 2009)
Basin Creek Utah Scientific Protocol for Salmonid Habitat Surveys within the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) v1.0 v1.0		Channel Class v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Locating the Site v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Site Layout v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Channel Unit Classification v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Fish Cover Elements v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Ocular Channel Unit Substrate Composition v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Setting Up Topographic Survey v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Topographic Point Collection v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Large Woody Debris v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Macroinvertebrate Drift v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Particle Size Distribution and Particle Embeddedness v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Site Photos v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Riparian Structure v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Solar Input v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Stream Discharge v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Water Chemistry - Conductivity and Alkalinity v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Water Temperature Probe Installation v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Site Map v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Site Measurement of Alkalinity Calculation v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2015) Channel Unit Large Wood Volume Calculation v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2015) Site Discharge Calculation v1.0 (CHaMP (Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program) 1) Drift Biomass Calculation v1.0 (Nicholas P. Weber 2009) Fastwater Cobble Embeddedness Calculations v1.0 (CHaMP (Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program) 2013) Pool Tail Fines: Particles <2mm and <6mm v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2015) Percent Fish Cover Calculation v1.0 (Kaufmann, P.R, P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck 1999) Substrate Composition Calculations (Boulder, Cobbles, Gravel, Sand and Fines) v1.0 (Kaufmann, P.R, P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck 1999) D16, D50, and D84 Particle Size in Riffles Calculation v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester) Percent Big Tree Cover v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2017) Large Wood Volume Calculation v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2014) Large Wood Frequency v1.0 (Heitke, Jeremiah D.; Archer, Eric K.; Leary, Ryan J.; and Roper, Brett B. 2011 2011) Percent Coniferous Cover v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2015) Percent Ground Cover and Percent No Ground Cover v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2015) Percent Non-Woody Cover v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2017) Percent Understory Cover and Percent No Understory Cover v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2018) Percent Woody Cover v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2018) Site Measurement of Conductivity Calculation v1.0 (Steve Rentmeester 2015) RBT - Channel Unit Calculation v1.0 (Bailey, P. 2014) RBT - Site Gradient Calculation v1.0 (Philip Bailey 2014) RBT - Bankfull Width To Depth Ratio Profile Calculation v1.0 (Bailey, P. 2014) RBT - Bankfull Width Profile Calculation v1.0 (Bailey, P. 2014) RBT - Integrated Bankfull Width Calculation v1.0 (Philip Bailey 2015) RBT - Integrated Wetted Width Calculation v1.0 (Philip Bailey 2015) RBT - Bankfull Area Calculation v1.0 (Bailey, P. 2009) RBT - Wetted Area Calculation v1.0 (Bailey, P. 2011) RBT - Thalweg Site Length Calculation v1.0 (Philip Bailey 2015) RBT - Wetted Site Length Calculation v1.0 (Philip Bailey 2015) RBT - Bankfull Site Length Calculation v1.0 (Philip Bailey 2015) RBT - Site Sinuosity Calculation v1.0 (Bailey, P. 2014) RBT - Thalweg Depth Profile Calculation v1.0 (Philip Bailey 2015) RBT - Wetted Width To Depth Ratio Profile Calculation v1.0 (Bailey, P. 2014) RBT - Wetted Width Profile Calculation v1.0 (Bailey, P. 2014) RBT - Wetted Volume Calculation v1.0 (Bailey, P. 2009) Channel Unit Supplemental Data v1.0 (Boyd Bouwes 2014) Air Temperature Sensor Installation v1.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, C. Beasley, S. Bennett, A.C. Hill, C.E. Jordan, R. Miller, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, G. Wathen, and J. White. 2011) Channel Segment Number v2.0 (Bouwes, N., J. Moberg, N. Weber, B. Bouwes, S. Bennett, C. Beasley, C.E. Jordan, P. Nelle, M. Polino, S. Rentmeester, B. Semmens, C. Volk, M.B. Ward, and J. White. 2011) Stream Temperature Logger Calculations v1.0 (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 2014)

