Problem Statement:

Chapman (1986) estimated that peak adult salmon returns to the Columbia River basin in the 1800s ranged from 7.4 to 8.8 million fish. Of these returns, Chapman concluded that 2.5 to 3.1 million were spring and summer Chinook salmon. Likewise, prior to the 1900s, returning adult Chinook salmon were estimated to number more than 1.5 million in the Snake River Basin (NMFS 1995). However, numerous stock assessments and review literature have documented the contemporary demise of these Snake River populations (Horner and Bjornn 1979; Nehlsen et al. 1991; Williams et al. 2006). In recognition of this decline, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 1992) listed Snake River spring and summer Chinook as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1992. As have other Snake River stocks, spring Chinook populations in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde subbasins also experienced drastic declines in recent decades (Ashe et al. 2000; Nowak et al. 2004; Saul et al. 2004). At these escapement levels the Imnaha and Grande Ronde stocks face demographic jeopardy.

 Study Location:

The Imnaha River subbasin is located in northeastern Oregon and encompasses an area approximately 1,577 km². A comprehensive description of the Imnaha River subbasin is found in the Imnaha Subbasin Summary (Bryson et al. 2001). The mainstem Imnaha River flows northerly for 128 km from its headwaters in the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area (elevation 3,048 m), to its confluence with the Snake River at river kilometer (Rkm) 309 (elevation 288 m). The Imnaha River subbasin is fairly linear with only one major tributary, Big Sheep Creek. The Imnaha River is part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System with sections classified as wild, recreational, and scenic.

The Grande Ronde River subbasin encompasses an area of 6,356 km² in the northeast corner of Oregon and a small portion of southeast Washington.  Comprehensive description of the Grande Ronde River subbasin can be found in the Grande Ronde Subbasin Summary (Nowak et al. 2001). The mainstem Grande Ronde River extends 341km from its headwaters in the Elkhorn Mountains (elevation 2,347 m) and the Wallowa Mountains (elevation 3,048 m) to its confluence with the Snake River in Washington at Rkm 272 (elevation 250 m). The subbasin is characterized by two major river valleys, the Wallowa and Grande Ronde, surrounded by rugged mountain ranges. Major tributaries include: Joseph Creek, Wenaha River, Lookingglass Creek, Wallowa River, Minam River, Lostine River, Upper Grande Ronde River, and Catherine Creek.  The Wenaha and Minam rivers are designated as wild under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system.

Scientific Background and Approach:

The NPT, ODFW, and CTUIR believe that supplementation may be capable of increasing natural production, but the recovery benefits of supplementation are not universal and can be highly uncertain.  Traditional hatchery programs have not always met success in the past. We know that hatchery smolts produced from localized salmon stocks perform better than hatchery smolts from distant stocks (Reisenbichler 1988), successful outplanting of hatchery-origin fish depends on the hatchery’s ability to produce fish qualitatively similar to natural-origin fish (Lichatowich and McIntyre 1987), genetic fitness decreases as differences between hatchery and wild fish increase (Chilcote et al. 1986), and the production of wild stocks can be reduced after the introduction of poorly adapted fish (Vincent 1987).  Therefore, monitoring and evaluation are integral in managing the risks associated with supplementation.

An important role of a monitoring and evaluation program is to resolve project uncertainty since critical uncertainties often serve as a pretext for inappropriate management actions. Uncertainty is a function not only of unpredictability and ecosystem randomness but also of our state of knowledge and scientific understanding. Therefore, monitoring and evaluation have long been recognized as necessary components of natural resource management. Monitoring and evaluation activities are intended to address project uncertainty and to provide feedback for proper adaptive management (NPPC 1999). Thus, the monitoring and evaluation plan serves as an adaptive management tool for assessing the utility of supplementation as an endangered species recovery method. The NEOH M&E Plan will address the uncertainty specific to hatchery intervention in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha subbasins and add to our knowledge regarding supplementation in general.

Both the Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB 2003) and the Council’s 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program (FWP) explicitly direct an experimental approach to all supplementation projects with a detailed monitoring and evaluation plan. Based on these strong recommendations, co-managers have designed a monitoring and evaluation program to address management objectives and answer questions fundamental to Chinook salmon recovery in northeast Oregon. According to the ISAB (2003), the value of a monitoring and evaluation plan is greatly enhanced if different types of monitoring are integrated. Our experimental design represents three monitoring and evaluation approaches integrated at various spatial scales for what co-managers believe is a comprehensive assessment strategy. A combination of population status monitoring, comparative performance testing, and small-scale experiments will be implemented by co-managers in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde subbasins.

 Status monitoring will describe existing conditions and provide evidence of trend over time. The NOAA Fisheries RME Plan (2003) calls for status monitoring to document progress toward recovery of listed populations. Repeated measurements are taken over time to quantify change and track trends. This type of monitoring will provide information regarding key attributes for the supplemented natural populations, the reference populations and the greater metapopulations of northeast Oregon. 