Project Deliverables & Budget

Project Deliverable	Start	End	Budget
Operate PIT tag detection system at Three Mile Falls Dam. (DELV-1)	2012	2014	$66,753
Provide estimates of smolt abundance for natural origin steelhead. (DELV-2)	2012	2014	$445,020
Provide estimates of smolt survival for natural origin steelhead. (DELV-4)	2012	2014	$178,008
Determine juvenile life history characteristics and condition for natural origin salmon and steelhead. (DELV-5)	2012	2014	$89,004
Provide estimates of egg-to-smolt survival for natural origin salmon and steelhead. (DELV-6)	2012	2014	$66,753
Evaluate adult returns of PIT tagged fish. (DELV-8)	2012	2014	$89,004
Provide estimates of productivity for natural origin salmon and steelhead. (DELV-10)	2012	2014	$111,255
Maintain databases and dissemination of results. (DELV-12)	2012	2014	$89,004
Provide estimates of parr-to-smolt survival rates for natural origin steelhead. (DELV-7)	2012	2014	$44,502
Provide estimates of abundance and distribution of steelhead redds and spawners. (DELV-9)	2012	2014	$356,016
Status/Trend Habitat Monitoring within the CHaMP Program: Umatilla (CHaMP1r)	2012	2014	$267,012
Provide estimates of density and distribution of steelhead parr. (DELV-11)	2012	2014	$200,259
Provide estimates of smolt abundance for natural origin Chinook salmon. (DELV-3)	2012	2014	$222,510
		Total	$2,225,100

Requested Budget by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year	Proposal Budget Limit	Actual Request
2012		$741,880
2013		$731,310
2014		$751,910
Total	$0	$2,225,100

Item	Notes	FY 2012	FY 2013	FY 2014
Personnel		$502,567	$521,718	$538,513
Travel		$1,980	$1,980	$1,980
Prof. Meetings & Training		$640	$640	$640
Vehicles		$29,160	$29,160	$29,160
Facilities/Equipment	(See explanation below)	$20,670	$12,470	$12,470
Rent/Utilities		$15,480	$15,480	$15,480
Capital Equipment		$24,000	$0	$0
Overhead/Indirect		$129,218	$131,697	$135,502
Other		$0	$0	$0
PIT Tags		$18,165	$18,165	$18,165
Total		$741,880	$731,310	$751,910

Major Facilities and Equipment explanation:
The proposed project will be stationed within the ODFW Umatilla Field Office. Additional personnel will be necessary. The physical space is adequate, but additional computers, vehicles, equipment, and tools to assist with the operation, maintenance and monitoring of this project will be necessary. Specifically, one laptop computers for collection of trapping and tagging data will need to be purchased along with three desktop computers for data entry, analysis, and reporting. A backpack electrofisher will need to be purchased for juvenile fish monitoring and one 5 foot rotary screw trap will be needed for expanded smolt monitoring activities. Adequate trapping and detection infrastructue exists at Three Mile Falls Dam and has been sucessfully used to monitor the status and trends of natural origin salmon and steelhead since 1995.

Cost Share

Source / Organization	Fiscal Year	Proposed Amount	Type	Description
US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)	2012	$20,000	In-Kind	Operation and maintenance of the PIT tag detection system at Three Mile Falls Dam and PIT tags for tagging steelhead at upstream smolt traps.
US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)	2013	$20,000	In-Kind	Operation and maintenance of the PIT tag detection system at Three Mile Falls Dam and PIT tags for tagging steelhead at upstream smolt traps.
US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)	2014	$20,000	In-Kind	Operation and maintenance of the PIT tag detection system at Three Mile Falls Dam and PIT tags for tagging steelhead at upstream smolt traps.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife	2012	$5,000	In-Kind	Assist with steelhead redd surveys.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife	2013	$5,000	In-Kind	Assist with steelhead redd surveys.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife	2014	$5,000	In-Kind	Assist with steelhead redd surveys.

Project References or Citations

Boyce, R.R.  1986.  A comprehensive plan for rehabilitation of anadromous fish stocks in the Umatilla river basin.  Final report prepared by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for the Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.