We also propose to collect performance measure data that will be useful in describing differences or similarities between two or more groups of fish. Comparative performance testing, sometimes called effectiveness monitoring, will occur primarily within and among individual streams.  Paired comparisons will be tested at multiple life stages and involve treatment vs. natural, treatment vs. reference, and treatment vs. treatment analysis.  Relative performance across streams will be examined for both hatchery and natural production groups. In the absence of replication, it is difficult to assign significance to observed differences between experimental groups. In addition, co-managers recognize that the ability to statistically attribute cause and effect will be somewhat limited due to highly variable environmental conditions (Hillman 2003). Therefore, primary replication will occur across years within a facility or a stream. Results that describe the effectiveness of management actions will involve inference gained by replicated results. Comparative experimental designs that co-managers believe will prove useful are repeated measure designs such as “Before/After” (Steward 1996) and “Treatment vs. Reference” (ISAB 2003).

Our efforts will focus primarily on the larger scale M&E activities involved with status monitoring and comparative performance testing. However, additional small scale or short-term studies will be conducted to examine specific issues that require certain study design attributes. Small-scale manipulation experiments can provide a way of isolating the effects of a few important ecological processes from more complex ecological interactions (Peterman 1990). These types of small-scale experiments are research oriented and thus fit the classical hypothesis-testing format (i.e. reproductive success studies using DNA parentage analysis, isolated adult spawning behavior and performance or feed study to reduce jacking in hatchery fish). 

Stock status and performance can be evaluated only with respect to the properties of the natural environment in which the population is found. Therefore, we will implement a probabilistic sampling framework based upon the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). EMAP is a statistically based and spatially explicit sampling design that quantifies status and trends in stream and riparian habitats (Firman and Jacobs 1999; Jordan et al. 2002).

A monitoring and evaluation program, such a such as the NEOH M&E Plan, will result in the collection of extremely valuable data given society’s monetary investment and the important management questions to be answered. Hence, the volume and complexity of information gathered will need to be compiled and organized in a systematic manner.  The DFRM now has the equipment infrastructure necessary to ensure efficient and timely exchange of science-based information on regionally accepted performance measures. With additional funding for a data steward, DFRM annual reports, metadata, and performance measure data will be available on the new DFRM website http://www.nptfisheries.org. Appropriate components of program data and results will also be provided to the following websites: Snake Basin Data Group; Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), including: PIT Tag Information System (PTAGIS), the Regional Mark Information System (RMIS); Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program (STEM); Fish Passage Center (FPC); StreamNet; and NOAA Northwest Science Center.  This proposal seeks to enable DFRM participation in regional data management and sharing forums and processes (e.g. PNAMP) as required by RPAs 71 and 72.

The importance and necessity of monitoring and evaluating supplementation are emphasized by many science groups (Botkin et al. 2000; ISAB 2003; ISRP 2001, 2005; ISRP/ISAB 2005; McElhany et al. 2000; NPCC 2004).  In appreciation of this necessity, the Council has frequently voiced support for vigorous monitoring and evaluation programs (NPCC 2000). The Council writes of its current Fish and Wildlife Program:

 “The Program’s success cannot be measured and demonstrated without an adequate monitoring and evaluation framework.  It is anticipated that a more regimented program framework will facilitate the design of a more robust and effective monitoring and evaluation program. The Council firmly believes that this should be a major objective for the next program.”

Society has invested large sums of money in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha subbasins for the sake of the salmon. Without effective and comprehensive monitoring and evaluation in place, the actual response of salmon populations to conservation strategies will remain largely unknown. Monitoring and evaluation provide the accountability that is necessary for a viable, long-term salmon conservation effort in northeast Oregon. Therefore, “the cost of not monitoring is simply too high” (Botkin et al 2000).

 NEOH Management Questions:

These management questions are based on co-manager collaboration and will be addressed through the NEOH M&E Plan. They are specifically linked to our management objectives and assumptions in the reviewed M&E plan document.

1.  What is the current status and trend of the natural populations of Chinook salmon in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde subbasins?
2.  Are hatchery strategies effectively meeting program goals?
   1. Are there more naturally produced fish in target streams as a result of the hatchery program?
      1. What is the reproductive success of hatchery fish relative to the reproductive success of natural fish?
      2. Does fish health vary among naturally produced and hatchery reared components of the populations and if so what are the effects?
      3. Do current habitat conditions limit natural production or hatchery program performance?
      4. To what extent will juvenile release methods and strategies (size, time, location) affect supplementation success (long-term sustainability)?
      5. To what extent will rearing and acclimation of Chinook salmon in Imnaha and Grande Ronde water enhance smolt-to-adult survival and return fidelity?
      6. Do the releases of hatchery-reared spring-summer Chinook salmon achieve the desired level of adult returns?
      7. How can hatchery strategies be improved to increase natural production?
   2. Do natural and hatchery reared components within a treatment stream continue to comprise a single population regarding life history and genetic profiles?
      1.  Is genetic or life history divergence occurring between natural and hatchery components?
      2. Are changes in life history and genetic characteristics occurring within the combined population?
   3. Does the NEOH program alter inter and intra-species specific abundance and behavior?
   4. Is there a difference in performance or impacts between program components (production strategies and treatments) and if so why?
   5. Can management actions (harvest, weirs, adult out-plants, and production strategies) be effectively used to implement spring Chinook salmon management agreements in northeast Oregon?
      1. How will supplementation influence near and short term production of the target and non-target populations?
      2. Can adult Chinook salmon returns to the Imnaha and Grande Ronde subbasins be accurately predicted?
   6. Can hatchery strategies support harvest and supplementation consistently?