Carmichael, R.W. and B.J. Taylor.  2009.  Conservation and recovery plan for Oregon steelhead populations in the middle Columbia River steelhead distinct population segment.  

Close, D.A., K.P. Currens, A.D. Jackson, A.J. Wildbill, J.T. Hanson, J.P. Bronson, and K. Aronsuu.  2009. “Lessons from the Reintroduction of a Non-charismatic, migratory fish: Pacific lamprey in the upper Umatilla River.” in L.R. Brown, editor.  Biology, management and conservation of lampreys in North America.  American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority.  PIT Tag Steering Committee 1999.  PIT-tag marking station procedural manual.  Version 1.0

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1989. Umatilla Hatchery Master Plan.  Report to the Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.

Contor, C.R., E. Hoverson, and P. Kissner.  2000.  Umatilla basin natural production monitoring and evaluation: annual progress report 1997-1998.  Prepared by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation for the Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.

Contor, C.R, editor.  2004.  Umatilla basin natural production monitoring and evaluation: summary report 1998-2002.  Prepared by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation for the Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.

Collis, K., D.D. Roby, D.P. Craig, B.A. Ryan, and R.D. Ledgerwood.  2001.  Colonial waterbird predation on juvenile salmonids tagged with passive integrated transponders in the Columbia River estuary: vulnerability of different salmonid species, stocks, and rearing types.  Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:385-396.

DeBano, S., D. Wooster, and six organizations.  2004.  Draft Umatilla/Willow subbasin plan.  Prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council.

Efron, B. and R. Tibshirani.  1986.  Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy.  Statistical Science 1(1): 54-77.

Fast, D., J.Hubble, M.Kohn, and B. Watson.  1991.  Yakima river spring Chinook enhancement study.  Final report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.

Gallinat, M.P., L. Ross, and M. Varney.  2003  Tucannon River spring Chinook salmon hatchery evaluation program:  annual report 2002 Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Boise, Idaho. 

Grant, G.C., W.A. Cameron, D.W. Chess, R.W. Stonecypher Jr., T. White, R.W. Carmichael, C.C. Contor, P. Kissner, G. James.  2007.  Comprehensive assessment of summer steelhead and Chinook salmon restoration and enhancement efforts in the Umatilla River subbasin.  Final report 1991-2006.  Report to Bonneville Power Administration and the Independent Scientific Review Panel, Portland, OR.

Hanson, J.T. and R.W. Carmichael.  2009.  Evaluation of Juvenile salmonid outmigration and survival in the lower Umatilla River basin:  Annual progress report 2007 prepared by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for the Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.

Hatchery Scientific Review Group.  2009.  Appendix E:  Population Reports in Hatchery Reform System-Wide Report.

Hoverson, E.D. and J.G. Webster.  2009.  CTUIR Umatilla Anadromous Fisheries Habitat Project Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2008.  Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, report submitted to Bonneville Power Administration, Project No. 1987-100-01.

ISRP.  2005.  ISRP Retrospective Report 1997-2005.  ISRP 2005-14.  August 21, 2005.  ISRP for the NPCC, Portland, OR.

ISRP.  2007a.  ISRP Retrospective Report 2006.  ISRP 2007-1.  March 1, 2007.  ISRP for the NPCC, Portland, OR.

ISRP.  2007b.  ISRP Umatilla Initiative Review, Fiscal Years 2007-09 Projects.  ISRP 2007-15.  October 12, 2007.  ISRP for the NPCC, Portland, OR.

Jacobs S., J. Firman, G. Susac, E. Brown, B. Riggers, K. Tempel.  2000.  Status of Oregon Coastal Stocks of Anadromous Salmonids.  Monitoring Program Report Number OPSW-ODFW-2000-3, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

Jacobs, Steve, Julie Firman and Gary Susac.  2001.  Status of Oregon Coastal Stocks of Anadromous Salmonids, 1999-2000.  Monitoring Program Report Number OPSW-ODFW-2001-3, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

Lady, J.P., Westhagen, J.R., and J.R. Skalski.  2001.  SUPRH 2 User Manual.  SURPH 2.1, Survival under Proportional Hazards.  School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.  Available online at: http:/www.cqs.washington.edu/parmESt/SURPH.

Lady, J.P., Westhagen, J.R., and J.R. Skalski.  2003.  Sample size 1.1.  School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.  Available online at: http:/www.cbr.washington.edu/paramest/samplesize/manual/user.pdf.

Lindsay, R.B., W.J. Knox, M.W. Flesher, B.J Smith, E.A. Olsen, and L.S.Lutz.  1986.  Study of wild spring Chinook salmon in the John Day River system.  1985 final report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.

Mayer, K. and M. Schuck.  2004.  Assess salmonids in Asotin Creek watershed.  2003-2004 annual progress report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.

McCormick, J.L., A.M. Bult, and J.R. Ruzycki.  2009.  Fish Research Project Oregon, Implementation of the Environmental Assessment Program (EMAP) Protocol in the John Day Subbasin.  2008-2009 annual technical report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.

NMFS.  2009. Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment ESA Recovery Plan.  http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/Recovery-Domains/Interior-Columbia/Mid-Columbia/upload/Mid-C-Plan.pdf.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2006. Columbia River Basin Research Plan. Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2009. Northwest Power and Conservation Council Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 2009 Amendments. Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2010. Draft Columbia River Basin Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, and Reporting (MERR) Plan. Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon.

ODFW and CTUIR.  2009a.  Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP).  Umatilla River Coho.  Date submitted.  June 2009.

ODFW and CTUIR.  2009b.  Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP).  Umatilla River Fall Chinook.  Date submitted.  June 2009.

ODFW and CTUIR.  2009c.  Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP).  Umatilla River Summer Steelhead.  Date submitted.  June 2009.

ODFW and CTUIR.  2009d.  Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP).  Umatilla Spring Chinook.  Date submitted.  June 2009.

Peven, C.M., R.R. Whitney, and K.R. Williams.  1994.  Age and length of steelhead smolts from the Mid-Columbia River Basin, Washington.  North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:77-86.

Rodgers, J.D.  2000.  Abundance of Juvenile Coho Salmon in Oregon Coastal Streams, 1998 and 1999.  Monitoring Program Report Number OPSW-ODFW-2000-1, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.  (http://osu.orst.edu/dept/pacrim/pdf's/snkrep99.pdf)\

Saul, D., C. Rabe, A. Davidson, and D. Rollins.  2001.  Umatilla Subbasin Summary - Draft.  Prepared for the Northwest Power Planning Council for the Columbia Plateau Rolling Provincial Review, August 2001.

Schwartz, J. and W. Cameron.  2006.  Comprehensive research, monitoring, and evaluation plan for Umatilla subbasin summer steelhead and Chinook salmon.  Prepared by ODFW and CTUIR for BPA and NPCC, Portland, OR.

Stevens, D.L. 2002. Sampling Design and Statistical Analysis Methods for the Integrated Biological and Physical Monitoring of Oregon Streams. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2002-07.

Stevens, Jr., D.L., and A. R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially-Balanced Sampling of Natural Resources. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 99:262-277.

St. Hilaire, D.  2007.  Umatilla River Subbasin Fish Habitat Improvement Program.  Report to the Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.

Susac, G.L., S.E. Jacobs. 1999.  Evaluation of Spawning Ground Surveys for Indexing the Abundance of Adult Winter Steelhead in Oregon Coastal Basins.  Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.  Annual Progress Report F145-R-08.

Thedinga, J.F., M.L. Murphy, S.W. Johnson, J.M. Lorenz, and K.V. Koski.  1994.  Determination of salmonid smolt yield with rotary-screw traps in the Situk River, Alaska, to predict effects of glacial flooding.  North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:837-851.

United States Bureau of Reclamation.  1988.  Umatilla Basin Project Oregon planning report – Final environmental impact statements.  United States Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region, Boise, Idaho.

United States Bureau of Reclamation and Bonneville Power Administration.  1989.  Umatilla basin project.  Initial project workplan presented to the Northwest Power Planning Council, May 1989.

United States Department of Interior.  USGS.  “Boundary descriptions and names of regions, subregions, accounting units and cataloging units”.  Water resources of the United States.  USGS, 1 Jun 2010.  Web. 2 Jul 2010.  http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc_name.html#Region17.

Westhagen, J.R. and J.R. Skalski.  2009.  Program PitPro 4: PIT-Tag Processor.  School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

White, T.C., J.T. Hanson, S.M. Jewett, and R.W. Carmichael.  2007.  Evaluation of Juvenile salmonid outmigration and survival in the lower Umatilla River basin:  Annual progress report 2004-2006 prepared by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for the Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.

For the CHaMP program,monitoring methods will follow a final protocol that will be developed in the fall of 2010 that will be based on the results of field testing of the following draft habitat sampling protocol:  

Bouwes, N, N. Weber, S. Bennett, J. Moberg, B. Bouwes, and C. Jordan.  2010.  Tributary Habitat Monitoring at the Watershed or Population Scale: Preliminary Recommendations for Standardized Fish Habitat Monitoring in the Columbia River Basin.  Prepared by the Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program for Bonneville Power Administration.  104 pp.  

Sampling sites will be selected following:

Moberg, J. and M.B. Ward.  2009.  A field manual of scientific protocols for selecting sampling sites used in the Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program.

The CHaMP study design cites the following references:

Hillman, T. W. 2006. Monitoring Strategy for the Upper Columbia Basin. Draft Report, August 2006. BioAnalysts, Inc. Report for Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board. Wenatchee, Washington.

Larsen, D.P., T.M. Kincaid, S.E. Jacobs, and N.S. Urquhart. 2001. Designs for evaluating local and regional scale trends. BioScience 51(12):1069-1078.

Roper, B.B., Buffington, J.M., Bennett, S., Lenigan, S.H., Archer, E., Downie, S., Faustini, J., Hillman, T., Hubler, S., Jones, K., Jordan, C., Kaufmann, P., Merritt, G., Moyer, C., and Pleus, A. In press. A comparison of the performance and compatibility of protocols used by seven monitoring programs to measure stream habitat in the Pacific Northwest. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 

Rosenberger, A. E., and J. B. Dunham. 2005. Validation of abundance estimates from mark–recapture and removal techniques for rainbow trout captured by electrofishing in small streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:1395–1410. 

Stevens, Jr., D.L. and Anthony R. Olsen. 2003. Variance estimation for spatially balanced samples of environmental resources. Environmetrics. 14:593-610. 

Stevens, Jr., D.L., and A. R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially-Balanced Sampling of Natural Resources. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 99:262-277

Notes

None

RME / AP Category Review Assessments

Review: RME / AP Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Final Round ISRP Comment:
Assessment Number:	1989-024-01-ISRP-20101015
Project:	1989-024-01 - Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration
Review:	RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number:	RMECAT-1989-024-01
Completed Date:	12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date:	12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating:	Meets Scientific Review Criteria
The ISRP’s comments were addressed in a thoughtful, comprehensive manner. The response was thorough and gave frank consideration of issues raised by ISRP. The proponents provided detailed answers to ISRP questions and comments that clarified issues concerning the M&E program, especially the IMW project. The proponents provided a reasonable justification for the design of the IMW project, which involves comparison between two treatment streams and a reference stream to assess effectiveness of habitat restoration in the treatment streams. Although the proponents argued that the treatment and reference streams were physiographically and biologically similar enough to provide valid results when compared, they were forthright and objective in discussing the limitations of the design, limitations that likely will be common to many future IMW projects. Given the differences among the treatment and reference tributaries in many biological and physical habitat features, and past management actions, the strongest comparisons may be Before-After comparisons within tributaries in response to habitat restoration. Additional comparisons among tributaries that depend on similar "background" effects of supplementation can be made, but regression analysis using key covariates may be a more useful approach, as the proponents suggest. One of the limitations of concern to the ISRP is the uncertainty of the degree of hatchery influence which could affect comparability of the treatment and reference streams. Another potential problem is that habitat restoration actions in the treatment streams have been ongoing for some time. The effects of these actions will continue beyond the initiation of the IMW project making it difficult to separate biological and habitat responses resulting from pre-treatment habitat enhancement actions from those occurring post-treatment, after project initiation. This residual effect of pre-treatment actions may complicate before-after comparisons. Finally, given the extent of habitat degradation in the treatment streams, will the proposed restoration actions in these streams, especially Meacham Creek, be great enough to produce a significant, detectable biological response? The proponents should consider how they will deal with these problems analytically or through modification of their design.
First Round ISRP Date:	10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating:	Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
This project proposes status and trend monitoring of ESA-listed Umatilla River steelhead and Chinook salmon, and collaboration in an Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) project intended to evaluate the effectiveness of habitat restoration actions in two tributaries of the Umatilla. Work related to status and trends monitoring in Objectives 1-4 meets scientific criteria. A response is needed that expands, clarifies, and provides more detail concerning the IMW project and Objective 5. The study design needs more thorough explanation, and more background information on the reference and treatment streams needs to be provided. Comparative metrics and data analyses need further explanation. Overall, this is a thorough proposal for continuation of a centrally important project in the Umatilla Basin. The investigators describe a highly integrated project to collect critical data on production and survival of wild steelhead and spring and fall Chinook salmon. This project could provide critical data to assess whether the habitat restoration projects in the Umatilla River basin are effective in increasing abundance, survival, and productivity of naturally-spawning steelhead and salmon. In addition, it provides key data to determine the success of the new integrated hatchery supplementation program, whereby separate groups of Conservation and Harvest smolts are produced. These data are necessary to determine if the integrated hatchery program is contributing to the recovery of steelhead and salmon, or just another factor leading to their demise (or no change is detected). 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The project is consistent with many regional programs and projects including the NPPC Fish and Wildlife Program and the Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan. It addresses several RPAs in the BiOp. This work is of great significance to regional programs, because it provides critical data to assess how natural populations of steelhead and two life history types of Chinook are responding to a variety of conditions, including in-river habitat, flow, migration corridors, and ocean conditions. Without it, little will be known about the performance of the newly created Conservation groups of salmon and steelhead. The proposal includes status and trends monitoring and a new Intensively Monitored Watershed project. The main goal of the Umatilla IMW project is to determine whether habitat enhancement results in higher abundance, survival, and productivity of natural spawned steelhead and salmon. A confusing aspect of the proposal is that several of the objectives and deliverables include work related to both status and trends monitoring as well as to the IMW habitat effectiveness evaluation. The objectives and deliverables for the status and trends work and those for the IMW work should be separated so that these two aspects of the project are clearly distinguishable. Several projects are addressing components of the IMW work, although this project seems to have the bulk of the responsibility for its conduct. Dividing the work among projects makes scientific evaluation of the IMW effort difficult. Why was the IMW work not consolidated in a single proposal? 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management This project has been ongoing in various forms since 1994, but underwent an extensive review in 2006 by the ISRP. It was restarted in 2009, after reformulating goals. This proposal is characterized by carefully planned sampling designs for the redd surveys and juvenile abundance in tributaries, and for habitat monitoring. The project can point to various results that have allowed managers to make important decisions based on the data that was collected. Based upon the results presented, the project appears to have been productive and has accomplished it objectives since it inception in 1994. Data collected through this project are critical for monitoring salmon and steelhead populations in the basin. A notable conclusion drawn from data analysis was that “habitat enhancement has not resulted in a significant improvement for summer steelhead and that the system may be at capacity for production of the species.” The negative relationship between smolts/female and number of females supports this conclusions and suggests that density-dependence may be affecting smolt survival. This conclusion is tentative but it argues for a more rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of habitat restoration actions in the Umatilla Basin, which the proponents propose to undertake. In addressing adaptive management, the proponents indicate that the information they obtained has assisted with management decisions and provide some examples. They did not specifically address how their project has changed based on previous results. However, their decision to participate in CHaMP is indicative of their willingness to shift the direction of the project. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) The proposed project is one of four collaborative BPA funded projects aimed at monitoring the status and trends of Chinook salmon and summer steelhead in the Umatilla River. The project is tied to several other BPA funded projects in the Umatilla Basin. It also relates to several other IMW projects in the Columbia Basin that are collaborating in the development and implementation of CHaMP. In particular, this project and another in-basin project (1990-050-01; Umatilla Basin Natural Production M&E) are cooperating in conducting the IMW habitat evaluation in the Umatilla. Some discussion of the new C & H / Integrated Segregated hatchery production scheme would have been helpful, but it seems that the proposed project, without explicitly discussing it, will deal with it effectively. In addressing emerging factors the proponents make the general statement that the data collected by this project could assist in determination of fish population response to emerging threats but do not offer anything more specific. Climate change and predation by birds and native and non-native fish predators are key emerging limiting factors which are dealt with in other proposals. It will be important to determine how this project can link with those data, such as estimating loss of this DPS of steelhead from Caspian tern and cormorant predation at the mouth of the Columbia River. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods This proposal has components pertaining to both routine status and trend monitoring and evaluation of habitat effectiveness under the IMW program. Methods and metrics for assessing status and trends in Objectives 1-4 are fairly standard and are appropriate for this type of work. The ISRP views positively the proponent’s willingness to engage in rigorous habitat effectiveness evaluation under the auspices of CHaMP and according to ISEMP protocols. Properly conducted, this evaluation could yield the most valuable information to date on effectiveness of habitat enhancement in the Umatilla Basin. Several issues, however, need clarification. Several objectives and deliverables (e.g., deliverables 4, 6, 9, and 10) in the proposal apparently include work related to both status and trends monitoring and to the IMW habitat effectiveness evaluation, complicating scientific review of the proposal. It would be helpful if the objectives and deliverables for the status and trends work and those for the IMW work could be separated so that these two aspects of the project are clearly distinguishable. The study design for the IMW project needs more thorough explanation, and more background information on the reference and treatment streams should be provided. The proposed approach for evaluation of the effectiveness of habitat enhancement actions is to compare a control or reference stream with each of two treatment streams that have undergone habitat enhancement. A main difficulty is that appropriate treatment and control streams are difficult to find. The Upper Umatilla, a reference stream, receives supplementation, whereas Meacham Creek, a treatment stream, has been subject to habitat restoration and also is supplemented. Steelhead use both tributaries for spawning and rearing. Therefore, a comparison between these tributaries should yield information on the effectiveness of the habitat projects in Meacham Creek, assuming there is no interaction between the habitat work and supplementation, and other physical and biological differences between the tributaries are negligible. In contrast, Birch Creek, another treatment stream, receives no supplementation but connectivity and fish passage has been restored. Since the Upper Umatilla is supplemented, it is not an adequate control stream to compare with Birch Creek, although trend monitoring (i.e., before-after) can be conducted to assess changes. How will this apparent problem be resolved? The proponents need to deal with several other questions pertaining to the IMW project. How do the reference and treatment basins compare physiographically and biologically? The history of land use, habitat loss, and hatchery influence in reference and treatment tributaries should be summarized. What habitat restoration actions have been and will be implemented, and on what time frame? What is the fish distribution and abundance in these streams? Comparative metrics and data analyses need further explanation. What metrics (fish and habitat) will be compared between treatment and reference basins to evaluate the effectiveness of habitat restoration actions? Will the proponents be responsible for collection of habitat and fish data, data integration, and data analysis? What data will be collected by other projects? An extremely large amount of data will be collected. How will it be analyzed? It should be possible to use model selection to assess how, for example, smolt production relates to habitat restoration, by fitting models with and without this covariate. ISEMP proposes a long list of habitat variables that can be measured. How will the decision be made as to which of these variables are most important for this work?
Documentation Links:

Please correct the errors noted below.

View the dynamic Proposal Summary

Download a snapshot PDF

Summary of Budgets

Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2025

Previous Fiscal Years

Selected Contracted Deliverables in CBFish (2004 to present)

Council Recommendation

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Council Recommendation

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Council Recommendation

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Public Attachments in CBFish

Other Project Documents on the Web

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment