HATCHERY AND GENETIC MANAGEMENT PLAN (HGMP)
Hatchery Program: McKenzie River Spring Chinook Salmon
Species or Spring Chinook Salmon (stock 023) Hatchery Stock:
Agency/Operator: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Watershed and Region: Willamette River, Columbia River
Date Submitted:
Date Last Updated: 26 November 2003
SECTION 1. GENERAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
1.1) Name of hatchery or program.
McKenzie Hatchery McKenzie River Spring Chinook Salmon Program
1.2) Species and population (or stock) under propagation, and ESA status.
The spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) stock reared at McKenzie Hatchery (stock 023) originated from the wild stock of spring Chinook in the McKenzie River. The wild population of spring Chinook in the McKenzie River is part of the Upper Willamette Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) for spring Chinook salmon which is listed as threatened under ESA. The hatchery population is not considered part of the Upper Willamette ESU.
1.3) Responsible organization and individuals
Lead Contact: Name (and title): John Thorpe, Chief of Fish Propagation Agency or Tribe: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Address: 3406 Cherry Avenue, NE, Salem, OR 97303-4924 Telephone: (503) 947-6000 Fax: (503) 947-6202 Email: [email protected]
Local Contact: Name (and Title): Kurt Kremers, McKenzie Hatchery Manager Organization: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Address: 43863 Greer Drive, Leaburg, OR 97489 Telephone: 541-896-3513 Fax: 541-896-3826 Email: [email protected]
Other organizations involved: The US Army Corp of Engineers (COE) funds 50% of the McKenzie Hatchery production expenditures.
1.4) Funding source, staffing level, and annual hatchery program operational costs.
Funding: US Army Corp of Engineers (50%) State - ODFW general funds (50%) Staffing: Five full-time permanent positions, plus one eight-month seasonal position Budget: $678,316 for Fiscal Year 2002
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 2
1.5) Location(s) of hatchery and associated facilities.
The McKenzie Hatchery is located on the McKenzie River near river mile 37, which is about 17 miles east of Springfield, Oregon. Regional mark processing center code - #5F33317 H17 21. Latitude N44 degrees 7.11’ Longitude W122 degrees 38.27’
Adult Collection, holding and spawning:
Adult spring Chinook are collected, held and spawned at McKenzie Hatchery. Some surplus hatchery adults are released above Cougar Dam to utilize habitat where access was blocked by the dams.
Rearing (eyed egg to smolt):
The current program production level is 1,199,000 smolts reared from early egg to smolt at McKenzie Hatchery.
Acclimation to release:
All smolts are reared and acclimated from early egg to release at McKenzie Hatchery into the McKenzie River.
1.6) Type of program.
McKenzie spring Chinook stock is a combination of a mitigation program and an integrated harvest program. Approximately half the production of the McKenzie Hatchery smolt program is funded by an agreement with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to mitigate for losses of about 4,060 wild adults that were produced in areas above Cougar and Blue River dams. The mitigation agreement calls for rearing of a maximum of 80,800 lb. of spring Chinook to be released primarily in the McKenzie Basin and totally within the Willamette Basin. The remaining portion of the production is funded by ODFW for the purpose of enhancing the run for in-river fisheries enhancement purposes (ODFW, 1998).
1.7) Purpose (Goal) of program.
1) To mitigate the loss of spring Chinook catch in sport and commercial fisheries that was lost due to the construction and operation of Blue River and Cougar Dams (IHOT, 1997).
2) To provide adequate fish to the hatchery to maintain the broodstock, and to have hatchery broodstock available as a reserve population for the wild run.
3) To provide hatchery fish for natural production and enrichment above Cougar Dam. McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 3
4) To maintain the hatchery population as similar to the wild run as possible (OAR 635-500-1661).
1.8) Justification for the program.
The McKenzie Spring Chinook Program is managed carefully to provide a fishery on spring Chinook while protecting the wild spring Chinook population from genetic and fishery impacts. The following is a list of hatchery practices and management features of the program currently in place to minimize these impacts:
1.8.1 Hatchery Practices
• The McKenzie Hatchery broodstock originated from native McKenzie River spring Chinook. • At least 5% wild fish are incorporated into the hatchery broodstock each year. • All portions of the run and all age classes are incorporated into the egg takes to ensure genetic diversity. • 100% of the hatchery smolts released are fin marked to allow for a selective sport fishery on hatchery Chinook. Regulations require release of unmarked Chinook. • All releases of smolts into the McKenzie system are made from the hatchery to minimize straying. • Stray hatchery adults can be selectively removed from the naturally spawning population at Leaburg Dam. • McKenzie Hatchery complies with IHOT standards and ODFW policies for prevention and treatment of fish diseases.
1.8.2 Management Features
Prior to the adoption of ODFW’s Native Fish Conservation Policy (NFCP) (OAR 635-007-0502 through 0509), the McKenzie Spring Chinook Program was managed as a “Type 2” program under ODFW’s Wild Fish Management Policy (WFMP). The WFMP was superceded by the NFCP in November 2002. Until an individual conservation plan is written for spring Chinook in the McKenzie River basin, NFCP Interim Criteria will be used for management guidance. A summary of the NFCP Interim Criteria follow (see OAR 635-007-0507 for more detail):
1. Existing populations – no more than 20% of the historical populations within the species management unit have become extinct and no natural population within the species management unit in existence as of 2003 shall be lost in the future.
This criterion is not met for McKenzie River spring Chinook. The average estimated run of spring Chinook in the McKenzie River during 1945-1960, prior to loss of production above Cougar, Blue River and Trail Bridge dams, was 18,000 fish (Howell et al. 1988). The average estimated run size in the McKenzie over the period 1970-2002 is 6520 (see Appendix Table 1).
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 4
For at least 80% of the existing populations within each species management unit or for selected index populations, interim criteria 2-6 must be exceeded in at least 3 years during the most recent 5 year time interval.
2. Habitat Use Distribution – Naturally produced members of a population must occupy at least 50% of a population’s historic habitat.
This criterion is not met for McKenzie River spring Chinook.
3. Abundance – The number of naturally produced spawners must be greater than 25% of the average abundance of naturally produced spawners over the most recent 30 year time period.
This is met for McKenzie spring Chinook (see Appendix Table 1).
4. Productivity – In years when the total spawner abundance is less than the average abundance of naturally produced spawner over the past 30 years, then the rate of population increase shall be at least 1.2 adult offspring per parent. (“Offspring” are defined as naturally produced adults that survive to spawn and “parents” are defined as those adults of natural plus hatchery origin that spawned and collectively produced the observed offspring.) These data are not available for the McKenzie.
5. Reproductive Independence – At least 90% of the spawners within a population must be naturally produced and not hatchery produced fish, unless the department determines the hatchery produced fish are being used in a short-term experimental program to help restore a population in its natural habitat or otherwise directed by a court order. This criterion is not met for McKenzie River spring Chinook. In addition to broodstock management, Leaburg Dam presents the opportunity to remove excess hatchery fish from the natural spawning population in the major portion of the natural production area for spring Chinook in the McKenzie above Leaburg. Current limitations of the trapping facility at Leaburg Dam do not allow for removal of enough hatchery fish to comply with this criterion while at the same time minimize handling of wild spring Chinook. See Section 1.16 for further discussion on this issue.
6. Hybridization – The occurrence of individuals that are the product of deleterious hybridization with species that are non-native to the basin in which they are found must be rare or nonexistent. This is likely to be the case in the McKenzie.
1.9 & 1.10) List of program “Performance Standards” and “Performance Indicators” designated by “benefits” and “risks”.
Category 1-Harvest
Standard 1.1: Provide 1,000 adult hatchery spring Chinook for sport harvest in the McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 5
McKenzie River in such a way that impacts to the wild population of spring Chinook are within limits described in the FMEP. Ancillary impacts on wild spring Chinook populations from angling will be minimized. Benefit (It is recognized that angling may have risks to the wild population associated with it, however, harvest is a beneficial result of the hatchery program goal.)
Indicator: Number of returning adults. Benefit
Indicator: Number of hatchery spring Chinook harvested. Benefit
Indicator: Numbers of wild spring Chinook handled and released during fishery, and estimated impact to wild population. Risk
Standard 1.2: All McKenzie Hatchery spring Chinook juveniles will be marked with an adipose fin clip so hatchery adults can be visually distinguished from wild adults. Benefit
Indicator: Mark retention rate from each release group. Benefit
Category 2 - Genetic and Life History Characteristics:
Standard 2.1: Spring Chinook broodstock will be collected in a manner that approximates the life history characteristics (e.g., run timing, age, and size of the population) of hatchery fish returning to the hatchery. Risk
Indicator: Fecundity (number and size), body size (length and weight), sex ratio, adult run timing, adult:jack ratio. Risk
Indicator: Age distribution of adult spring Chinook returns to the hatchery and age distribution of fish spawned. Risk
Standard 2.2: An appropriate level of wild adults will be used in the hatchery broodstock each year to provide genetic variability within the hatchery stock and to maintain it as a reserve population. Benefit
Indicator: Number and percentage of naturally produced fish incorporated into the hatchery broodstock program. Benefit
Standard 2.3: Juvenile release strategy will minimize impacts to naturally produced spring Chinook populations. Risk
Indicator: Numbers of fish released. Risk
Indicator: Location of spring Chinook releases. Risk
Indicator: Length and location of smolt acclimation. Risk McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 6
Indicator: Type of release (i.e., volitional, forced, or direct). Risk
Indicator: Proportion of adult returns to release site. Risk
Category 3 - Conservation of Wild/Naturally Spawning Populations:
Standard 3.1: The percentage of hatchery spring Chinook spawning with wild spring Chinook will be limited to 30% or less by removal of hatchery fish at Leaburg Dam. (This is out of compliance with the 10% rate allowed under the NFCP. Until the trap at Leaburg Dam is altered to allow unhindered passage to wild fish while removing hatchery fish, it is unlikely a rate of 10% or fewer hatchery fish above Leaburg Dam will be attainable without severely increasing the handling-associated take of spring Chinook at the dam. The long-term goal is to meet the 10% criterion of the NFCP.)
Indicator: Annual number of spawners, both hatchery-origin and naturally produced, on spawning grounds, by age (from Leaburg Dam counts and spawning surveys). Risk
Indicator: Estimated hatchery spring Chinook spawning in the wild (from analysis of scales and/or otoliths collected during spawning surveys). Risk
Indicator: Annual number of redds in selected natural production index areas. Risk
Indicator: Estimated abundance of naturally spawning spring Chinook from spawning surveys and unmarked fish entering hatchery and fish passing Leaburg Dam. Benefit
Standard 3.2: Restore viable naturally spawning populations above Cougar and Trail Bridge dams. Benefit
Indicator: Numbers of naturally produced adults returning to Leaburg Dam. Benefit
Indicator: Numbers of unmarked juveniles moving out of the reservoirs. Benefit
Indicator: Trend in juvenile fish rearing densities. Benefit
Standard 3.3: Distribution of hatchery adult carcasses, to provide nutrient enrichment benefits as in natural salmon spawning streams, will be accomplished in compliance with DEQ/ODFW guidelines (MOA). Benefit
Indicator: Number of carcasses distributed. Benefit
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 7
Indicator: Spatial and temporal distribution. Benefit
Standard 3.4: Outplacement of live spring Chinook adults from McKenzie Hatchery will maintain the same management direction as identified in the NMFS 2000 Biological Opinion for artificial propagation programs in the Upper Willamette Basin. Risk
Indicator: Adult trap records. Risk
Indicator: Records of hatchery spring Chinook adults transported to and released above Cougar and Trail Bridge reservoirs. Risk
Category 4 - Operation of Artificial Production Facilities:
Standard 4.1: McKenzie Hatchery will be operated in compliance with ODFW’s Fish Health Management Policy and Fish Hatchery Management Policy, and the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT) fish health guidelines. (See attachment A). Risk
Indicator: Number of broodstock sampled and pathogens observed. Risk
Indicator: Rearing survival rates, egg to fry, and fry to smolt. Risk
Indicator: Number of juveniles sampled and pathogens observed during rearing and immediately prior to release. Risk
Standard 4.2: McKenzie Hatchery's water discharges will comply with prescribed 330j general NPDS permit as required by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Risk
Indicator: Water samples collected and results reported. Risk
Standard 4.3: McKenzie Hatchery’s water withdrawals will comply with NOAA Fisheries' juvenile fish screening criteria. Risk
Indicator: Screens inspected for compliance with guidelines. Risk
Indicator: Results of routine maintenance inspections. Risk
Standard 4.4: Wild spring Chinook or other native fishes that enter the McKenzie trap will be handled and released in a manner that minimizes stress, injury, mortality and delay in migration. Risk
Indicator: Numbers of adult spring Chinook released alive above the hatchery or transported to the hatchery for brood. Risk
Indicator: Injuries to and mortalities of unmarked spring Chinook at McKenzie McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 8
Hatchery during operation of the adult trap. Risk
Indicator: Dates the trap is operated and frequency of handling adult spring Chinook. Risk
Category 5 - Socio-Economic Effectiveness.
Standard 5.1: Estimated harvest benefits of the McKenzie spring Chinook program will equal or exceed hatchery production costs based on the benefit-cost model in ODFW (1999) or an updated version of that model. Benefit
Indicator: Annual budget expenditures. Benefit
Indicator: Estimated harvest benefits. Benefit
1.11) Expected size of program.
1.11.1) Proposed annual broodstock collection level (maximum number of adult fish). Hatchery broodstock needs are approximately 800 fish, 1 to 1 male to female spawning with a green egg take goal equal to 1,500,000 (ODFW 9/30/03 Production Schedule).
1.11.2) Proposed annual fish release levels (maximum number) by life stage and location.
Table 1. Hatchery output for the current McKenzie Hatchery spring Chinook program.
Life Stage Release Location Annual Release Level Eyed Eggs Unfed Fry Fry McKenzie River at Hatchery Yearling (November release) 350,000
McKenzie River at Hatchery 1+-Yearling (Feb/March release) 848,750
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 9
1.12) Current program performance, including estimated smolt-to-adult survival rates, adult production levels, and escapement levels. Indicate the source of these data.
Estimates of adult production from McKenzie Hatchery spring Chinook salmon smolts released in the McKenzie Basin for the last 10 years are presented in Table 2. Estimates reflect program performance in relation to the mitigation goal. Table 2 does not reflect production from McKenzie Hatchery spring Chinook smolts released outside the McKenzie Basin, in the Clackamas River and Lower Willamette River. The total adult (age 3 and up) hatchery spring Chinook produced from smolt releases in the McKenzie Basin were estimated by expansion of coded-wire tag (CWT) recoveries to reflect total production as follows: {(Estimated CWT recoveries / number of CWT smolts released) x total fish released}. This calculation was made for each group of CWT smolts released, and then summed across all CWT groups released for each brood year. The “Freshwater Sport” column does not include catch above Willamette Falls. There is also no estimate of total McKenzie Hatchery spring Chinook that returned to natural spawning areas.
Table 2. Estimated total adult McKenzie Hatchery spring Chinook salmon produced per brood year, from smolts released in the McKenzie Basin. Data are derived from expansions of coded-wire tag recoveries.
Estimated Total Adult Hatchery CHS Produced Brood Smolt Ocean Ocean Freshwater Hatchery Year Release Comm. Sport Sport a Gillnet Return Total 1986 934,637 3,018 568 1,602 7,096 9,252 21,536 1987 946,162 1,346 0 889 5,271 4,365 11,871 1988 873,463 1,639 283 174 4,073 4,109 10,278 1989 865,119 559 98 43 1,378 800 2,878 1990 1,022,561 77 0 14 437 558 1,086 1991 805,342 143 626 0 140 829 1,738 1992 732,635 53 0 9 135 1,083 1,280 1993 1,001,235 121 36 12 145 1,561 1,875 1994 592,237 141 0 0 67 1,071 1,279 1995 953,885 97 48 57 843 1,700 2,745 Goal b 4,060 a = Does not include catch above Willamette Falls. b = Goal is from the mitigation agreement.
The number of adults returning to McKenzie Hatchery since 1990 is presented in Table 3.
Table 3: The number of adult spring Chinook returning to McKenzie Hatchery, 1990-2002. Data taken from ODFW HMIS database and Firman et al. (2002).
Calendar Year Adults at McKenzie Hatchery 1990 3,216 McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 10
1991 4,497 1992 3,374 1993 2,051 1994 702 1995 1,135 1996 1,573 1/ 1997 1,546 2/ 1998 1,690 1999 2,279 2000 3,553 2001 3,920 2002 6,832 1/ Includes 50 adults transferred from Leaburg Dam to McKenzie Hatchery. 2/ Includes 26 adults transferred from Leaburg Dam to McKenzie Hatchery
The number of returning adults has steadily increased since the mid-1990's (1990 brood). The available smolt-to-adult survival data are given in Table 4. Ocean coded-wire tag (CWT) recoveries of McKenzie Hatchery spring Chinook (1987- 1996 brood years) are predominantly in Alaskan and Canadian fisheries. Freshwater recoveries are primarily hatchery returns. Freshwater catch (sport and lower river gillnet combined) made up 44% of the average freshwater recoveries for the run (Lewis et al., 2003).
Table 4. Smolt-to-adult survival for McKenzie Hatchery spring Chinook for 1986 to 1995 broods.
Brood Smolt Total Smolt-to-Adult Year Release Returns a Survival 1986 934,637 21,536 2.30% 1987 946,162 11,871 1.25% 1988 873,463 10,278 1.18% 1989 865,119 2,878 0.33% 1990 1,022,561 1,086 0.11% 1991 805,342 1,738 0.22% 1992 732,635 1,280 0.17% 1993 1,001,235 1,875 0.19% 1994 592,237 1,279 0.22% 1995 953,885 2,745 0.29%
Average 0.63% a = Does not include catch above Willamette Falls.
The 1998 McKenzie River fish management plan for spring Chinook calls for a natural spawning escapement of 3,000-5,000-spring Chinook above Leaburg Dam. Approximately 80% of the natural spawning areas in the McKenzie basin are above the dam. Hatchery fish are trapped and removed from the sub-basin at Leaburg Dam. McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 11
1.13) Date program started (years in operation), or is expected to start.
The McKenzie River Hatchery began operations in 1907 and reared spring Chinook salmon. The hatchery facilities in their current configuration were completed in 1975.
1.14) Expected duration of program.
The program is expected continue indefinitely.
1.15) Watersheds targeted by program.
Spring Chinook salmon smolts are released into the McKenzie River with the objective of mitigating for the loss of 4,060 spring Chinook spawners annually and loss and degradation of habitat and fish passage caused by the construction and operation of Blue River and Cougar Dams.
1.16) Indicate alternative actions considered for attaining program goals, and reasons why those actions are not being proposed.
As stated in Section 1.7, there are several goals for this program. These include to mitigate for loss of spring Chinook catch caused by the construction and operation of Cougar and Blue River dams, and to maintain the hatchery broodstock as wild as possible to allow the hatchery population to serve as a reserve population for the wild run. Another inherent program goal is to maintain the high biological significance and viability of the wild McKenzie River spring Chinook.
1.16.1 Brief overview of key issues (not in priority order).
Issue 1. The hatchery product (smolts and adults) may not mimic the wild population as needed. Hatchery smolts at release are larger than wild smolts in the river at the same time. This variance may have a long-term genetic impact.
Issue 2. Interactions between adults of hatchery and wild fish are potentially problematic. High numbers of hatchery fish are spawning naturally above Leaburg Dam. There are several reasons for this. The hatchery lacks a reliable long-term back-up water supply to provide water and attraction during low water years. The current water supply requires augmentation or extra attractant to increase numbers of returning hatchery fish to the hatchery. In addition, the present use of the trap at Leaburg Dam allows approximately 30% of the spawners above the dam to be of hatchery origin. ODFW’s NFCP recommends at least 90% of spawners within a population to be naturally produced.
Issue 3. The outplant program for spring Chinook, as a viable tool to enhance natural production above dams, is insufficiently supported in funding, equipment, staffing and Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E). As a result, survivability of outplanted fish is compromised and the ability to monitor the success of the program is lacking. McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 12
Issue 4. Improved facilities at McKenzie Hatchery are needed. Hatchery screens are not in compliance with NOAA Fisheries guidelines. This could result in entrainment of wild fry into the hatchery system.
Issue 5. Improved access to historic spawning and rearing areas. An option for passive fish passage at Trail Bridge Dam, such as a fish ladder, would expand the habitat available for natural production to Chinook as well as to migratory bull trout in the basin. A passive facility for passage would be less stressful on the fish by decreasing the amount of “take” associated with any handling at the dam.
1.16.2 Potential alternatives to the current program.
Issue 1: Hatchery product to mimic wild population.
Alternative 1.1: Release smaller hatchery smolts, which would provide for greater numbers released. In the Middle Fork Willamette River system, smaller hatchery smolts, comparable in size to wild smolts in the river at the time of release, are thought to return in age classes more similar to the historic wild populations (Connolly et al. 1992). However, one of the reasons the larger smolt sizes were selected for release at McKenzie Hatchery is the rapid emigration timing of these larger smolts over smaller fish (Howell et al. 1988). In leaving quickly, there are fewer opportunities for negative interactions with wild fish, including competition for habitat and food supply, and hatchery predation on wild fish.
Recommendation: Review existing data on size-at-release strategies. If it is feasible to release smaller fish and still achieve adult return goals, then design and conduct evaluations of smaller size-at-release strategies for McKenzie Hatchery.
Alternative 1.2: Convert to a fully wild broodstock to ensure maintenance of genetic integrity and wildness of the hatchery product (reserve population enhancement). A higher percentage of wild fish in the brood would require NOAA-Fisheries approval; the current BiOp (NMFS 2000) calls for no more than 10% unmarked fish to be used for broodstock purposes. With approval, it may be possible to increase numbers of unmarked fish used in broodstock especially in high return years.
Recommendation: Continue to monitor the percentage of hatchery and wild fish in the McKenzie Hatchery return to reduce the risk of genetic drift.
Alternative 1.3: Release hatchery smolts at a smaller size and better condition by increasing their physical fitness. This would be achieved by constructing rearing facilities at McKenzie Hatchery that increase water velocity, simulating natural flows. Studies at Round Butte Hatchery have shown better adult returns from smolts reared in higher velocity waters with volitional release (Smith and The Confederated Tribes of the Warms Springs Reservation of Oregon, 1991).
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 13
Issue 2. Hatchery and wild fish interaction.
Alternative 2.1: Reduce the number of smolts released, up to and including program elimination. A reduction in numbers of smolts released may serve to reduce the potential negative interactions of hatchery fish on the wild population (competition, predation). However, complete program elimination may increase the risk of losing the wild fish gene pool; use of the hatchery broodstock as a reserve for the wild population would no longer be viable. In addition, there would be fishery impacts in the McKenzie, mainstem Willamette and Columbia Rivers to consider with a program reduction or elimination.
Alternative 2.2: Move production to an acclimation site outside of the McKenzie basin for better segregation from the wild run.
By moving the acclimation site, hatchery adults would be less likely to return to the McKenzie River. This would allow the McKenzie River to remain a predominantly wild-fish only Chinook river. The broodstock would be kept separate from wild fish and other stocks and therefore remain available for use as a genetic reserve for the wild population. Infusion of wild fish from the McKenzie River would be required to maintain this possible reserve.
Moving production would require making additional pond space available at another acclimation site. In addition, a unique externally detectable mark should be used to differentiate McKenzie stock from native stock. By combining runs acclimated to return to the same facility, there is an increased potential for these fish to spawn in the wild together outside of the hatchery facility, diluting the genetic integrity of returning unmarked progeny (F1 generation). In addition, because unmarked progeny are impossible to externally differentiate from wild fish, it would decrease the likelihood that unmarked fish were predominantly based on native stock for the surrogate river. This would have implications for moving unmarked fish above barriers.
Recommendation: Continue current program (see Section 1.11). Further evaluate the potential for implementing an off-site acclimation facility if progress isn’t made reducing the numbers of hatchery fish interacting with the wild fish above Leaburg dam.
Alternative 2.3: Install an automatic selection facility at Leaburg Dam to allow unhindered upstream passage to wild Chinook while shunting hatchery-origin Chinook and steelhead back downstream or to a holding facility for the hatchery.
Alternative 2.4: Allow liberal harvest by anglers on adipose-marked fish.
Alternative 2.5: Additional olfactory attractant or other chemical cue combined with augmented flow through the hatchery would increase the numbers of hatchery fish returning to the hatchery and thereby decrease numbers of hatchery-origin fish spawning in the wild.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 14
Issue 3. Outplant program improvements.
Alternative 3.1: Improve program logistics and success with better equipment. This would include an adequately equipped carrier to transport fish with less stress.
Alternative 3.2: Conduct monitoring on adult outplants and juvenile production. This could include monitoring juvenile passage and survival through dams.
Alternative 3.3: Release of unmarked fish above Trail Bridge and Cougar dams. Currently only marked fish are released to these locations. If mortality rates of juvenile Chinook passing downstream are acceptable, release unmarked fish above Trail Bridge and Cougar dam.
Alternative 3.4: Provide medication to outplants to decrease incidence of disease and increase survival to spawning.
Issue 4. Improved facilities at McKenzie Hatchery are needed.
Alternative 4.1. New intake screens should be installed to meet NOAA guidelines.
Alternative 4.2. A reliable long-term back-up water supply is required at McKenzie Hatchery to reduce the risk to both hatchery and wild broodstock during low water events.
Alternative 4.3. Improve the McKenzie Hatchery trapping facility with a system to allow in- water handling of adult fish and reduced handling time. Such improvements would reduce associated stress, disease and latent mortality. By minimizing handling related stress and mortality, fewer fish would need to be collected for broodstock and increased survival and reproductive success would be expected for fish moved above the dams.
Issue 5. Improved access to historic spawning and rearing areas.
Alternative 5.1. A fish ladder at Trail Bridge Dam will increase survival above the dam by reducing handling and other stress-related mortality to fish placed above the dam.
1.16.3 Potential Reforms and Investments
Issue 1: Hatchery product to mimic wild population.
PRI 1.1: Conduct studies to re-evaluate size-at-release strategies. Depending upon results, may require money for more pond space. $$-$$$$$
PRI 1.2: A determination of production efficiency of wild fish for the mitigation hatchery would be required prior to converting domestic stocks to wild stocks. Conversion to a wild broodstock for McKenzie Hatchery could provide a back-up genetic reserve to the wild population. $$ (for further background research).
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 15
PRI 1.3: Build rearing facilities to allow for higher water flows simulating natural conditions. These conditions will favor the development of smaller, more physically fit smolts more closely mimicing those found in the wild. Designs for volitional release will decrease handling and increase survival. $$$$-$$$$$
Issue 2. Hatchery and wild fish interaction.
PRI 2.1: Reduce numbers of smolts released. Cost savings would vary with size of program reduction.
PRI 2.2: An automatic selection facility at Leaburg Dam. To maintain the predominantly wild spring Chinook population above Leaburg Dam, no more than 10% of the Chinook being passed upstream should be of hatchery origin (to be in compliance with the NFCP). Outside of the peak of migration, the trap at Leaburg Dam is operated to limit the number of hatchery-origin fish passing the dam. The current trapping operation requires excessive handling of spring Chinook. During the peak of the migration, hatchery and wild fish are allowed unimpeded passage above the dam to minimize take on wild fish and to reduce the danger of exceeding the trap capacity.
An automatic selection facility at the dam would decrease the numbers of hatchery fish spawning above Leaburg Dam regardless of how many wild fish are passing at any given time, thus complying with the NFCP while minimizing take on listed Chinook. This selection facility could incorporate a video-recognition system allowing the free upstream passage of unmarked fish. Marked fish would be shunted back downstream or to a holding tank for removal to the hatchery or recycling downstream for more harvest opportunities. In low return years, the trap could function as an additional broodstock source for the hatchery.
A possible video-recognition system would include computer software combined with a mechanical device to differentially pass marked and unmarked fish through the dam, as well as differentiate steelhead from Chinook. $$$$$
PRI 2.3: Move the production facility out of the McKenzie basin. Costs would be associated with enlarging another facility, possibly Willamette Hatchery, in order to support the added needs of maintaining separate broodstock. Some extra staffing would be required in addition to staff savings from McKenzie Hatchery. A pilot project should be run prior to full commitment to hatchery improvements to judge the potential for success of the program. $$$-$$$$$
PSI 2.4: Olfactory attractant and augmented flow to the hatchery will increase the numbers of hatchery fish returning to the hatchery rather than spawning in the wild. $$$$
Issue 3. Outplant program improvements.
PRI 3.1: Improve outplant survival with a larger liberation truck with chiller. A 2400 gallon truck with chiller costs approximately $170,000 (Gary Yeager, Willamette Hatchery Manager, McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 16
personal communication). $$$
PRI 3.2: Staff time and equipment needed to monitor success of outplant program, including monitoring juvenile passage and survival through dams. Monitoring should be structured to contribute towards the “measurable criteria” as identified in the NFCP. $$-$$$
PRI 3.3: Expand outplanting of unmarked fish above Cougar and Trail Bridge Reservoirs (currently outplant marked fish only). There would be some costs associated with evaluating mortality through the dams. $-$$
PRI 3.4: Medication and increased staff time required to medicate fish to be outplanted. Monitoring of success of medication could be incorporated into 3.2. $-$$
PRI 3.5: Develop accessible release locations (ex. ramps) to increase survival to outplanted fish. $-$$
Issue 4. Improved facilities at McKenzie Hatchery are needed.
PSI 4.1: Bring intake screens into compliance with NOAA-Fisheries guidelines. $611K for the Cogswell intake and $544K for the main intake on the Leaburg Canal (Kurt Kremers, McKenzie Hatchery manager, pers. comm.). $$$$-$$$$$
PSI 4.2: Development of a suitable back up water supply requires a feasibility study and consideration of alternatives prior to selection and implementation. $$$$-$$$$$
PSI 4.3: Improve the McKenzie Hatchery trap to allow sorting and trapping of fish throughout the entire spring Chinook run without de-watering fish. $$$-$$$$
Issue 5. Improved access to historic spawning and rearing areas.
PSI 5.1: A fish ladder to passive passage at Trail Bridge Dam. $$$$$$
For reference: $ <$50,000 $$ $50,000-<$100,000 $$$ $100,000-<$500,000 $$$$ $500,000-<$1,000,000 $$$$$ $1,000,000-$5,000,000 $$$$$$ >$5,000,000
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 17
SECTION 2. PROGRAM EFFECTS ON ESA-LISTED SALMONID POPULATIONS.
2.1) List all ESA permits or authorizations in hand for the hatchery program.
The NMFS (2000) Biological Opinion on the impacts of artificial propagation programs (reference listed below) provides temporary coverage for the McKenzie spring Chinook program. Once adopted, this HGMP will serve as the authorizing document under ESA for the McKenzie Hatchery spring Chinook program.
At this time, several other ESA documents provide additional analysis relating to the spring Chinook resources in the McKenzie River. These are listed below:
FERC. (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2001. Biological Assessment for the Eugene Water and Electric Board’s McKenzie River Hydroelectric Projects. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
FERC. 2003. Biological Assessment for Eugene Water and Electric Board’s Carmen Smith Hydroelectric Project. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Biological Opinion on the impacts from the collection, rearing, and release of listed and non-listed salmonids associated with artificial propagation programs in the Upper Willamette spring Chinook and winter steelhead evolutionarily significant units. Portland, OR.
NMFS and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2001. Biological Opinion on the effects of the relicensing of EWEB’s Leaburg-Walterville hydroelectric project in the McKenzie subbasin, Oregon, on Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon, Columbia River bull trout, Canada Lynx, Bald Eagle, Northern Spotted Owl, Bradshaw’s Lomation, Kincaids’s Lupine. National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon.
NMFS. 2003. Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Consultation on the effects of EWEB’s Carmen-Smith Part 12 Submittal to FERC for Trail Bridge Dam Emergency Spillway Expansion, and Continued Operation of the Carmen-Smith Hydroelectric Project in the McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon on: Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon. National Marine Fisheries Service, Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon.
USACE (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2000. Biological Assessment of the effects of the Willamette River Basin flood control projects on species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Final; April 2000. USACE Portland District.
ODFW also has a Section 6 Cooperative Agreement with the USFWS for listed species under USFWS jurisdiction.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 18
2.2) Provide descriptions, status, and projected take actions and levels for ESA-listed natural populations in the target area.
2.2.1) Description of ESA-listed salmonid population(s) affected by the program.
a) Identify the ESA-listed population(s) that will be directly affected by the program.
Upper Willamette Chinook Salmon
The Upper Willamette River (UWR) Chinook salmon, which includes the McKenzie River spring Chinook population, was listed as threatened under the ESA on March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14308). Critical habitat was designated Feb. 16, 2000 (65 FR 7764).
Life history Information for McKenzie Spring Chinook
Adult run timing and spawning distribution
The largest remaining wild population of UWR spring Chinook in the Willamette Basin is in the McKenzie population. UWR spring Chinook typically enter the Columbia River in February and March. Adults typically enter the McKenzie sub-basin in mid May, with the peak of the run passing Leaburg in June. Adult migration tapers off in July, associated with rising water temperatures. Movement past Leaburg resumes in August and September as spawning season approaches (Tim Downey, EWEB biologist, personal communication). Spawning occurs from August through October, with peak spawning in September (Mattson, 1962). Most of the natural spawning area is above Leaburg Dam. The current spawning timing and distribution appears to be similar to what it was historically. A 1903 document by the Oregon Department of Fisheries states: “It has been generally reported by settlers and those living along the river that salmon can be seen spawning during the months of August and September all along the river, but principally from Leaburg post office up to its source” (ODF 1903).
Age structure
Willamette and McKenzie spring Chinook return from the ocean as 3-,4-,5-,and 6-year- old fish. Rich and Holmes (1928), reporting on marking studies done on Willamette basin spring Chinook runs between 1916 and 1927, reported that the most abundant age class was age 5 fish, and age 6 fish were more abundant than age 4 fish. Mattson (1963) analyzed scales from spring Chinook caught in the sport fisheries in the Willamette River from 1946-48 and 1951. He reported that 4.6% were 3-year-olds (jacks); 24.2 % were age 4; 61.1% were age 5; and 10.5% were age 6. The samples analyzed by these investigators were presumably a mixture of hatchery and wild Chinook. Recent hatchery returns have shown a predominance of 4-year-old fish in the hatchery returns. Thus it appears there has been a significant shift toward 4-year-old returns within the hatchery population and a reduction of the age-5 and age-6 returns. For comparison, another 1990 McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 19
sample was collected from spawning grounds above Leaburg dam and from fish captured in the Leaburg ladder. This sample, presumed to be mostly wild fish, showed only 28% age 4, and 69% age 5, which is similar to the age structure reported by Mattson (1963), but with fewer age 6 fish (Table 5 and Fig. 1).
The reason for the apparent shift in age-at-return observed in the hatchery population is unclear. Mattson (1963) showed that the faster growing individuals of a given year class tended to migrate to the ocean at an earlier age. He also showed that early migrants also tended to return at a younger age, primarily at age 3 and 4. Thus the shift to younger age at return in the hatchery population may be a reflection of the faster growth rate experienced by hatchery fish rather than a genetic bias. The apparent reduction of age 6 fish in both hatchery and wild populations may be due to increasing fishing pressure in the ocean, where the cumulative vulnerability to capture is increased with each successive year of ocean life.
Table 5. Age distribution of McKenzie Chinook in 1990 and 1966. Data from scale analysis.
Return Year Sample Location Age 3 Age 4 Age 5 Age 6 Sample Size 1990 McKenzie Hatchery (Unmarked) 2% 63% 34% 1% 98
McKenzie Hatchery (Known age CWT 1990 1% 59% 39% <1% 171 marked)
S. Surveys and Leaburg ladder 1990 1% 28% 69% 2% 235 (presumed to be mostly wild)
1966 Spawning Gr. near Leaburg Hatchery 3% 56% 41% 0 350
80
60
Percent 40
20 1990 Hatchery 0 1990 "Wild" 3 A ge 4 1946-51 5 6
Figure 1. Age structure of 1990 McKenzie River Chinook hatchery and “wild” spawning ground returns compared to 1946-51 samples.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 20
Spawning and Incubation
Spring Chinook spawning in the Willamette basin usually occurs from August 25 through October 15, with peak spawning activity in September. Mattson (1962) noted the latest natural spawning observed in the McKenzie under natural conditions was October 22. However abnormal conditions associated with dam constructions pushed spawning activity into November in some instances. Water temperature is the main factor influencing the time of incubation. Hatching has ranged from 58 to 105 days, but the usual incubation period is from 65 to 105 days. Spawning has occurred throughout the basin historically, including most major tributaries (NMFS/USFWS, 2001).
Rearing
Willamette spring Chinook exhibit complex and variable rearing and migration patterns. Chinook juveniles may spend up to 1½ years in their natal stream. Chinook fry are observed moving downstream past Leaburg dam shortly after emergence. This may be a dispersal movement rather than a true migration. Mattson (1962) identified three general migration patterns in seaward migration of Willamette spring Chinook observed in the lower Willamette River at Lake Oswego: The first is a spring-summer migration of 0-age juveniles which usually peaks from April through June. However, Chinook juveniles were observed as early as January, and peak counts were made as late as August. These first-spring migrants range in size from 40-90 mm. The second migration period occurs in the fall and winter when the fish are about one year old. This migration generally peaks in October and is associated with the onset of heavy fall rains. Fall migrants are usually between 100-130 mm in length. The third migration occurs in the second spring when the fish are about 1 ½ years old. This migration peaks between March and May, and the fish 100-140 mm in length.
Ocean Distribution
Based on coded wire tag returns, McKenzie Chinook spend most of their ocean life in Alaskan and British Columbia waters (NMFS 2000).
Columbia River Bull Trout
Columbia River Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) were listed as “threatened” under the federal ESA in June of 1998. Bull trout are native to the McKenzie River basin, but are rarely seen in the vicinity of the McKenzie Hatchery or downstream. Historically, the basin likely had one or two fluvial populations distributed from the mouth upstream to Tamolitch Falls. Currently, the ODFW List of Wild Populations includes 3 populations of bull trout in the McKenzie Basin: 1) The mainstem McKenzie River and tributaries up to Trail Bridge Dam, 2) the McKenzie River and tributaries from Trail Bridge Dam up to Tamolitch Falls, and 3) the South Fork McKenzie River above Cougar Dam. These populations were artificially formed when dam construction fragmented the original McKenzie population (USFWS 2002). The largest concentrations of bull trout in the McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 21
McKenzie currently are in the South Fork above Cougar Dam and in the main stem McKenzie above river mile 39 (at Leaburg Dam).
Bull trout may benefit from the McKenzie spring Chinook hatchery program due to increased food supply in the form of naturally produced juvenile Chinook in the South Fork McKenzie above Cougar dam and in the mainstem above Trail Bridge Dam resulting from releases of surplus adult hatchery spring Chinook.
Life History Information for McKenzie Bull Trout
Bull trout are strongly associated with very cold headwater stream habitats. They exhibit both resident and migratory life history strategies (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Resident bull trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributary streams in which they spawn and rear. Migratory bull trout spawn in tributary streams where juvenile fish rear for one to four years before migrating to either a lake, river, or the ocean. Bull trout reach sexual maturity at four to seven years of age, and may live as long as 12 years (NMFS 2001).
In the McKenzie River basin, adult bull trout tend to occupy large pools, using available large wood and undercut banks for cover (USFS 1995). Upstream migration begins in April and continues through the summer until September when the fish are found staging in large pools near spawning tributaries (ODFW 2001c). Resident populations of bull trout typically spawn from August through October in periods of declining water temperatures. Anderson and Ollalie creeks are two key spawning and juvenile rearing areas. The majority of bull trout redds are found in sites with small to medium sized gravel in water depths of 17 to 45 cm, with average water velocities of 30 cm/second. Optimal incubation temperatures are from 2-4 ºC. Incubation is from 100 to 140 days, sometimes as much as 200 days. Alevins remain in the gravel for another 65-90 days, emerging in late winter or early spring.
Juvenile bull trout are strongly associated with the substrate, and are usually found near the stream bottom. Juveniles feed primarily on insects at first, but sub-adults quickly become piscivorous. Juvenile bull trout may spend from several months to several years in their natal stream before migrating downstream to larger waters. Studies of juvenile bull trout have found an age 0+ and 2+ migration occurring from April through June. Length frequency data show that age 1+ fish range from 45- 70 mm and age 2+ fish range from 70- 120 mm. Adults are known as voracious indiscriminant fish predators.
An estimated 200 to 300 bull trout spawn annually in the McKenzie River Basin. However, the total adult abundance of bull trout is difficult to estimate because of a lack of information, including the following: 1) the proportion of the adult population spawning in a given year, 2) the number of redds per female (a ratio 2:1 is often assumed), and 3) the sex ratio (ratio during spawning of 1.3 males to 1 female up to 1 male to 2 females) (ODFW 2001c).
Competition and hybridization between brook trout and bull trout are concerns. It is McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 22
assumed that angling has limited the number of older fish in the population. Regulations requiring release of bull trout have been generally accepted, although there is still some harvest as a result of misidentification and illegal taking.
b) Identify the ESA-listed population(s) that may be incidentally affected by the program.
Lower Columbia River Steelhead
The Lower Columbia River steelhead ESU was listed as threatened under the ESA on March 19, 1998. This ESU occupies tributaries to the Columbia River between the Cowlitz and Wind Rivers Washington, inclusive, and the Willamette and Hood Rivers in Oregon, inclusive. Excluded are steelhead in the upper Willamette River Basin above Willamette Falls, and steelhead from the Little and Big White Salmon Rivers in Washington.
Upper Willamette River Steelhead
The Upper Willamette River steelhead ESU (listed as threatened under the ESA on March 24, 1999), includes native winter-run populations from Willamette Falls to and including the Calapooia River. Significant natural populations of steelhead occur in the North Santiam, the South Santiam, the Molalla, and the Calapooia rivers. Additionally, smaller, but still significant natural populations occur in several West Valley tributaries (Tualatin, Yamhill, Luckiamute, Rickreall).
Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon
The Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon ESU was listed as threatened under the ESA on March 24, 1999. This ESU includes all naturally spawned Chinook populations residing below impassable natural barriers (e.g., long-standing, natural waterfalls) from the mouth of the Columbia River to the crest of the Cascade Range just east of the Hood River in Oregon and the White Salmon River in Washington. This ESU excludes populations above Willamette Falls. Within this ESU, there are historic runs of three different Chinook salmon populations: spring- run, tule, and late-fall ‘‘bright’’ Chinook salmon.
Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon
Listed as a threatened species on March 25, 1999. The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of chum salmon in the Columbia River and its tributaries in Washington and Oregon.
Oregon Chub
The reduction of suitable habitat and the restricted distribution of the Oregon chub resulted in a determination of "endangered" status under the federal endangered species act in 1993. Oregon chub are endemic to the Willamette Valley of western Oregon. Historically, Oregon chub were McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 23 found throughout the Willamette Basin from Oregon City to Oakridge. The historical records note collections from the Clackamas River, Molalla River, Mill Creek, Luckiamute River, North Santiam River, South Santiam River, Calapooia River, Long Tom River, Muddy Creek, McKenzie River, Coast Fork Willamette River, Middle Fork Willamette River drainages, and the mainstem Willamette River. Current distribution is limited to populations in the Santiam River, Muddy Creek(s), Camus Creek, and the McKenzie and Middle Fork Willamette River drainages.
2.2.2) Status of ESA-listed salmonid population(s) affected by the program.
Describe the status of the listed natural population(s) relative to “critical” and “viable” population thresholds.
The number of first generation hatchery adults allowed to pass above Leaburg Dam to spawn naturally has been limited to 30% or less by the Willamette Basin Fish Management Plan (ODFW, 1998). However, it is ODFW’s intention to remove as many of the hatchery fish as possible. In the past this has not been possible because of the limited trapping and holding space available in the one functional Leaburg fishway. However, it is anticipated that with improvements made to both the Leaburg fishways in 2002, trapping and removal of nearly 100% of the hatchery fish will be possible in the future.
Recent wild spawning escapements in the McKenzie River exceed critical and interim viable thresholds for abundance and productivity (see table below for these thresholds). The McKenzie River historically produced 40% of the spring Chinook above Willamette Falls and it may now account for half the production potential in the basin. While dams on the mainstem McKenzie River (Trail Bridge) and on tributaries to the McKenzie (Blue River and South Fork McKenzie) have eliminated some historic spawning areas, considerable habitat suitable to support natural spawning and rearing by spring Chinook still exists in the McKenzie basin.
Leaburg Dam fish counts before 1994 were directly affected by releases of hatchery spring Chinook upstream from the dam. Since 1994, counts have ranged from 1,176 to over 8,000 in 2003. Leaburg counts of wild fish have increased from 825 to over 5,000 from 1994 to 2003 with a steadily increasing trend. These numbers do not account for the fact that some wild spring Chinook spawned below Leaburg, thus the number of wild spring Chinook that escaped into the McKenzie Basin is likely higher. Over that period, wild percentages in the Leaburg escapement have increased from 54% to 70-80%. No quantitative estimates of wild population productivity can be derived from historic data because of the confounding effects of hatchery outplants. However, the increasing trend in wild numbers suggests that this population may be reproducing at a rate greater than replacement.
Natural spawning by spring Chinook in the McKenzie is not comprehensively sampled, however annual observations of redds indicate that spawning by spring Chinook occurs both below and above Leaburg, but is primarily above Leaburg (~ 80%). McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 24
Some monitoring of juveniles migrating downstream past Leaburg has occurred since 1985. During the period 1985-92, the number of juveniles that moved downstream past Leaburg Dam was estimated at between about 100,000 and 1.5 million.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 25
Interim designations of “Viable Salmon Population” threshold and critical population threshold for McKenzie spring Chinook (from ODFW, 2001a).
Hatchery Stock Population Critical Thresholds Viable Thresholds Associated Essential for recovery? McKenzie Abundance: 600 spawning Interim McKenzie1 No adults/year Abundance: periodic escapements Productivity: Short term avg. sufficiently large to estimate replacement rate (3-year avg. capacity & productivity spawners per spawner) Productivity: generally increasing projected to result in less than trend critical threshold number of Long term spawners within 3 years (or) Abundance: average spawner Abrupt declines in escapement numbers >50% of basin capacity (>50% in one year) relative to defined under interim strategy recent year average Productivity: long term avg. replacement rate=1 1Each wild population is associated with a subbasin hatchery stock. All other Willamette Basin hatchery stocks are commingled during a portion of the freshwater migration.
Provide the most recent 12 year (e.g. 1988-1999) estimates of annual proportions of direct hatchery-origin and listed natural-origin fish on natural spawning grounds, if known. These data do not currently exist.
Provide the most recent 12 year (e.g. 1988-1999) annual spawning abundance estimates, or any other abundance information. Indicate the source of these data.
Provide the most recent 12 year (e.g. 1988-1999) estimates of annual proportions of direct hatchery-origin and listed natural-origin fish on natural spawning grounds, if known.
ChS counts at Leaburg Dam on the McKenzie River, 1994-2002 (ODFW 2001a).
Wild Hatchery Run YearNumber Percent Number Percent Total 1994 825 54 701 46 1,526 1995 933 58 689 42 1,622 1996 1,105 76 340 24 1,445 1997 991 84 185 16 1,176 1998 1,415 76 459 24 1,874 1999 1,383 72 526 28 1,909 2000 1,985 75 672 25 2,657 2001 3,380 76 1,048 24 4,428 2002 4,104 67 1,983 33 6,087 2/
2/ An additional 690 adipose fin-clipped hatchery fish were removed from Leaburg Dam ladder.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 26
ChS passed above Leaburg Dam, McKenzie River 1991-2002. (ODFW unpublished data)
Unmarked ChS Marked ChS % marked ChS Run Year passed above passed above above Leaburg 1991 4232 55 1% 1992 3617 62 2% 1993 3432 122 3% 1994 1397 110 7% 1995 1467 110 7% 1996 1321 111 8% 1997 1069 41 4% 1998 1790 58 3% 1999 1807 55 3% 2000 2198 335 13% 2001 3433 869 20% 2002 4223 1864 31%
Estimated return of ChS to the McKenzie River, 1990-2002 (ODFW 2001a).
Leaburg McKenzie Sport Catch Est. Natural Spawn Run Dam Hatchery Above Below Below Leaburg Dam 1/ Total Year Count Return Leaburg Leaburg Total Redds No. Fish Return 1990 7,226 3,206 315 1,387 1,702 160 720 12,854 1991 4,359 4,483 64 1,922 1,986 161 725 11,553 1992 3,816 3,407 81 1,195 1,276 106 477 8,976 1993 3,629 2,051 80 1,761 1,841 142 639 8,160 1994 1,526 701 13 486 499 59 266 2,992 1995 1,622 1,135 24 84 108 2/ 66 297 3,162 1996 1,445 1,573 58 244 302 2/ 71 320 3,640 1997 1,176 1,524 0 0 0 3/ 90 405 3,105 1998 1,874 1,690 0 0 0 3/ 95 428 3,992 1999 1,909 2,279 0 0 0 3/ 82 369 4,557 2000 2,657 3,553 0 0 0 3/ 132 594 6,804 2001 4,428 3,920 0 750 750 2/ 100 450 9,548 2002 6,087 5/ 6,832 0 1,500 1,500 2/ 214 963 16,072 1/ Estimated Natural Spawn below Leaburg Dam = No. of Redds below Leaburg Dam X 4.5 Fish/Redd. 2/ Adipose fin-clipped hatchery fish only allowed to be retained. 3/ Closed season. 4/ Preliminary 5/ An additional 690 adipose fin-clipped hatchery fish were removed from Leaburg Dam ladder and hauled and released primarily above Cougar Dam into the South Fork McKenzie River.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 27
Summary of Chinook salmon spawning surveys in the McKenzie River above Leaburg Dam, 1996-2002. (Firman et al. 2002)
Survey Area Number Redds/mi Section Length (mi) Carcasses Redds 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 McKenzie Rivera: Ollalie–McKenzie Trail 10.3 71 168 7 11.4 -- 5.6 17.7 16.3 McKenzie Trail–Hamlin 9.9 44 51 2.1 -- -- 1.6 4.9 5.2 Hamlin–South Fork McKenzie 0.3 13 11 ------36.7 South Fork–Forest Glen 2.4 40 40 0.8 -- -- 2.1 0.8 16.7 Forest Glen–Rosboro Bridge 5.7 72 85 6.1 -- -- 5.8 13.2 14.9 Rosboro Bridge–Ben and Kay 6.5 79 105 4.9 -- -- 3.2 6.3 16.2 Ben and Kay–Leaburg Lake 5.9 3 17 ------3.2 2.9 South Fork McKenzie: Cougar Dam–Road 19 bridge 2.3 142 84 ------36.5 Road 19 bridge–mouth 2.1 35 24 2.9 -- -- 7.6 8.1 11.4 Horse Creek: Separation Creek–mouth 10.7 112 129 ------7.4 12.1 Lost Creek: ------Hwy 126–mouth 0.5 6 16 ------32 McKenzie River: Leaburg Dam–Leaburg Landing 6 172 115 10.3 19.8 15.3 -- 12.3 19.2 a We counted 55 carcasses and 77 redds in the Carmen-Smith spawning channel (500 ft long)
Composition of naturally spawning Spring Chinook salmon based on carcasses recovered in the McKenzie River, 2002 (Firman et al. 2002).
No fin Fin Section clipa clipped % clipped McKenzie spawning channel 50 5 9% Spawning channel–Forest Glen 147 b 21 13% Forest Glen–Leaburg Lake 98 56 36% S Fork McKenzie 108 c 69 39% Horse Creek 101 c 11 10% Lost Creek 5 1 17%
Total Above Leaburg 509 163 24% Total Below Leaburg 56 d 116 67% aOtoliths have not yet been read to determine the proportion of wild and hatchery fish. bOtoliths were not collected from 2 fish. cOtoliths were not collected from 3 fish. dOtoliths were not collected from 1 fish.
2.2.3) Describe hatchery activities, including associated monitoring and evaluation and research programs, that may lead to the take of listed fish in the target area, and provide estimated annual levels of take.
a) Describe hatchery activities that may lead to the take of listed salmonid populations in the target area, including how, where, and when the takes may occur, the risk potential for their occurrence, and the likely effects of the take.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 28
Broodstock collection has a high potential to take listed spring Chinook, through migration delay, capture, handling, and upstream release, during trap operation at McKenzie Hatchery between May 15th and October 10th. Trapping and handling devices may lead to injury to listed fish through injury due to confinement, delayed migration and spawning, or delayed mortality as a result of injury.
NMFS has approved a broodstock take of 10 percent of the broodstock.
b) Provide information regarding past takes associated with the hatchery program, (if known) including numbers taken, and observed injury or mortality levels for listed fish.
Until 2001 when almost all of the returning hatchery fish were marked, wild spring Chinook were not readily distinguishable from hatchery fish in the hatchery, so there is little specific information on the level of take associated with the adult trapping and holding before that time. Table 6 gives the mortality of adult spring Chinook at McKenzie Hatchery for the past 12 years.
Table 6. Numbers of spring Chinook taken for broodstock and holding mortality at McKenzie Hatchery since 1990.
Brood Fish Held Holding Mortality Year Males Females Total Males Males % Females Female % Total Total % 1990 861 398 1283 139 16.14% 95 23.87% 234 18.24% 1991 1641 1309 2973 81 4.94% 135 10.31% 216 7.27% 1992 1019 680 1716 163 16.00% 126 18.53% 289 16.84% 1993 950 965 1928 62 6.53% 82 8.50% 144 7.47% 1994 385 310 702 103 26.75% 118 38.06% 221 31.48% 1995 600 507 1135 53 8.83% 24 4.73% 77 6.78% 1996 584 608 1204 46 7.88% 66 10.86% 112 9.30% 1997 628 644 1283 38 6.05% 26 4.04% 64 4.99% 1998 578 558 1155 31 5.36% 36 6.45% 67 5.80% 1999 719 691 1455 20 2.78% 24 3.47% 44 3.02% 2000 482 468 988 27 5.60% 19 4.06% 46 4.66% 2001 489 560 1059 60 12.27% 59 10.54% 119 11.24% Average last 12 yrs. 9.93% 11.95% 10.59%
c) Indicate contingency plans for addressing situations where take levels within a given year have exceeded, or are projected to exceed, take levels described in this plan for the program.
The contingency plan for excess take of wild spring Chinook adults at McKenzie Hatchery is to haul and release them above Leaburg Dam. This is considered a more prudent option than closing the hatchery trap to all fish. While it reduces the hatchery’s take of wild fish, shutting down the hatchery trap increases the percentage of hatchery McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 29
fish in the river, thereby increasing the likelihood of hatchery fish passing above Leaburg Dam and exceeding the allowable ratio of hatchery/wild fish in the upper river. In addition, trapping at Leaburg Dam handles (takes) 100% of the wild fish while trapping at McKenzie Hatchery only handles 10% or less of the fish that would enter the hatchery.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 30
SECTION 3. RELATIONSHIP OF PROGRAM TO OTHER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
3.1) Describe alignment of the hatchery program with any ESU-wide hatchery plan or other regionally accepted policies. Explain any proposed deviations from the plan or policies.
Biological Opinion On the Impacts From the Collection, Rearing, and Release of Salmonids Associated with Artificial Propagation Programs in the Upper Willamette Spring Chinook and Winter Steelhead Evolutionary Significant Units (NMFS 2000).
This Biological Opinion (BO) was written pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and it covers all the hatchery programs in the Willamette Valley including the McKenzie spring Chinook program. The BO concludes that the proposed hatchery programs will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the wild spring Chinook if a “Reasonable and Prudent Alternative” (RPA) outlined in the document is implemented. The RPA measures are: 1.) immediately reducing the numbers of hatchery fish spawning naturally; 2.) modifying the numbers and release locations of hatchery fish to reduce adverse effects; 3.) development of locally adapted hatchery stocks; 4.) facilitating the identification of naturally- and hatchery-produced fish. In addition to the RPA, the BO specifies a number of “Conservation Recommendations” (Section 9) and terms and conditions for exemption from take prohibition (Section 10). The McKenzie Hatchery spring Chinook program has implemented or is in the process of implementing all of the applicable recommendations and terms and conditions.
Fishery Management and Evaluation Plan-Upper Willamette River Spring Chinook in Freshwater Fisheries of the Willamette Basin and Lower Columbia River Mainstem (ODFW, 2001a). This document outlines the plans for selective fisheries for hatchery Chinook in the Willamette and lower Columbia rivers, and plans for evaluation of the effectiveness of the fishery regulations in protecting natural spawning populations. The McKenzie Hatchery program is part of this comprehensive plan. The selective fishery was implemented in 2002. The Fishery Management and Evaluation Plan (FMEP) calls for a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation program assessing the catch of wild fish, the abundance of wild and hatchery fish, and angler compliance throughout the basin. The results of the monitoring program are to be assessed annually. Review of the FMEP will occur in 2004 after three years of the selective fishery, and every five years thereafter.
Willamette Basin Fish Management Plan- Spring Chinook Chapters (ODFW, 1998) This document provides direction for the management of spring Chinook populations to protect and enhance naturally spawning populations of spring Chinook in each of the sub- basins of the Willamette River Basin by identifying and addressing factors that impact those populations. The plan also restricts fisheries on spring Chinook adults in ways McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 31
consistent with rebuilding wild populations. The measures outlined in the plan are designed to maintain viable populations of spring Chinook in the Willamette River.
The recently adopted Native Fish Conservation Policy (OAR 635-007-0502 through - 0509) and the Fish Hatchery Management Policy (OAR 635-007-0542 though -0548) further refine the objectives of conservation of native fish stocks and limiting the impacts of hatchery produced fish on those native stocks. The Native Fish Conservation Policy (NFCP) defines ODFW’s principle obligation for fish management as the conservation of naturally produced native fish in the geographic areas to which they are indigenous. The policy is based on the concept that locally adapted populations provide the best foundation for maintaining and restoring sustainable naturally produced fish. The NFCP requires a conservation plan for each native stock. The NFCP conservation plans will contain an assessment of the status of each native stock, and a description of the desired biological status relative to measurable biological attributes, a description of short and long term management strategies to address the primary limiting factors, short and long term monitoring and research needs and a description of measurable “trigger” criteria which would indicate a change in status or a need to modify or expand recovery efforts.
The Fish Hatchery Management Policy (FHMP) compliments the NFP in providing direction for the application of hatcheries as a fisheries management tool. The FHMP promotes the use best management practices to ensure conservation of both naturally produced native fish and hatchery produced fish in Oregon. The policy requires a hatchery management plan for each program, and required effective coordination planning be done cooperatively with other state, federal and tribal management partners, university programs, and the public. The policy also provides general fish culture and facility guidelines and measures to maintain the genetic resources of native fish populations spawned or reared in captivity.
The Fish Health Management Policy (OAR 635-007-0960 to 635-007-1000) was developed to “minimize the impact of fish diseases on the state’s fish resources.” The policy applies to all forms of fish hatchery operations, including Salmon and Trout Enhancement (STEP) projects, and to all importation, transportation, release and rearing of non-aquaria species within the state of Oregon. The goal is to inspect and detect disease agents in order to contain and treat them and thus curtail potential impacts on existing fish populations.
3.2) List all existing cooperative agreements, memoranda of understanding, memoranda of agreement, or other management plans or court orders under which program operates.
1. Corps Mitigation Agreement. (USACE, 1990). McKenzie Hatchery is one of several hatcheries funded by the COE for mitigation for impacts of hydroelectric dams in the Willamette Valley.
2. EWEB FERC License # 2496. Mandates improvements to the fish ladders at Leaburg McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 32
Dam which will facilitate trapping to remove hatchery fish. Also mandates screening of Walterville Canal which will increase survival of wild spring Chinook juveniles.
3.3) Relationship to harvest objectives.
3.3.1) Describe fisheries benefiting from the program, and indicate harvest levels and rates for program-origin fish for the last twelve years (1988-99), if available.
Spring Chinook fisheries occur during the spring and summer in the lower mainstem Columbia and in the mainstem Willamette. ODFW implemented selected fisheries on marked hatchery spring Chinook in 2002. The fisheries targets fin-marked hatchery fish only. Willamette spring Chinook management is based on a subbasin plan adopted by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission after a lengthy public process. The plan was revised in 1998 in part to address requirements of the ODFW Wild Fish Policy which adds increased protection for wild fish. In-season regulation of the fishery is based on pre-season estimates of abundance. To assess ocean and freshwater fishery impacts on wild fish, a portion of each brood at McKenzie Hatchery is coded wire tagged, but not adipose fin clipped (double index tag). Fishery impacts on wild fish are estimated based upon comparison of the return rate on these non-clipped (but CWT) fish with the return rate of visibly marked hatchery fish. The double index tag group makes up 5% of the annual production.
Historic harvest rates of Upper Willamette Spring Chinook have ranged from 30-50%. Under the current fishery management plan, the sport fishery harvest impact on wild McKenzie spring Chinook is expected to be 4.7%, and the total impact will be 8.7%. This is about one quarter of the average harvest rate from 1981-97, and about half the harvest rate from 1998-2001. The fishery management strategy is discussed in detail in the Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plan (ODFW 2001a). Exploitation of the hatchery product is limited in order to protect wild spring Chinook. The goal is to limit fishery impacts on wild fish to levels which ensure the survival and rebuilding of these populations. The plan estimates that under the current regulation strategy, a 15% exploitation rate will achieve this goal even under the most pessimistic assumptions.
3.4) Relationship to habitat protection and recovery strategies.
ODFW works with land and resource management agencies, landowners, and other environmental interest groups (such as watershed councils) to ensure the maximum available protection to fish habitat is applied.
EWEB is currently building or rebuilding several fish passage or fish protection structures at their hydroelectric facilities on the McKenzie River. The improvements include a new fish screen for the Walterville hydroelectric diversion canal; rebuilding the tailrace barrier at the Walterville canal; building a new tailrace barrier at the Leaburg Powerhouse; and repairing both fish ladders at the Leaburg Dam. These improvements will benefit both hatchery and wild spring McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 33
Chinook populations.
3.5) Ecological interactions.
Releases of hatchery spring Chinook could increase competition for food with naturally rearing salmonids, including wild spring Chinook. To minimize this risk, McKenzie Hatchery releases are timed to coincide with peak migration periods for the species under the theory that the hatchery smolts will be inclined to move rapidly downstream to estuarine waters and thus minimize intra-specific competition with naturally rearing Chinook.
Potential positive benefits of the hatchery program to bull trout in the McKenzie were discussed in section 2.2 above.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 34
SECTION 4. WATER SOURCE 4.1) Provide a quantitative and narrative description of the water source (spring, well, surface), water quality profile, and natural limitations to production attributable to the water source.
Water rights for McKenzie Hatchery total 31,500 gpm from two sources: the McKenzie River and Cogswell Creek. All raceways are supplied with single-pass water. Cogswell Creek use normally does not surpass 5% of total use throughout the year, including during adult collection. Water temperature can be slightly altered during egg incubation while otolith marking with chilled water is being conducted. Water quality remains high throughout the year with problems only during flood events. McKenzie Hatchery is currently under the Three Basin NPDES permit with no effluent violations. Compliance with NMFS screening criteria needs to be addressed when funds are available.
4.2) Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to minimize the likelihood for the take of listed natural fish as a result of hatchery water withdrawal, screening, or effluent discharge.
McKenzie Hatchery’s main intake is on the Leaburg power canal operated by the Eugene Water and Electric Board. This water source is screened two miles upstream at Leaburg dam on the McKenzie River before reaching the hatchery intake. Risk to listed fish is low as the screens comply with NFMS fish screening criteria.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 35
SECTION 5. FACILITIES.
5.1) Broodstock collection facilities (or methods).
Broodstock enter the McKenzie Hatchery fish ladder from the river and negotiate 12 jump steps where they then advance 100 ft to the next 5 jumps which allows them to pass under Greenwood Drive. From this point they move upstream 50 yards and make a final jump over a finger weir into the collection channel. The collection channel is located at the downstream end of the holding ponds. From here the fish are crowded into the spawning building using a power crowder. A lift brings the fish up to two doping tanks where they can be anesthetized. The fish then can be handled for sorting, inoculation, transport, or placement into the holding ponds for broodstock.
5.2) Fish transportation equipment (description of pen, tank truck, or container used).
McKenzie Hatchery has a liberation tank truck with a refrigerated 1200 gallon capacity. This unit can safely haul up to 130 adult spring Chinook.
5.3) Broodstock holding and spawning facilities.
The adult holding ponds consist of two concrete ponds 30ft X 135ft. Each pond is divided into two separate holding areas with aluminum fencing. The aluminum fencing is also used to keep the fish away from the area of incoming water. The holding ponds have a spray system that is used for treatment of the water for fungus control.
McKenzie Hatchery spawning facility was partially described in the broodstock collection section. During sorting the fish are taken out of the doping tanks and placed on a stainless steel table. Spawning ripeness is determined and the fish is either killed or placed into a tube where it slides back to the holding pond. Fish killed for spawning are bled, rinsed off with water and then placed on stainless steel racks where they wait for egg taking and fertilization. This is all done inside a building out of the weather.
5.4) Incubation facilities.
Incubation facilities consist of 38 full stacks of vertical tray incubators (640 trays). Dual water supplies are available from the McKenzie River and Cogswell Creek which can be isolated from each other. Chilled water capabilities for a limited amount of water exists for otolith marking.
5.5) Rearing facilities.
Rearing facilities at McKenzie Hatchery include 8 Canadian troughs of 89 cubic feet each, and 30 concrete raceways with a volume of 3,338 cubic feet each.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 36
5.6) Acclimation/release facilities.
There are no acclimation sites other than hatchery raceways which drain into the fingerling release pipeline. This pipeline then flows into the McKenzie River via the fish ladder.
5.7) Describe operational difficulties or disasters that led to significant fish mortality.
Flood events can cause operational difficulties due to debris damage to intake facilities and by causing heavy silt loads in the water supply. Flood events cause increased monitoring of the water supply intakes or strainers in incubation building. Normally flood events do not result in significant fish mortality.
5.8) Indicate available back-up systems, and risk aversion measures that will be applied, that minimize the likelihood for the take of listed natural fish that may result from equipment failure, water loss, flooding, disease transmission, or other events that could lead to injury or mortality.
The hatchery is staffed full-time. The water system is equipped with a low-water alarm system to help prevent catastrophic fish loss resulting from water system failure.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 37
SECTION 6. BROODSTOCK ORIGIN AND IDENTITY Describe the origin and identity of broodstock used in the program, its ESA-listing status, annual collection goals, and relationship to wild fish of the same species/population.
6.1) Source.
Broodstock for the McKenzie River spring Chinook program originated from spring Chinook collected at Leaburg Hatchery, and from reaches and tributaries of the McKenzie River. However, there has been some intermingling of other Willamette stocks throughout the history of the hatchery, as discussed below.
6.2) Supporting information.
6.2.1) History.
The broodstock for the McKenzie River spring Chinook hatchery fish originated primarily from adult returns to the McKenzie River basin. However, there has been some intermingling of Middle Fork Willamette stock and there is evidence that strays from other hatcheries were incorporated into the broodstock in the past. An ODFW document (author and date unknown) indicates the following:
• “in some years from 1908-1938, the egg-take station for McKenzie Hatchery was located at or below the confluence with the McKenzie and Willamette Rivers. Willamette and McKenzie stocks were likely mixed on several occasions.”
• “… The 1953 brood reared and released at McKenzie Hatchery contained 30% Middle Fork Willamette stock.”
• “From 1965 to 1975, almost every brood was comprised of or supplemented by stocks transferred into McKenzie Hatchery or the McKenzie River from other Willamette stations: 1965 - No egg take at McKenzie, unknown egg source, probably Dexter. 1966 - Got eggs from Dexter. 1967 – Got adults from Cougar, eggs from Dexter. 1968 – Got fry from Oakridge. 1969 – Got adults from Dexter, about 1/3 of the juveniles released were Dexter stock. 1970 – Adults shipped in from Dexter. 1971 – Adults shipped in from Fall Creek (Willamette stock) mixed with adults from McKenzie. 1972 – Adults from McKenzie and Fall Creek (Willamette); Leaburg Hatchery reared and released mixture of McKenzie and Marion Forks stocks. 1973 – Adults from McKenzie, Dexter, and Fall Creek (Willamette). 1974 – Unknown adult source; eggs came in from Oakridge. 1975 – 1.2 million eggs came in from South Santiam.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 38
• October 3, 1969, Dale Hagey [EWEB biologist] collected 80 vertebral cores Leaburg Dam to Greenwood Drive. Analysis of OTC marks on the cores showed that 48.7% of these spawned carcasses returned from releases of Middle Fork stocks below Dexter Dam.
• Adults returning to McKenzie Hatchery in 1978 bore marks which, when expanded by known ratios of marked to unmarked fish, indicated that 25% of the spawners originated at other hatcheries. (This is a minimum percentage, since not all hatcheries had marked groups out.)”
In the past a portion of the McKenzie production was shipped to other hatcheries for a portion of the rearing. From 1990 to 1992 a portion of eggs were transferred to and reared at Marion Forks Hatchery. In 1993, two batches of eyed eggs were transferred; one group went to Marion Forks Hatchery (320K), and the other went to Willamette Hatchery (432K). Those eggs transferred and reared at Marion Forks were later returned to McKenzie Hatchery as fry. Since 1993, a portion (typically ~320K) of each annual brood has been transferred to Willamette Hatchery and reared through smolt. This transfer ended in 1999 with program changes that allow McKenzie Hatchery to rear and release all production on station.
A portion of eggs were also transferred to a Willamette STEP program in 1991, 1993 and 1996. Eggs were typically reared for 7-8 weeks, and released as fry (see Section 9).
6.2.2) Annual size.
Adult collection goals are based upon annual broodstock needs. To satisfy a smolt production goal of 1,199,000, the current green-egg take goal is 1,500,000. This equates to about 800 adult fish, 400 females and 400 males. A 10% wild fish component in the broodstock (80 fish) would represent about 4% of the wild population of spring Chinook in the McKenzie, which is currently about 2,000 (Jeff Ziller, ODFW, personal communication).
6.2.3) Past and proposed level of natural fish in broodstock.
Adults collected for broodstock may include both naturally produced and hatchery origin fish. Prior to 1996, not all hatchery spring Chinook were marked so the number of wild fish actually used was unknown. The 1998 Willamette Basin Fish Management Plan calls for incorporating 10-25% wild fish into annual broodstock.
6.2.4) Genetic or ecological differences.
No information is available about genetic and ecological differences between the McKenzie Hatchery fish and wild fish other than a difference in age at return as discussed in Section 2.2 above. That said, based on genetic simulations Cramer et al. (1996) concluded that the genetic composition of historic spring Chinook stocks in the McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 39
Willamette basin have been compromised over time by hatchery operations to the point where currently there is little genetic difference between naturally spawning fish and hatchery stock. Chilcote (2003) proposed population productivity is negatively affected by increasing the proportion of hatchery steelhead on spawning grounds, suggesting some sort of behavioral difference between these hatchery and wild fish. It is unclear if the same situation applies to spring Chinook.
6.2.5) Reasons for choosing.
McKenzie River spring Chinook were chosen as the optimal brood source for this program, because it used fish that were indigenous to the basin and therefore is believed to be the best adapted hatchery stock available.
6.3) Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to minimize the likelihood for adverse genetic or ecological effects to listed natural fish that may occur as a result of broodstock selection practices.
The risk of adverse genetic or ecological effects will be minimized by using locally adapted stock and managing the hatchery program to maintain the hatchery product as genetically and phenotypically similar to the wild stock as possible. Measures include incorporating wild stock into the hatchery egg-take each year, and including all age- classes in the broodstock.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 40
SECTION 7. BROODSTOCK COLLECTION
7.1) Life-history stage to be collected (adults, eggs, or juveniles).
Returning adults are collected and spawned for broodstock.
7.2) Collection or sampling design.
Adults used for broodstock purposes are collected throughout the run from May to October. Fish from all portions of the run are used in the broodstock.
7.3) Identity.
(a) Methods for identifying target populations (if more than one population may be present).
Currently, nearly all (95%) spring Chinook are externally marked with an adipose fin clip and marked with an otolith marker. The remaining 5% are internally marked with a CWT; see section 10.7 for more details. In addition to the external adipose mark, a portion (~20%) of each release group are coded wire tagged (Ad+CWT). The internal CWT and otolith mark allows varying hatchery stocks to be differentiated.
(b) Methods for identifying hatchery origin fish from naturally spawned fish.
Beginning with brood year 1994, nearly all hatchery reared spring Chinook have been externally marked with an adipose fin clip; in 1995, 5% of the brood were not adipose fin clipped, but were CWT. Non-finclipped fish returning to the hatchery are checked for the presence of a CWT. Both marks allow hatchery origin fish to be distinguished from naturally spawned fish. In addition, all McKenzie fish receive an otolith mark which enables investigators to differentiate (after spawning) unmarked hatchery fish from naturally spawned wild fish.
7.4) Proposed number to be collected:
7.4.1) Program goal (assuming 1:1 sex ratio for adults):
McKenzie River stock are spawned at a 1:1 male-to-female spawning ratio (IHOT, 1997).
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 41
Table 8. Broodstock collection and production data for brood years 1988-2001.
Adults Year Females Males Jacks Eggs Juveniles 1988 1089 1647 30 1,553,110 1,073,520 1989 1152 1952 50 2,208,490 1,815,200 1990 1156 1980 80 1,300,430 1,075,470 1991 1840 2610 47 2,311,450 1,112,630 1992 1410 1931 33 2,458,400 1,809,580 1993 1000 1035 16 3,513,900 2,657,440 1994 310 385 7 809,240 592,240 1995 507 600 7 1,914,590 1,234,970 1996 732 824 17 2,059,000 1,357,750 1997 759 776 11 2,804,880 1,832,450 1998 811 849 30 2,174,900 1,597,880 1999 993 1238 48 2,677,000 1,488,340 2000 1584 1921 48 1,850,880 1,329,330 2001 1681 2171 68 2,503,000 1,219,000
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 42
Table 9. Adult spring Chinook returns to McKenzie Hatchery, fish used for broodstock, eggs transferred, and fry ponded (1990 – 2001).
Adults Collected 1/ Brood Year Adults Counted # Males # Females Spawnin Egg Egg Fry Live-Out at McKenzie Spawned Spawned g Ratio Take (in Transfers Ponded Hatchery (M:F) 1,000’s) (in 1,000's) 1990 3,216 N/A4/ 297 1,300 330 873 / 219 1,855 1991 4,497 N/A4/ 492 2,311 336 1,113 / 0 335 1992 3,374 N/A4/ 539 2,458 330 1,835 / 0 324 1993 2,051 650 745 0.87 3,514 432 2,746 56 /421 1994 702 176 186 0.95 809 660 0 1995 1,135 455 461 0.99 1,915 370 1,150 / 0 363 1996 1,573 1/ 484 487 1.00 2,059 311 1,414 / 122 308 1997 1,546 2/ 591 617 0.96 2,805 1,826 263 1998 1,690 493 506 0.97 2,351 330 1,625 / 535 306 1999 2,279 658 673 0.98 2,677 1,497 793 2000 3553 452 450 0.99 1,851 1,380 1863 2001 3920 432 542 0.80 2,503 1,488 2116 1/ In 1996, 50 adults were transferred from Leaburg Dam to McKenzie Hatchery. 2/ In 1997, 26 adults were transferred from Leaburg Dam to McKenzie Hatchery. 3/ Estimated number of egg takes. 4/ Prior to 1993, the number of adult males spawned was not recorded.
7.5) Disposition of hatchery-origin fish collected in surplus of broodstock needs.
Surplus fish are disposed of in accordance with ODFW’s Fish Hatchery Management Policy (OAR 635-007-0542 to 0548). Section 14(c) of the Policy specifies disposal options of surplus broodstock in priority order for harvest hatchery programs such as McKenzie spring Chinook.
Currently, some surplus hatchery adults are hauled and released in the South Fork McKenzie above Cougar Dam and in the mainstem McKenzie above Trail Bridge Dam to use isolated habitats. The benefits don’t outweigh the risks at this time to move unmarked fish above the dams on the McKenzie River (Ziller et al. 2002).
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 43
7.6) Fish transportation and holding methods.
Refer to sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 for description of handling, holding and transportation of broodstock.
7.7) Describe fish health maintenance and sanitation procedures applied.
Broodstock is injected with antibiotics and treated with hydrogen peroxide for fungus control. If mortality is present it is removed daily, Pathology checks health status monthly, and high water quality is maintained.
Typical medications used include: Anesthetics – MS222 or CO2; Salve – Iodophor; Antibiotics – Erythromycin and Oxytetracycline.
7.8) Disposition of carcasses.
Spawned out carcasses are either used for stream enrichment consistent with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality requirements, management plans and pathology constraints identified in OAR 635-007-0549, or they are sold to commercial rendering companies according to established ODFW contract procedures.
7.9) Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to minimize the likelihood for adverse genetic or ecological effects to listed natural fish resulting from the broodstock collection program.
The risk of adverse ecological or genetic effects to listed fish will be minimized by hatchery management practices described in this document and the Fish Hatchery Management Plan which is required by the Fish Hatchery Management Policy (see Section 3.2).
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 44
SECTION 8. MATING Describe fish mating procedures that will be used, including those applied to meet performance indicators identified previously.
8.1) Selection method.
Adults used for brood are mixed as they return to the hatchery. Spawners are selected and paired randomly from this mixed pool of spawners.
8.2) Males.
Males and females are randomly selected from the available broodstock. The typical sex ratio for this program is a 1:1 male-to-female spawning ratio. No backup males are used. Jacks are generally not used for spawning.
8.3) Fertilization.
Broodstock are killed and bled prior to spawning. Kidney tissue is sampled to test for bacterial kidney disease (BKD). All spawning containers are disinfected with iodophore between uses. Eggs from each female are fertilized with sperm from one male. Males are not re-used. Eggs from two females are placed in each Heath tray separated by a divider. Fertilized eggs are subjected to a 10-minute iodophore bath for disinfection in the Heath trays. Trays and egg batches are individually marked so eggs can be discarded if BKD tests are positive.
If the hatchery reduces the number of eggs retained, a representative sample of each male/female cross is culled. Exceptions may occur if there is a high degree of disease or epidemics associated with certain parents; if this occurs, offspring of diseased parents may be culled, in order to maximize long-term survival of the brood.
In addition to the Department-wide fish disease control and a disease prevention programs, McKenzie Hatchery monitors fish health, fish and egg movement, therapeutic and prophylactic treatments, and sanitation activities (IHOT, 1997).
8.4) Cryopreserved gametes.
No cryopreserved gametes are used for the McKenzie spring Chinook (stock 023) program.
8.5) Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to minimize the likelihood for adverse genetic or ecological effects to listed natural fish resulting from the mating scheme.
Pairs of males and females are mated randomly with conscious effort made to avoid bias due to size or other external characteristics. Since broodstock is collected throughout the McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 45
temporal duration of the run, it is believed that this method is sufficiently random to avoid genetic bias within the hatchery program.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 46
SECTION 9. INCUBATION AND REARING -
Specify any management goals (e.g. “egg to smolt survival”) that the hatchery is currently operating under for the hatchery stock in the appropriate sections below. Provide data on the success of meeting the desired hatchery goals.
9.1 Incubation
9.1.1 Number of eggs taken and survival rate to eye-up or ponding
Table 10 gives the survival rates from green eggs to ponding for the years 1988 to 1999.
Table 10. Survival rates from green egg to eye-up and ponding.
Year %Egg Loss %Fry Loss 1988 10.7 1.0 1989 5.7 0.6 1990 6.7 1.1 1991 5.5 1.2 1992 10.6 1.4 1993 8.6 1.3 1994 16.1 2.8 1995 11.1 1.2 1996 5.1 1.0 1997 13.5 1.1 1998 10.4 1.8 1999 7.3 0.6
9.1.2) Cause for, and disposition of surplus egg takes.
If BKD levels rise extra eggs may be taken to safeguard production. Extra broodstock are not kept through the eyed stage.
9.1.3) Loading densities applied during incubation.
Egg size – 84 / oz.; Incubator flows – 4.5 gpm; 8,000 eggs per tray
9.1.4) Incubation conditions.
Water temperatures are monitored with thermographs. Chilled water is used to otolith mark all fry. Silt management is accomplished by visual inspection and rodding of trays when needed. Cumulative temperatures are recorded daily.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 47
9.1.5) Ponding.
Button up happens approximately from 1500 to 1550 TU’s. A visual check is performed to determine degree of button up. Ponding normally occurs from mid December through January and is a forced ponding. Once ponded into Canadian troughs, feeding is held off for 7 to 10 days for maximum absorption of yolk sac. Fish size is 1250/lb to 1325/lb. Lengths are not taken at ponding.
9.1.6) Fish health maintenance and monitoring.
The McKenzie Hatchery is operated in compliance with ODFW’s Fish Health Management Policy and the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT) fish health guidelines.
Eggs are treated with formalin three times a week for fungus control using a drip method. Visual monitoring is conducted daily to detect disease or other problems. Eggs are shocked at approximately 550 TU’s by pouring eggs from trays into baskets. Eggs are counted and picked by machine with some hand picking by hatchery crew. Yolk sac malformation is not a problem at McKenzie Hatchery.
All family egg groups are numbered and tracked throughout the incubation process. Alarms on the water supply and daily monitoring of eggs minimizes risk. Silt is removed by rodding of the trays.
9.1.7) Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to minimize the likelihood for adverse genetic and ecological effects to listed fish during incubation.
The protocols listed above to maintain survival across all stages of incubation are followed for eggs of hatchery and wild origin fish. Maximum and unbiased survival is the goal for both hatchery and wild stock. Consequently, all eggs are handled in a manner to reduce any adverse effects, including differential survival (as it pertains to selecting for traits), altered water quality etc. As mentioned previously, the hatchery is staffed at all hours and alarms systems are in place to reduce the risk to both listed and non-listed fish.
9.2) Rearing:
9.2.1) Provide survival rate data by hatchery life stage (fry to fingerling; fingerling to smolt) for the most recent twelve years or for years dependable data are available. Survival rates from fry to smolt are given in Table 11.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 48
Table 11. Survival rates for spring Chinook reared at McKenzie Hatchery 1989- 2000.
YEAR fry to fingerling fingerling to smolt 1989 99.4% 96.3% 1990 98.9% 94.7% 1991 98.8% 94.6% 1992 98.6% 93.8% 1993 98.7% 95.6% 1994 97.2% 92.9% 1995 98.8% 95 0% 1996 99.0% 96.3% 1997 98.9% 96.7% 1998 94.7% 97.0% 1999 99.4% 96.6% 2000 98.8% 96.1% 9.2.2) Density and loading criteria (goals and actual levels).
Rearing standard limits for Chinook are 8 lbs./gpm and 1.23 lb/cu. ft (IHOT, 1993). Rearing density in 2001 ranged from 0.80 lb/cu. ft to 1.11 lb/cu. ft at release. Pounds per gallon per minute ranged from 5.75 to 7.45 at release.
9.2.3) Fish rearing conditions
Water temperatures are recorded daily by thermograph, loading densities monitored with monthly sampling, ponds cleaned weekly, and mortality removed daily.
9.2.4) Indicate biweekly or monthly fish growth information (average program performance), including length, weight, and condition factor data collected during rearing, if available.
Growth rates are programmed for a specific target weight at release. See Table 12. Interim growth rate data are not available.
Table 12. Targeted size (fish per pound at the end of the month) for the three release groups of McKenzie spring Chinook.
Month Nov. Release Feb. Release Mar. Release January 907 1080 1022 February 427 580 570 March 219 350 330 April 120 222 210 May 65.7 136.5 124
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 49
June 38 82.5 76 July 22 50 46 August 14.3 33.5 31 September 10.2 25.8 23.9 October 8.0 20.5 19.3 November Released 17.2 15.7 December 14.4 12.9 January 12.0 10.8 February Released 9.0 March Released
9.2.5) Indicate monthly fish growth rate and energy reserve data if available. See 9.2.4.
9.2.6) Indicate food type used, daily application schedule, feeding rate range (e.g. % B.W./day and lbs/gpm inflow), and estimates of total food conversion efficiency during rearing.
Fish are hand fed BioOregon BioMoist Feed in morning or throughout the day as needed. B.W./day range 1.0% - 3.6%. Average yearly food conversion is 1.25.
9.2.7) Fish health monitoring, disease treatment, and sanitation procedures.
Daily fish health observation, daily mortality removal and tracking, prophylactic Aquamycin treatments for BKD, formalin treatments for fungus control, monthly fish health checks by pathology, equipment disinfection.
9.2.8) Smolt development indices (e.g. gill ATPase activity), if applicable. N/A
9.2.9) Indicate the use of "natural" rearing methods as applied in the program.
The fish are reared under natural water temperatures.
9.2.10) Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to minimize the likelihood for adverse genetic and ecological effects to listed fish under propagation.
No listed fish are propagated at McKenzie Hatchery other than those wild fish used in the broodstock. Staff reduce potential for domesticating fish by following established hatchery protocols. Fish are released at a size to encourage rapid downstream migration and thereby minimize interactions with wild fish.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 50
SECTION 10. RELEASE Describe fish release levels, and release practices applied through the hatchery program.
10.1) Proposed fish release levels.
Under the current spring Chinook program at McKenzie Hatchery, all releases of are age- one or age 1+ smolts released at the hatchery. The numbers and size targets of the proposed (and current) program are given in Table 13.
The proportion of annual brood production released into the Willamette basin in the fall and spring has varied from year-to-year. Since 1996 brood, about two-thirds of all lower Willamette releases have been liberated in the fall, after one year of hatchery rearing: age one-smolt.
Table 13. Targeted size and numbers of release groups of spring Chinook at McKenzie Hatchery.
Maximum Size (fish/lb.) Release Date Location Life Stage Number Eggs Unfed Fry Fry Fingerling Yearling 350,000 8/lb November McKenzie Hatch. 1+ Yearling 400,000 12/lb February McKenzie Hatch. 1+ Yearling 449,000 9/lb March McKenzie Hatch.
10.2) Specific location(s) of proposed release(s).
Stream, river, or watercourse: McKenzie River 0201500000 Release point: River Mile 37, Lat. N44 degrees 7.11’ Lon W122 degrees 38.27’ Major watershed: Willamette River Basin or Region: Columbia Basin
10.3) Actual numbers and sizes of fish released by age class through the program.
Planned releases for the 2001 and 2002 brood years (2002 and 2003 release years) are 1,199,000. The size and times of the releases are given in Table 13 in Section 10.1 above. Currently, smolts are released into the McKenzie River via the adult collection ladder that runs from McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 51
the hatchery to the mainstem McKenzie River.
Spring Chinook releases and size data since 1990 brood year are reported in Appendix Table 2. The data in Appendix Table 2 are from the ODFW HMIS database. Much of the production of the McKenzie Hatchery during that time period (1990-99) has been used to support a series of acclimation experiments in the lower Willamette River. That research program has been concluded, and off-site smolt releases or transfers are no longer part of the McKenzie Hatchery program. In the recent past there have also been some pre-smolt release of spring Chinook into reservoirs in the McKenzie and upper Willamette basin.
10.4) Actual dates of release and description of release protocols.
Releases of McKenzie Hatchery production for brood years 1990 to 2000 are listed in Appendix Table 2. Under the current program, smolt releases from McKenzie Hatchery are completed around the first week of November (350K @ 8/lb), Feb. (400K @ 12/lb), and March (449K @ 9/lb). Actual release dates are variable to take advantage of freshets as well as considerations of fish size and pathology recommendations. To release fish from McKenzie Hatchery, screens are pulled to initially allow fish to leave the ponds volitionally prior to being forced from the ponds into the fingerling release pipe traveling underground to the fish ladder emptying into the McKenzie River.
10.5) Fish transportation procedures, if applicable.
All smolts are now released at the hatchery into the McKenzie River. See section 5.2 for description of liberation transport unit for hauling adults.
10.6) Acclimation procedures.
Under the current spring Chinook program at McKenzie Hatchery there is no acclimation procedure. In the recent past McKenzie Hatchery smolts have been used in experimental acclimation programs in the lower Willamette River (see Sec. 10.3 above). However, those experiments have been concluded and are no longer part of the production of McKenzie Hatchery.
10.7) Marks applied, and proportions of the total hatchery population marked, to identify hatchery adults.
Nearly all (95%) spring Chinook are adipose fin clipped. A small portion of each brood is not adipose fin clipped, but are coded wire tagged; this marking strategy is referred to as a double index tag. A group of 160,000 (~15% annual production) will be tagged with a coded wire tag (CWT). All fish are given an otolith marker. These marks allow hatchery-origin fish to be distinguished from naturally produced fish.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 52
10.8) Disposition plans for fish identified at the time of release as surplus to programmed or approved levels.
Surpluses are generally reduced to production levels well before time of release. In the past, some surplus fish as fingerlings have been released into the Mohawk River, a tributary of the lower McKenzie River, and into Fall Creek Reservoir, a tributary of the Middle Fork of the Willamette River. However, under current policy, surplus juveniles are either destroyed or released into closed water bodies as forage for bass.
10.9) Fish health certification procedures applied pre-release.
ODFW fish pathologists conduct monthly fish health checks. The pathologists also conduct a pre-liberation disease check on each release group.
10.10) Emergency release procedures in response to flooding or water system failure.
Contingency plans are in place to deal with chemical spills or water system failures. In the event of a complete water system failure, fish programmed for release into the McKenzie River would be released into the river after Regional or Manager approval. Any fish not programmed for release into the McKenzie would be allowed to die in the ponds. In the event of a partial water system failure or a chemical spill upstream, fish would be saved according to the following priorities: 1.Chinook Broodstock 2. Eggs and Fry 3. Fingerlings 4. Smolts
10.11) Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to minimize the likelihood for adverse genetic and ecological effects to listed fish resulting from fish releases.
The McKenzie spring Chinook program releases are scheduled to mimic natural migration patterns observed in natural rearing spring Chinook in the McKenzie River. By releasing the fish at optimal migration times, inter-specific competition with wild fish should be minimized.
Fish are released at sizes larger than natural fish, but at the same life history stages. This is to decrease the amount of time the hatchery fish spend in the river. Willamette Basin Survival Studies have shown smaller fish tend to spend more time in the river before passing Willamette Falls on their way to the ocean, increasing the potential for interactions with wild fish.
In addition, fish are released during high flow events to increase the likelihood of rapid downstream migrations and to decrease the likelihood of interactions with wild fish.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 53
SECTION 11. MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
11.1) Monitoring and evaluation of “Performance Indicators” presented in Section 1.10.
11.1.1) Describe plans and methods proposed to collect data necessary to respond to each “Performance Indicator” identified for the program.
The McKenzie Hatchery spring Chinook program is an established hatchery program with an established broodstock derived from native stock. ODFW has recently completed several analyses relating specifically to this program, including analysis of fishery impacts, and risk aversion measures for genetic impacts. These data and analyses are presented in the Upper Willamette Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plan (ODFW 2001a). Many adjustments within the hatchery program are already in place to minimize and avoid risks to ESA listed species. Thus, much of the monitoring and evaluation of the McKenzie Hatchery program is incorporated into routine ODFW operations within the Hatchery, Fish Pathology, and Fish Management programs. Ongoing research into additional issues relating to this hatchery program are discussed in Section 12. The following is a listing of monitoring and evaluation efforts associated with each of the performance indicators for the McKenzie spring Chinook program.
Category 1-Harvest
Standard 1.1: Provide 1,000 adult hatchery spring Chinook for sport harvest in the McKenzie River in such a way that impacts to the wild population of spring Chinook are within limits described in the FMEP. Ancillary impacts on wild spring Chinook populations from angling will be minimized. (It is recognized that angling may have risks to the wild population associated with it, however, harvest is a beneficial result of the hatchery program goal.)
Indicator: Number of hatchery spring Chinook harvested.
Monitoring and Evaluation: ODFW’s catch “punchcard” system provides an annual estimate of catch of anadromous salmon and steelhead for each river. In addition, periodic statistically designed angler “creel” surveys provide refined estimates of catch and angling effort by sub-areas. A statistical creel survey is currently in place (2003) and it is anticipated that funding will be provided to maintain that monitoring effort in 2004.
In the event that data analysis reveals harvest goals are consistently not met, hatchery operations may be modified as follows:
Alternative Management Strategies: 1. Discontinue the hatchery program.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 54
2. Liberalize angling regulations to increase catch (assuming this can be done without jeopardizing the wild population). 3. Modify hatchery operations to increase catch (i.e., recycle excess hatchery adults or close off hatchery entrance for some of the time to keep returning adults in the river and available to the fishery).
Indicator: Numbers of wild spring Chinook handled and released during fishery, and estimated impact to wild population.
Monitoring and Evaluation: Periodic angler surveys provide an estimate of numbers of wild fish handled and released. Lindsay et al. (in press) estimated mortality associated with catch and release of spring Chinook in the Willamette system. This study estimated hooking and handling mortality to be 12.2% of Chinook caught and released, and an overall impact of 3.2% of the wild run in the Willamette River. This study will serve as a benchmark for future studies.
If future studies show additional mortality, or if the rate of hooking mortality is considered to be jeopardizing the wild population, a different management strategy may be considered:
Alternative Management Strategies: 1. Additional regulatory restrictions on angling methods. 2. Limitation of angling effort.
Standard 1.2: All McKenzie Hatchery spring Chinook juveniles will be marked with an adipose fin clip so hatchery adults can be visually distinguished from wild adults.
Indicator: Mark retention rate from each release group.
Monitoring and evaluation: Mark retention is monitored as an ongoing and routine part of hatchery marking operations.
Category 2 - Genetic and Life History Characteristics:
Standard 2.1: Spring Chinook broodstock will be collected in a manner that approximates the life history characteristics (e.g., distribution of timing, age, and size of the population) of hatchery fish returning to the hatchery.
If a significant shift in life history parameters between hatchery and wild fish population is noted, hatchery practices will be evaluated to determine those which may have lead to the observed changes. Those practices should then be altered to better mimic the behavior of the wild run. There may be some costs associated with experimentation and production efficiency.
Indicator: Trends in fecundity (number and size), body size (length and weight), McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 55
sex ratio, adult run timing, adult:jack ratio.
Monitoring and evaluation: A representative number from each segment of the run into McKenzie Hatchery is taken for brood. Records of counts and the timing of returns to the hatchery (and to Leaburg Dam) will show any shift in temporal distribution of returns of either hatchery or wild spring Chinook. Appropriate measurements and samples are taken of fish retained for brood to identify any changes over time.
Indicator: Age distribution of adult spring Chinook returns to the hatchery and age distribution of fish spawned.
Monitoring and evaluation: Returns of CWT groups will provide continuing indicators of age at return of hatchery spring Chinook. Age at return of wild populations can be monitored by analysis of scales or otoliths from carcasses recovered on the spawning grounds.
Alternative Management Strategies: 1. Discarding the broodstock and founding a new one from the wild population. This strategy may not be the best for mitigation, but could be a viable option if the intent is primarily to use the hatchery fish as a reserve gene pool for the wild stock. 2. Analysis of hatchery practices or other factors that caused the shift in life history parameters. 3. Incorporation of a greater proportion of wild stock into the hatchery broodstock. It may be preferred to restart the program rather than “genetically swamp” the existing hatchery stock with wild input.
Standard 2.2: An appropriate level of wild adults will be used in the hatchery broodstock each year to provide genetic variability within the hatchery stock and to maintain it as a reserve population.
Indicator: Number and percentage of naturally produced fish incorporated into the hatchery broodstock program.
Monitoring and Evaluation: Unmarked fish are incorporated into the broodstock from all portions of the run entering McKenzie Hatchery with a goal of using 10% wild fish in the broodstock.
Alternative Management Strategies: 1. Increasing the percentage of naturally produced fish into the broodstock. 2. Using only naturally produced fish as brood.
Standard 2.3: Juvenile release strategy will minimize impacts to naturally produced spring Chinook populations. McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 56
Indicator: Location of spring Chinook releases.
Indicator: Length and location of smolt acclimation.
Monitoring and Evaluation: All smolt releases will be made directly from McKenzie Hatchery to maximize returns to that site.
Alternative Management Strategies: 1. Acclimate smolts out of basin to reduce returns to McKenzie River and thereby reduce impacts to native McKenzie River spring Chinook.
Indicator: Type of release (i.e., volitional, forced, or direct)
Monitoring and Evaluation: Smolts are volitionally released during high flow events. Hatchery operations records will verify release strategies employed.
Indicator: Proportion of adult returns to release site.
Monitoring and Evaluation: Numbers of wild (unmarked) spring Chinook entering the hatchery will continue to be monitored as a routine part of hatchery operations. The newly reconstructed right-bank fish ladder at Leaburg Dam presents the opportunity to remove hatchery fish from the wild population and evaluate stray rate of the hatchery fish. However, at this time ODFW has not identified the funds to construct and operate trapping/counting facilities at that location.
If monitoring indicates an unacceptable level of hatchery fish interbreeding with the wild population, possible actions to be considered would include reducing the size of the hatchery program, or increased effort in trapping hatchery fish at Leaburg Dam.
Category 3 - Conservation of Wild/Naturally Spawning Populations:
Standard 3.1: The percentage of hatchery spring Chinook spawning with wild spring Chinook will be limited to 30% or less by removal of hatchery fish at Leaburg Dam. (This is out of compliance with the 10% rate allowed under the NFCP. Until the trap at Leaburg Dam is altered to allow unhindered passage to wild fish while removing hatchery fish, it is unlikely a rate of 10% or fewer hatchery fish above Leaburg Dam will be attainable without severely increasing the handling-associated take of spring Chinook at the dam. The long-term goal is to meet the 10% criterion of the NFCP.)
Indicator: Annual number of spawners, both hatchery-origin and naturally produced, on spawning grounds, by age (from Leaburg Dam counts and spawning surveys). McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 57
Monitoring and evaluation: Estimates of wild spawner abundance will continue to be monitored by video counts at Leaburg dam and spawning surveys above and below Leaburg Dam. (See note about trapping/counting facilities above). If monitoring indicates an unacceptable level of hatchery fish interbreeding with the wild population, possible actions to be considered would include reducing the size of the hatchery program, or increased effort in trapping and removal of hatchery fish at Leaburg Dam. The consequences of an increased “take” at the Leaburg Dam trap would have to be discussed with NOAA-Fisheries prior to any action taking place.
Indicator: Annual number of redds in selected natural production index areas.
Monitoring and Evaluation: We will conduct repeated spawning surveys through the season to obtain total numbers of redds produced.
Indicator: Estimated proportion of hatchery spring Chinook spawning in the wild.
Monitoring and Evaluation: Otoliths and/or scales will be collected from carcasses on the spawning grounds and analyzed to determine proportion of hatchery fish that comprise the naturally spawning population.
Indicator: Estimated abundance of naturally spawning spring Chinook from spawning surveys, unmarked fish entering hatchery and fish passing Leaburg Dam.
Monitoring and Evaluation: Track and record unmarked carcasses recovered on the spawning grounds. Record numbers of unmarked fish entering the hatchery trap and passing Leaburg Dam.
Standard 3.2: Restore viable naturally spawning populations above Cougar and Trail Bridge Dams.
Indicator: Numbers of naturally produced adults returning to Leaburg Dam.
Monitoring and Evaluation: Records of marked and unmarked fish returning to Leaburg Dam.
Indicator: Numbers of unmarked juveniles moving out of the reservoirs.
Monitoring and Evaluation: Fish coming through Cougar Dam will be periodically captured and evaluated for condition. Numbers of fish that appear to be healthy will be differentiated as marked or naturally produced.
Indicator: Increasing trend in juvenile fish rearing densities. McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 58
Monitoring and Evaluation: We will continue to conduct annual snorkel surveys above Cougar Reservoir to estimate numbers of bull trout and juvenile Chinook. We will continue periodic snorkel monitoring surveys in.
Standard 3.3: Distribution of hatchery adult carcasses, to provide nutrient enrichment benefits as in natural salmon spawning streams, will be accomplished in compliance with DEQ/ODFW guidelines (MOA).
Indicator: Number of carcasses distributed.
Monitoring and Evaluation: Number of carcasses distributed to each stream reach will be guided by the number of carcasses available, historical run size, and MOA restrictions on pounds per mile of stream.
Indicator: Spatial and temporal distribution.
Monitoring and Evaluation: Carcasses will be distributed as fish are spawned at McKenzie Hatchery, within the historic spawning period and within historic spawning areas. Review of carcass placement and pathology sampling records to ensure conformity with the MOA. The carcass placement program will be modified as necessary to conform to the best available science regarding stream enrichment methods.
Standard 3.4: Outplacement of live spring Chinook adults from McKenzie Hatchery will maintain the same management direction as identified in the NMFS 2000 Biological Opinion for artificial propagation programs in the Upper Willamette Basin.
Indicator: Adult trap records.
Indicator: Records of hatchery spring Chinook adults transported to and released above Cougar and Trail Bridge reservoirs.
Monitoring and evaluation: Review of hauling and release records to ensure conformity with the BO. If evaluation shows the adult release program to be ineffective or harmful, it will be discontinued.
Category 4 - Operation of Artificial Production Facilities:
Standard 4.1: McKenzie Hatchery will be operated in compliance with ODFW’s Fish Hatchery Management Policy and Fish Health Management Policy, and the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT) fish health guidelines. (See attachment A).
Indicator: Number of broodstock sampled and pathogens observed.
Indicator: Rearing survival rates, egg to fry, and fry to smolt. Results of fish McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 59
health examinations.
Indicator: Number of juveniles sampled and pathogens observed immediately prior to release.
Monitoring and Evaluation: These indicators are part of an ongoing monitoring and evaluation program. All lots of fish are monitored daily in the hatchery for signs of disease. ODFW’s Fish Pathology team conducts periodic sampling of the fish in the hatchery, especially if any increases in mortality are observed by hatchery personnel. Whenever diseased fish are detected, the diseased fish are treated according to IHOT protocols. Lots that cannot be certified as disease free prior to release are destroyed or otherwise disposed of according to IHOT protocols. Diseased fish are not released into the McKenzie River above Leaburg Dam. Periodic review of the fish health monitoring results and disease history is necessary to identify trends or areas where operations could be modified to improve fish health.
Standard 4.2: McKenzie Hatchery's water discharges will comply with prescribed 330j general NPDS permit as required by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Indicator: Water samples collected and results reported.
Monitoring and evaluation: These indicators comprise, in part, an ongoing monitoring and evaluation program. Periodic review of the results of the water quality monitoring is necessary to identify trends or areas where operations can be modified to improve fish health and discharge water quality. If water quality does not meet permit standards, appropriate corrective action will be taken.
Standard 4.3: McKenzie Hatchery’s water withdrawals will comply with NOAA Fisheries' juvenile fish screening criteria.
Indicator: Screens inspected for compliance with guidelines.
Indicator: Results of routine maintenance inspections.
Monitoring and evaluation: The McKenzie Hatchery intake is located on the Leaburg power canal owned and operated by Eugene Water and Electric Board. The intake for the hatchery is screened, but the screen does not comply with current NMFS criteria for salmonid fry (ODFW, 2001b). However, the Leaburg power canal intake is fully screened to current NMFS criteria. Therefore the sub- standard screen at the McKenzie Hatchery intake does not likely jeopardize any ESA listed species, although resident trout fry and other species residing in the canal may be entrained. Cogswell Creek is the additional water supply for the hatchery and the intake screen does not currently meet NOAA-Fisheries McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 60
compliance guidelines. ODFW has not identified the funds necessary to upgrade the McKenzie Hatchery intake screen at this time.
Standard 4.4: Wild spring Chinook or other native fishes that enter the McKenzie trap will be handled and released in a manner that minimizes stress, injury, mortality and delay in migration.
Indicator: Numbers of adult spring Chinook released alive above the hatchery or transported to the hatchery for brood.
Indicator: Mortalities of unmarked spring Chinook at McKenzie Hatchery during operation of the adult trap.
Indicator: Dates the trap is operated and frequency of handling adult spring Chinook.
Monitoring and evaluation: Analysis of hatchery records. Should it be recognized that undue stress, injury, mortality, or delay to migration is occurring, hatchery operations will be changed to minimize harm to wild or native Chinook and other species. Such changes might include:
Alternative Management Strategies: 1. Working the trap more frequently. 2. Modification to anesthetizing procedures. 3. Improvements to transport methods.
Category 5 - Socio-Economic Effectiveness.
Standard 5.1: Estimated harvest benefits of the McKenzie spring Chinook program will equal or exceed hatchery production costs based on the benefit-cost model in ODFW (1999a) or an updated version of that model.
Indicator: Annual budget expenditures.
Indicator: Estimated harvest benefits.
Monitoring and evaluation: Periodic cost-benefit analysis of the hatchery program. If the benefit/cost analysis indicates the hatchery program is not cost effective, options might include:
Alternative Management Strategies: 1. Discontinuing the hatchery program. 2. Liberalizing angling regulations to increase catch (assuming this can be done without jeopardizing the wild population). 3. Modifying hatchery operations to increase catch (i.e. recycle excess hatchery McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 61
adults, or close off hatchery entrance for some of the time to keep returning adults in the river and available to the fishery.
11.1.2) Indicate whether funding, staffing, and other support logistics are available or committed to allow implementation of the monitoring and evaluation program.
Many of the monitoring and evaluation activities listed in the previous section are currently part of routine ODFW Fish Culture, Fish Pathology, or Fish Management activities. Periodic review and analysis of the results of the various sampling programs and records of activities will be necessary. For the most part, these reviews can be performed by existing ODFW staff. However, it may be desirable to use outside consultants to periodically provide a comprehensive analysis of the hatchery program and monitoring data. ODFW may also need assistance in providing future economic analysis of the costs and benefits of the hatchery program.
Several other areas needing additional funding are also identified, including: 1. Additional funding for periodic creel and spawning ground surveys. 2. Funds to construct and operate a fish trapping facility at Leaburg Dam. 3. Funds to upgrade the intake screen at McKenzie Hatchery.
11.2) Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to minimize the likelihood for adverse genetic and ecological effects to listed fish resulting from monitoring and evaluation activities.
We do not anticipate that any additional take will result from monitoring and evaluation activities. The general strategy for minimizing genetic and ecological risk are described in section 1.8, section 3. Sections 7-10 describe risk aversion measures in place within the hatchery program for minimizing impacts to the wild spring Chinook population. Take of listed species by the hatchery program is discussed in section 2.2.3.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 62
SECTION 12. RESEARCH
12.1) Objective or purpose. The ODFW initiated a comprehensive research program on Willamette basin spring Chinook in 1996. In 2002, the ODFW expanded sampling to address the recommendations of the NMFS Biological Opinion on artificial propagation in the basin. The objectives of these projects are to evaluate the potential effects of hatchery programs on naturally spawning populations of spring Chinook and winter steelhead and to document spawning of naturally produced and hatchery spring Chinook. The projects employ several types of activities to achieve this goal including sampling of returns to hatcheries, creels to assess fisheries, monitoring of adult and juvenile migration through the use of traps and video observations, sampling of juveniles by seining, PIT tagging, coded wire tagging, and monitoring natural production and straying through spawning ground surveys.
Data source:
a) Biological Opinion on the impacts from the collection, rearing and release of salmonids associated with artificial propagation programs in the Upper Willamette Spring Chinook and Winter Steelhead Evolutionarily Significant Units. b) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Wild Fish Management Policy.
12.2) Cooperating and funding agencies. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (Hatchery BiOp funding); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (through Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program funding); Portland General Electric, Eugene Water and Electric Board, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
12.3) Principle investigator or project supervisor and staff. Robert B. Lindsay, Project Leader Julie Firman, Project Leader 28655 Highway 34 28655 Highway 34 Corvallis, OR 97333 Corvallis, OR 97333 (541) 757-4263 ext. 252 (541) 757-4263 ext 249 [email protected] [email protected]
12.4) Status of stock, particularly the group affected by project, if different than the stock(s) described in Section 2. See Section 2.
12.5) Techniques: include capture methods, drugs, samples collected, tags applied. Capture (beach seine, adult trapping facilities at Leaburg Dam, rotary screw trap, dam bypass), Observe (in-stream spawning surveys), Sample Tissue (fin or opercle), Anesthetize (MS-222), McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 63
PIT tag, Release Live Fish. Otoliths are collected from salmon carcasses, and from 60 juvenile wild spring Chinook. (See Table 1 for details).
12.6) Dates or time period in which research activity occurs. Otoliths are collected after fish are killed for spawning in September through mid-October.
Otoliths are collected from juvenile fish between January and October.
PIT tagging is done October through November and February through March.
Adult trapping is conducted from early July through late May of the following year.
Juvenile trapping at the Leaburg bypass is conducted from January through June.
Chinook spawning surveys run from August through October.
The McKenzie Creel runs from April through October.
12.7) Care and maintenance of live fish or eggs, holding duration, transport methods. Traps are checked daily and the fish processed quickly. Densities are kept low in holding tanks. During the summer, river water is pumped continuously through a live well to prevent oxygen depletion and water temperature increases during tagging. Fish are allowed to recover completely before being returned to the river. Fish are passively sampled at Willamette Falls without handling except for a small number that will be sampled for tissues. Trapping and sorting efforts will be conducted by trained ODFW biologists. Trapping is aborted during the peak of the adult Chinook run to avoid capturing too many fish in the trap. We are currently working with the COE and EWEB to design a new trap that will selectively retain marked fish, thus allowing us to trap over the entire season. We will minimize handling and take measures to reduce stress. Juvenile fish may be anesthetized to reduce stress. Fish will be allowed to recover before release.
12.8) Expected type and effects of take and potential for injury or mortality. Juvenile Chinook are captured at the Leaburg Dam bypass, and by seining. Thirty fish from each sampling method are sacrificed to collect otoliths. Fish to be PIT tagged are anaesthetized, a PIT tag is inserted using a needle, and the fish is allowed to recover fully before release. Additional Chinook fry are captured in the course of trapping the Leaburg bypass for smolts. These fry are briefly handled before being released.
Adult Chinook are trapped in the ladder over Leaburg dam. Wild fish are handled briefly as they are released above the dam. The ODFW, the US Army COE and the EWEB will collaborate to design a new adult trap that will allow water-to-water transfer of wild Chinook.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 64
Several measures are taken to minimize the potential for injury or mortality (see section 12.7). Estimates of take and unintentional lethal take are catalogued in Table 1.
12.9) Level of take of listed fish: number or range of fish handled, injured, or killed by sex, age, or size, if not already indicated in Section 2.
See Table 1. The take level is described and approved in the NMFS Scientific Research and Take Authorizations for Project #OR2002-47, 01/01/2002 through 12/31/2002. (NMFS 2002).
12.10) Alternative methods to achieve project objectives. Traps that selectively retain steelhead and marked Chinook could be installed in the Leaburg ladders. If this avenue is to be pursued, The ODFW, the Army COE and EWEB will need to work together to design, build and install the traps.
12.11) List species similar or related to the threatened species; provide number and causes of mortality related to this research project. Rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, and bull trout are caught in the Leaburg ladder adult trap and the Leaburg bypass juvenile trap (McKenzie R). In 2003, 398 unidentifiable juvenile trout, 9 rainbow trout, 41 cutthroat trout and 1 bull trout were captured in the Leaburg bypass trap. Mortality of trout fry in the juvenile trap was 2% in 2003. No mortality was observed for larger trout. Over the last 27 years, catch of trout in the Leaburg adult trap has ranged from 53 in 1994 to 1,599 in 2001, with an average catch of 388±158. Catch of bull trout has ranged from 1 in 1995 to 28 in 1999, with an average catch of 8 ±6. Very low mortality is seen in the adult traps (<1%). The same risk aversion measures are taken for these fish as for spring Chinook (see 12.12).
12.12) Indicate risk aversion measures that will be applied to minimize the likelihood for adverse ecological effects, injury, or mortality to listed fish as a result of the proposed research activities. Traps are checked daily and the fish processed quickly. Densities are kept low in holding tanks. During the summer, river water is pumped continuously through a live well to prevent oxygen depletion and water temperature increases during tagging. Fish are allowed to recover completely before being returned to the river. Fish are passively sampled at Willamette Falls without handling except for a small number that will be sampled for tissues. Trapping and sorting efforts will be conducted by trained ODFW biologists. Trapping is aborted during the peak of the adult Chinook run to avoid capturing too many fish in the trap. We are currently working with the COE and EWEB to design a new trap that will selectively retain marked fish, thus allowing up to trap over the entire season. We will minimize handling and take measures to reduce stress. Juvenile fish may be anesthetized to reduce stress. Fish will be allowed to recover before release.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 65
SECTION 13. ATTACHMENTS AND CITATIONS
Literature Cited
Chilcote, M.W. 2003. Relationship between natural productivity and the frequency of wild fish in mixed spawning populations of wild and hatchery steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60: 1057-1067.
Connolly, P.J., M.G. Wade, J.M. Hutchison, and J.S. Ziller. 1992. Middle Fork Willamette subbasin fish management plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, OR.
Cramer, S.P., C.F. Willis, D. Cramer, M. Smith, T. Downey and R. Montagne. 1996. Status of Willamette River spring Chinook salmon in regards to the federal Endangered Species Act, Part 2. Report of S.P. Cramer and Associates submitted to National Marine Fisheries Service on behalf of Portland General Electric Company and Eugene Water and Electric Board.
FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2003. Biological Assessment for Eugene Water and Electric Board’s Carmen Smith Hydroelectric Project. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2001. Biological Assessment for the Eugene Water and Electric Board’s McKenzie River Hydroelectric Projects. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
Firman, J.C., R.K. Schroeder, K.R. Kenaston and R.B. Lindsay. 2002. Work Completed for Compliance with the Biological Opinion for Hatchery Programs in the Willamette Basin, USACE funding: 2002. Task Order: NWP-OP-FH-02-01. ODFW, Corvallis, OR.
Howell, P., J. Hutchison, R. Hooton, G. Ackerman, B. Bumstead, J. Ferguson, K. Helfrich and D. Mulholland. 1988. McKenzie subbasin fish management plan. ODFW. Portland, OR.
IHOT (Integrated Hatchery Operations Team). 1997. Hatchery Evaluation Report. McKenzie River Hatchery - Spring Chinook Salmon (Willamette River Stock). Project Number 95- 2, Contract Number 95AC49468.
IHOT (Integrated Hatchery Operations Team). 1996. Operation Plans for Anadromous Fish Production Facilities in the Columbia River Basin. Volume II-Oregon. Annual Report 1995. Portland, OR. Project Number 92-043, Contract Number DE-BJ79-91BP60629.
IHOT (Integrated Hatchery Operations Team). 1995. Policies and Procedures from Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid Hatcheries. Annual Report 1994. Project Number 92-043, Contract Number DE-B179-92BP60629. Portland, OR.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 66
IHOT (Integrated Hatchery Operations Team). 1993. Operation Plans for Anadromous Fish Production Facilities in the Columbia River Basin Volume III. Annual Report 1992. Portland, OR
Lewis, M.A., C. Mallette, W.M. Murrary, and J. Thoming. 2003. Annual stock assessment – coded wire tag program (ODFW). 2002 Annual Report. Project Number: 82-013-02. Portland, OR.
Lindsay, R.B., R.K. Schroeder, K.R. Kenaston, R.N. Toman, and M.A. Buckman. In Press. Hooking mortality by anatomical location and its use in estimating mortality of spring Chinook salmon caught and released in a river sport fishery. North American Journal of Fisheries Management.
Mattson, C.R. 1963. An investigation of adult spring Chinook of the Willamette River system, 1946-51. Fish Commission of Oregon. Portland, OR.
Mattson, C.R. 1962. Early life history of Willamette River spring Chinook salmon. Fish Commission of Oregon. Portland, OR.
Mattson, C.R. 1948. Spawning ground studies of Willamette River spring Chinook salmon. Fish Commission Research Briefs, Fish Commission of Oregon. Vol 1 (2): 21-32.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2003. Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Consultation on the effects of EWEB’s Carmen-Smith Part 12 Submittal to FERC for Trail Bridge Dam Emergency Spillway Expansion, and Continued Operation of the Carmen-Smith Hydroelectric Project in the McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon on: Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon. National Marine Fisheries Service, Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2002. Scientific Research and Take Authorizations. Project number OR2002-47, Spring Chinook Salmon in the Willamette River.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Biological Opinion on the impacts from the collection, rearing, and release of listed and non-listed salmonids associated with artificial propagation programs in the Upper Willamette spring Chinook and winter steelhead evolutionarily significant units. Portland, OR.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2001. Biological Opinion on the effects of the relicensing of EWEB’s Leaburg-Walterville hydroelectric project in the McKenzie subbasin, Oregon, on Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon. Columbia River bull trout, Canada Lynx, Bald Eagle, Northern Spotted Owl, Bradshaw’s Lomation, Kincaids’s Lupine. National Marine Fisheries Service, and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 67
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 635-007-0502 through -0509). 2002. Native Fish Conservation Policy. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR.
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 635-007-0542 through -0548). 2003. Fish Hatchery Management Policy. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR.
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 635-007-0960 through -1000). 2003. Fish Health Management Policy. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR.
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 635-500-1661). 1998. McKenzie River Basin Fish Management Plan for Spring Chinook. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, OR.
ODF (Oregon Department of Fisheries). 1903.
ODFW. 2001a. Fisheries Management and Evaluation Plan - Upper Willamette Spring Chinook in Freshwater Fisheries of the Willamette Basin and the Lower Columbia Mainstem. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon.
ODFW. 2001b. Hatchery intake screen inspection report-McKenzie Hatchery. Salem, OR.
ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2001c. Review of T & E, sensitive and stocks of concern. Unpublished report. South Willamette Watershed District, Springfield, OR.
ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1999. Coastal salmonid and Willamette trout hatchery program review, Appendix C, benefit-cost analysis. Salem, OR.
ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1998. Spring Chinook Chapters, Willamette Basin Fish Management Plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR.
Rich, W.H., and H.B. Holmes. 1928. Experiments in marking young Chinook salmon on the Columbia River 1916 to 1927. U.S. Bur. Fish., Bull. 44:215-264.
Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. General Technical Report INT-302.
Schroeder, R.K, K.R. Kenaston and R.B. Lindsay. 2001. Spring Chinook Salmon in the Willamette and Sandy Rivers. Annual Progress Report. F-163-R-06. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 33 p.
Smith, M. and The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. 1991. Pelton Ladder Master Plan. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration. Project No. 89-029, Contract Number DE-B179-89BP01930. McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 68
USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 2000. Biological Assessment of the effects of the Willamette River Basin flood control projects on species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Final; April 2000. USACE Portland District, OR.
USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 1990. Cooperative Agreement Between the United States of America and the State of Oregon for the Operation and Maintenance of Certain Portland District COE Hatcheries. USACE Portland, OR.
USFS (United States Forest Service). 1995. Upper McKenzie watershed analysis. McKenzie Ranger District, Willamette National Forest, McKenzie Bridge, OR.
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. Chapter 1, Introduction. In: Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 137 pps.
Ziller, J., S. Mamoyac and S. Knapp. 2002. Analyses of releasing marked and unmarked spring Chinook salmon above U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control Projects in the Willamette Valley. Draft. ODFW, South Willamette Watershed District.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 69
SECTION 14. CERTIFICATION LANGUAGE AND SIGNATURE OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY
“I hereby certify that the foregoing information is complete, true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that the information provided in this HGMP is submitted for the purpose of receiving limits from take prohibitions specified under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.1531-1543) and regulations promulgated thereafter for the proposed hatchery program, and that any false statement may subject me to the criminal penalties of 18 U.S.C. 1001, or penalties provided under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.”
Name of Applicant: Suzanne Knapp Title: Watershed District Manager
Signature:______Date:______
Certified by:______Date:______
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 70
Attached Table 1. Estimated listed salmonid take levels of by hatchery activity.
Listed species affected: Spring Chinook Salmon ESU/Population: Upper Willamette Activity: Adult Trapping
Location of hatchery activity: McKenzie River, Leaburg Dam Dates of activity: January-December Hatchery program operator: ODFW Annual Take of Listed Fish By Life Stage (Number of Fish) Type of Take Egg/Fry Juvenile/Smolt Adult Carcass Observe or harass a) Collect for transport b) Capture, handle, and release c) 5,000 Capture, handle, tag/mark/tissue sample, and release d) Removal (e.g. broodstock) e) Intentional lethal take f) Unintentional lethal take g) 10 Other Take (specify) h)
Listed species affected: Spring Chinook Salmon ESU/Population: Upper Willamette Activity: Juvenile Trapping
Location of hatchery activity: McKenzie, Leaburg Dam Bypass Dates of activity: January-June Hatchery program operator: ODFW Annual Take of Listed Fish By Life Stage (Number of Fish) Type of Take Egg/Fry Juvenile/Smolt Adult Carcass Observe or harass a) Collect for transport b) Capture, handle, and release c) 50,000 Capture, handle, tag/mark/tissue sample, and release d) 2,500 Removal (e.g. broodstock) e) Intentional lethal take f) Unintentional lethal take g) 2,500 125 Other Take (specify) h)
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 72
Listed species affected: Spring Chinook Salmon ESU/Population: Upper Willamette Activity: PIT Tagging - Bypass
Location of hatchery activity: McKenzie, Leaburg Dam Bypass Dates of activity: October-December Hatchery program operator: ODFW Annual Take of Listed Fish By Life Stage (Number of Fish) Type of Take Egg/Fry Juvenile/Smolt Adult Carcass Observe or harass a) Collect for transport b) Capture, handle, and release c) Capture, handle, tag/mark/tissue sample, and release d) 3,300 Removal (e.g. broodstock) e) Intentional lethal take f) Unintentional lethal take g) 165 Other Take (specify) h)
Listed species affected: Spring Chinook Salmon ESU/Population: Upper Willamette Activity: PIT Tagging - Seining
Location of hatchery activity: McKenzie, Mouth to Leaburg Dam Dates of activity: April-October Hatchery program operator: ODFW Annual Take of Listed Fish By Life Stage (Number of Fish) Type of Take Egg/Fry Juvenile/Smolt Adult Carcass Observe or harass a) Collect for transport b) Capture, handle, and release c) Capture, handle, tag/mark/tissue sample, and release d) 3,300 Removal (e.g. broodstock) e) Intentional lethal take f) Unintentional lethal take g) 165 Other Take (specify) h)
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 73
Listed species affected: Spring Chinook Salmon ESU/Population: Upper Willamette Activity: Otolith Sampling - Bypass
Location of hatchery activity: Leaburg Dam Bypass Dates of activity: January-June Hatchery program operator: ODFW Annual Take of Listed Fish By Life Stage (Number of Fish) Type of Take Egg/Fry Juvenile/Smolt Adult Carcass Observe or harass a) Collect for transport b) Capture, handle, and release c) Capture, handle, tag/mark/tissue sample, and release d) Removal (e.g. broodstock) e) Intentional lethal take f) 30 Unintentional lethal take g) Other Take (specify) h)
Listed species affected: Spring Chinook Salmon ESU/Population: Upper Willamette Activity: Otolith Sampling - Seining
Location of hatchery activity: McKenzie, Mouth to Leaburg Dam Dates of activity: April-October Hatchery program operator: ODFW Annual Take of Listed Fish By Life Stage (Number of Fish) Type of Take Egg/Fry Juvenile/Smolt Adult Carcass Observe or harass a) Collect for transport b) Capture, handle, and release c) Capture, handle, tag/mark/tissue sample, and release d) Removal (e.g. broodstock) e) Intentional lethal take f) 30 Unintentional lethal take g) Other Take (specify) h)
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 74
Listed species affected: Spring Chinook Salmon ESU/Population: Upper Willamette Activity: Spawning Surveys
Location of hatchery activity: McKenzie River Dates of activity: July through October Hatchery program operator: ODFW Annual Take of Listed Fish By Life Stage (Number of Fish) Type of Take Egg/Fry Juvenile/Smolt Adult Carcass Observe or harass a) 1,000 500 Collect for transport b) Capture, handle, and release c) Capture, handle, tag/mark/tissue sample, and release d) 500 Removal (e.g. broodstock) e) Intentional lethal take f) 0 Unintentional lethal take g) 0 Other Take (specify) h) 0
Listed species affected: Spring Chinook Salmon ESU/Population: Upper Willamette Activity: Hatchery Operations
Location of hatchery activity: McKenzie River Dates of activity: May through October Hatchery program operator: ODFW Annual Take of Listed Fish By Life Stage (Number of Fish) Type of Take Egg/Fry Juvenile/Smolt Adult Carcass Observe or harass a) Collect for transport b) Capture, handle, and release c) 525 Capture, handle, tag/mark/tissue sample, and release d) Removal (e.g. broodstock) e) 100 Intentional lethal take f) 0 Unintentional lethal take g) 0 Other Take (specify) h) 0
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 75 a. Contact with listed fish through stream surveys, carcass and mark recovery projects, or migrational delay at weirs. b. Take associated with weir or trapping operations where listed fish are captured and transported for release. c. Take associated with weir or trapping operations where listed fish are captured, handled and released upstream or downstream. d. Take occurring due to tagging and/or bio-sampling of fish collected through trapping operations prior to upstream or downstream release, or through carcass recovery programs. e. Listed fish removed from the wild and collected for use as broodstock. f. Intentional mortality of listed fish, usually as a result of spawning as broodstock. g. Unintentional mortality of listed fish, including loss of fish during transport or holding prior to spawning or prior to release into the wild, or, for integrated programs, mortalities during incubation and rearing. h. Other takes not identified above as a category.
Instructions: 1. An entry for a fish to be taken should be in the take category that describes the greatest impact. 2. Each take to be entered in the table should be in one take category only (there should not be more than one entry for the same sampling event). 3. If an individual fish is to be taken more than once on separate occasions, each take must be entered in the take table.
McKenzie Hatchery ChS HGMP 76
Appendix Table 1. Accounting of McKenzie River spring Chinook for run years 1970- 2002 and the relationship between McKenzie run size estimates related to counts at Willamette Falls.
Run Leaburg Hatchery Catch Below Leaburg Dam Total Leaburg Dam as % McK as % Year Dam Count Return Above Below Total Redds Escapement Return McKenzie Will. Falls Will. Falls
1970 2991 20 -- 525 278 1251 4787 62.5 8.7 14.0 1971 3602 232 -- 621 415 1868 6323 57.0 8.1 14.2 1972 1547 301 -- 1125 177 797 3770 41.0 5.9 14.4 1973 3870 56 -- 1510 556 2502 7938 48.8 9.2 18.9 1974 3717 0 -- 1022 689 3101 7840 47.4 8.4 17.6 1975 1374 0 -- 461 346 1557 3392 40.5 7.2 17.8 1976 1899 396 -- 139 409 1841 4275 44.4 8.6 19.3 1977 2714 1517 -- 1071 850 3825 9127 29.7 6.8 22.8 1978 3058 1464 -- 924 599 2696 8142 37.6 6.4 17.1 1979 1219 798 -- 303 155 698 3018 40.4 4.6 11.3 1980 1980 807 -- 381 219 986 4154 47.7 7.3 15.4 1981 1078 784 -- 493 282 1269 3624 29.7 3.6 12.0 1982 2241 1460 -- 627 241 1085 5413 41.4 4.9 11.7 1983 1561 821 15 206 221 172 774 3377 46.2 5.1 11.0 1984 1000 1901 51 567 618 271 1220 4739 21.1 2.3 10.9 1985 825 1923 8 459 467 381 1715 4930 16.7 2.4 14.3 1986 2061 1705 29 354 383 315 1418 5567 37.0 5.3 14.2 1987 3455 1593 29 1339 1368 212 954 7370 46.9 6.3 13.4 1988 6753 2487 86 1133 1219 484 2178 12637 53.4 9.6 17.9 1989 3981 3154 134 1730 1864 228 1026 10025 39.7 5.8 14.5 1990 7226 3206 315 1387 1702 160 720 12854 56.2 10.1 18.0 1991 4359 4483 64 1922 1986 161 725 11553 37.7 8.3 22.0 1992 3816 3407 81 1195 1276 106 477 8976 42.5 9.1 21.4 1993 3629 2051 80 1761 1841 142 639 8160 44.5 11.3 25.5 1994 1526 701 13 486 499 59 266 2992 51.0 5.8 11.5 1995 1622 1135 24 84 108 66 297 3162 51.3 7.9 15.3 1996 1445 1573 58 244 302 71 320 3640 39.7 6.7 16.8 1997 1176 1524 0 0 0 90 405 3105 37.9 4.4 11.5 1998 1874 1690 0 0 0 95 428 3992 46.9 5.4 11.6 1999 1909 2279 0 0 0 82 369 4557 41.9 4.7 11.3 2000 2657 3553 0 0 0 132 594 6804 39.1 6.8 17.4 **2001 4428 3920 0 750 750 100 450 9548 46.4 8.2 17.7 **2002 6087 6832 0 1500 1500 214 963 15382 39.6 7.3 18.5 1970- 2808 1751 49 756 767 265 1194 6520 42.5 6.7 15.8 2002 1994- 2525 2579 11 340 351 101 455 5909 43.7 6.4 14.6 2002 ** angler catch is estimated
Escapement below Leaburg Dam = No. of Redds below Leaburg X 4.5 Fish/Redd.
Appendix Table 2. Releases of McKenzie Hatchery production for brood years 1990 to 2001. Data from ODFW HMIS database.
Release Brood Release Number Pounds Size Location Year Date Released Released (No./lb.) Blue River Reservoir 1990 04/07/1991 52,900 185 285.9 McKenzie River 1990 11/15/1991 236,510 30,876 7.7 McKenzie River 1990 03/12/1992 786,047 79,221 9.9
Blue River Reservoir 1991 05/12/1992 187,690 2,470 76 McKenzie River 1991 11/13/1992 228,440 27,839 8.2 McKenzie River 1991 03/10/1993 576,902 53,035 10.9 Willamette River 1991 03/11/1993 119,490 13,731 8.7 River Place Marina Net Pen 1991 03/12/1993 38,841 4,284 9.1 River Place Marina Net Pen 1991 03/26/1993 45,774 5,066 9
Blue River Reservoir 1992 05/17/1993 222,992 2,165 103 Calapooia River 1992 05/18/1993 722,835 3,923 184 Portland Lone Star Net Pen 1992 11/10/1993 34,398 3,475 9.9 McKenzie River 1992 02/09/1994 245,806 19,040 12.9 Portland Net Pen 1992 03/08/1994 125,955 13,841 9.1 Willamette River 1992 03/08/1994 130,729 14,527 9 McKenzie River 1992 03/02/1994 486,829 50,920 9.6
Blue River Reservoir 1993 05/17/1994 209,125 1,772 118 Calapooia River 1993 05/17/1994 728,858 6,107 119 Middle Fork Willamette River 1993 05/17/1994 497,621 2,899 171.7 Portland Net Pens 1993 11/08/1994 86,670 10,164 8.5 Willamette River 1993 11/08/1994 93,870 11,864 7.9 McKenzie River 1993 02/10/1995 521,052 50,299 10.4 McKenzie River 1993 03/01/1995 480,183 56,492 8.5 Portland Net Pens 1993 03/08/1995 128,404 14,060 9.1 Willamette River 1993 03/08/1995 124,065 14,330 8.7
McKenzie River 1994 02/08/1996 388,246 47,347 8.2 McKenzie River 1994 03/08/1996 203,991 25,117 8.1
Clackamette Cove Net Pen 1995 11/08/1996 59,676 6,940 8.6 Clackamas River 1995 11/08/1996 124,890 17,153 7.3 McKenzie River 1995 02/06/1997 445,538 40,390 11 Mohawk River 1995 02/06/1997 41,760 4,350 9.6 McKenzie River 1995 03/06/1997 466,587 54,063 8.6 Clackamette Cove Net Pen 1995 03/13/1997 73,587 8,270 8.9 Clackamas River 1995 03/13/1997 71,372 7,923 9 Willamette River 1995 03/13/1997 83,577 8,840 9.5
78
Row River 1996 06/10/1997 56,660 520 109 Larson Marina Net Pen 1996 11/06/1997 63,114 7,285 8.5 Willamette River 1996 11/06/1997 63,411 8,069 7.9 McKenzie River 1996 11/11/1997 266,907 35,266 7.6 McKenzie River 1996 02/05/1998 325,874 28,159 11.6 Mohawk River 1996 02/05/1998 42,301 4,294 9.9 McKenzie River 1996 03/05/1998 364,654 40,569 9 Clackamette Cove Net Pen 1996 03/12/1998 80,700 8,610 9.4 Clackamas River 1996 03/12/1998 79,817 9379 8.5 Clackamette Cove 1996 03/12/1998 81,142 8610 9.4 Willamette River 1996 03/13/1998 76,957 8765 8.8
Fall Creek Res. 1997 04/15/1998 487,935 2,065 236 McKenzie River 1997 11/04/1998 251,640 31,455 8 Larson Marina Net Pen 1997 11/05/1998 60,985 6525 9.3 Willamette River 1997 11/05/1998 60,270 7,850 7.7 McKenzie River 1997 02/10/1999 364,450 32,627 11.2 Clackamette Cove Net Pen 1997 03/08/1999 79,254 7500 10.6 Clackamas River 1997 03/08/1999 185,596 19,627 9.5 Willamette River 1997 03/09/1999 60,110 6430 9.3 McKenzie River 1997 03/10/1999 421,905 47,318 8.9
Fall Creek Res. 1998 05/27/1999 200,567 1,670 120 Fall Creek Res. 1998 07/08/1999 46,160 800 57.7 Fall Creek Res. 1998 08/19/1999 33,180 1,267 26 Mohawk River 1998 10/12/1999 14,175 630 22.5 Larson Net Pen Project 1998 11/04/1999 61,248 7,469 8.2 Willamette River 1998 11/04/1999 61,081 7,450 8.2 McKenzie River 1998 11/10/1999 246,362 31,358 7.9 McKenzie River 1998 02/09/2000 361,819 33,250 10.9 Willamette River 1998 03/06/2000 81,271 8,710 9.3 Clackamette Cove Net Pen 1998 03/07/2000 81,549 8,961 9.1 McKenzie River 1998 03/08/2000 390,573 43,735 8.9 Clackamas River 1998 03/09/2000 162,695 18,140 9.1
Fall Creek Res. 1999 07/06/2000 154,100 2,300 67 Mohawk River 1999 09/07/2000 33,143 1,350 25 Larson Net Pen Project 1999 11/07/2000 60,563 7,386 8.2 Willamette River 1999 11/07/2000 62,307 7,740 8.2 McKenzie River 1999 11/08/2000 242,363 30,395 8 McKenzie River 1999 02/07/2001 352,347 31,743 11.1 Clackamette Cove Net Pen 1999 03/06/2001 79,596 8,652 9.2 Clackamas River 1999 03/06/2001 159,454 16,610 9.6 McKenzie River 1999 03/07/2001 404,771 43,616 9.3 Willamette River 1999 03/08/2001 79,511 8,600 9.2
Row River 2000 05/17/2001 2,415 23 105
79 Fall Creek Res. 2000 07/10/2001 86,067 1,310 66 McKenzie River, S. Fk. 2000 09/20/2001 34,674 3467 10 McKenzie River 2000 11/07/2001 362,339 44,040 8.2 Mohawk River 2000 12/21/2001 17,742 1,295 13.7 McKenzie River 2000 02/06/2002 388,271 32,082 12.1 McKenzie River 2000 03/06/2002 437,821 46,262 9.4
Mohawk River 2001 06/17/2002 15,058 222 67.8 Mckenzie River 2001 11/06/2002 355,602 45,590 7.8 McKenzie River 2001 01/30/2003 405,009 33,909 11.9 McKenzie River 2001 03/03/2003 443,358 49,778 8.9
80 Appendix 3.
DRAFT
Analyses of Releasing Marked and Unmarked Spring Chinook Salmon Above U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control Projects in the Willamette Valley.
Prepared by: Jeff Ziller Steve Mamoyac Sue Knapp
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife South Willamette Watershed District
April 15, 2002
81
Analyses of releasing marked and unmarked spring chinook salmon above U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control Projects in the Willamette Valley.
SUMMARY
Net benefit to releasing Net benefit to releasing Project marked adult spring unmarked adult spring chinook above reservoirs? chinook above reservoirs? Detroit/Big Cliff Yes Not at this time Foster Yes Yes Green Peter Yes Not at this time Cougar Yes Not until after 2004 Blue River Yes Not at this time Lookout Point/Dexter Yes Yes Hills Creek Yes Not at this time Fall Creek Yes Not at this time Dorena and Cottage Grove Yes No
BACKGROUND
Since the establishment of mitigation fish hatcheries in the Willamette Valley, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has released juvenile spring chinook salmon above U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Flood Control Projects. The objectives of these releases were to provide anglers land-locked salmon in USACE reservoirs and to relieve hatcheries of excess salmon production. Beginning in the early 1990’s, ODFW initiated releases of adult spring chinook, captured at Dexter and McKenzie hatcheries, into former spawning and rearing habitat above Hills Creek and Cougar reservoirs. The objectives for these releases were to 1) restore the biological contributions of salmon to the ecosystem of these basins (including the addition of a historic prey base for bull trout and increased nutrient input), 2) provide recreational fishery diversification in the reservoirs, and 3) provide for the disposition of surplus hatchery adults. In recent years, adult releases have been expanded to include rivers above Foster, Fall Creek, Lookout Point, Detroit, and Trail Bridge (Eugene Water and Electric Board) reservoirs.
ODFW, USACE and the Willamette National Forest have monitored the reproductive success of the releases of adult spring chinook and evaluated the mortality rate of juvenile salmon passing through most of the dams. Reproductive success has been consistently high in most of the basins above the USACE projects indicating much of the former spawning and rearing habitat is relatively intact. However, mortality rates through the dams have varied dramatically, from less than 10 percent to over 80 percent. Mortality rates for juvenile chinook passing through Cougar and Lookout Point dams are relatively low.
In 2000, Willamette Spring Chinook were classified as Threatened on the Federal Endangered Species List. Spring chinook within the Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) that can not be externally identified as hatchery fish are protected by the provisions of the Endangered Species
Act. Beginning this year, nearly all adult chinook returning to the Willamette Basin from releases of hatchery reared smolts will be adipose fin-marked. However, spring chinook returning from either natural production of adult releases or excess juvenile releases above the projects will not be distinguishable from wild chinook.
Current releases of hatchery chinook are consistent with the Biological Opinion: On the Impacts From the Collection, Rearing, and Release of Salmonids Associated with Artificial Propagation Programs in the Upper Willamette Spring Chinook and Winter Steelhead Evolutionarily Significant Units (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1publcat/docu/UpperWillametteArtProp.pdf) However, future releases of un-marked spring chinook above USACE projects have the potential of creating difficulties for USACE operations and ODFW fish management. In a meeting with the USACE, NMFS, USFWS and Willamette National Forest on February 11, 2002, ODFW was asked to provide an analysis of the net benefits to placing adult spring chinook above each of the USACE projects.
The following pages summarize the positive and negative aspects of releasing marked and un- marked spring chinook adults above each project. Given the population status, habitat availability, spawning success above and below the dams and, the downstream mortality rates through the dams, we attempt to demonstrate the net benefit for releasing marked and un-marked chinook adults above each project.
SANTIAM RIVER BASIN
Detroit /Big Cliff Project
Critical Questions
Are streams above the reservoirs within the historic natural production area for spring chinook and is quality habitat available? • Yes. An estimated 71 percent of the historical production area of spring chinook in the North Santiam basin was above these projects. Habitat quality has been maintained.
Is there evidence of significant natural production above the reservoirs? • Yes. Snorkel surveys conducted in 2001 found 97 and 466 fish per mile in the Breitenbush and upper mainstem North Santiam, respectively.
What is the survival of fish in the reservoirs? • Unknown. However, there is evidence that up to 180,000 fingerlings immigrated to Detroit Reservoir. • Predation of juveniles in reservoirs is probably low because of low incidence of exotic fish.
What is the survival through the dams? • Juvenile survival past Detroit is estimated at about 51 to 62%. • Juvenile survival past Big Cliff is estimated at about 69%. • Juvenile survival past both projects is estimated at about 35 to 43%.
84 NMFS HGMP Template - 12/30/99
What is the habitat availability and potential for production below dam? • Natural production in the mainstem North Fork Santiam below Big Cliff dam is severely limited because of warm water discharges in the fall that shorten the incubation time of spring chinook eggs. Naturally spawned salmon fry emerge early reducing survival by increasing their exposure to winter freshets and requiring them to begin feeding during a nutrient poor season. • For the period 1995-2001 the average number of juvenile chinook observed during snorkel surveys on the mainstem North Santiam below Big Cliff was only 47.0 fish per mile, despite the presence of extensive mainstem spawning during the period. The Little North Fork Santiam should provide the greatest potential for producing wild chinook in the North Santiam basin, however, the number of juvenile chinook observed during snorkel surveys averaged only 6.7 fish per mile. The relatively small number of unmarked adult ChS trapped at Stayton in 2001 is further evidence that natural production in the North Santiam Basin is severely limited.
Is the area above the dams included in the ESU or as critical habitat? • No.
Are there benefits to other species? • The ecological benefits of nutrient cycling have been well documented and would be a positive influence on the rivers above the projects.
What are the impacts to fisheries? • Unknown. Anglers in Detroit Reservoir catch juvenile salmon as trout. If unmarked adults are released above the reservoir, fisheries would have to be included in ODFW’s Take Permit or we would need to change to an adipose only fishery. • Surviving production from above projects can produce additional unmarked adult chinook for in river fisheries.
What is the origin of the hatchery broodstock? • Marion Forks Hatchery broodstock originated mainly from wild North Santiam chinook.
What is the availability of marked and unmarked chinook? • Several thousand excess adults are available, however, only 5to 6% are unmarked.
Can adult chinook be collected and transported from throughout the run? • Yes.
Are there operational changes that would improve juvenile survival? • Currently unknown.
85 NMFS HGMP Template - 12/30/99 Net Benefits of Alternatives
Alternative 1. Marked chinook only above Detroit Reservoir.
Generally, there are ecological benefits of releasing chinook above the project. The risk to wild fish production below the project is minimal.
Alternative 2. Unmarked and marked chinook released above Detroit Reservoir
Although it is clear that natural production below the project is very low, we cannot demonstrate a net benefit to releasing unmarked fish above the reservoirs.
Critical Information Needs:
• Assessment of survival past the turbines and the regulating outlets. • Investigation of short and long-term operational changes that could improve survival through the projects. • Assessment of the interaction of juvenile chinook with the reservoir environment and reservoir fisheries (delays, residualism, ESA considerations, etc.). • Long term survival studies of juveniles naturally reproduced above the reservoir (CWT studies). • Determination of the level of natural production from spawning observed in the mainstem below dams (test assumptions).
Recommendations:
• Delay transporting unmarked adult chinook above Detroit until the results of future investigations warrants a change. • Continue releasing surplus hatchery adults and pre-smolts (preferably Ad-CWT) above Detroit for assessment purposes. •
Foster Project
Critical Questions
Are streams above reservoir within the historic natural production area for spring chinook and is quality habitat available? • Yes. An estimated 85 percent of the historical production area of spring chinook in the South Santiam basin was upstream from Foster Dam. The South Santiam above Foster (sans the Middle Santiam above green Peter) supported an estimated 400 chinook.
Is there evidence of significant natural production above the reservoir? • Yes. Snorkel surveys above Foster Reservoir between 1998 – 2001averaged 97 fish per mile
86 NMFS HGMP Template - 12/30/99 What is the survival of fish in the reservoir? • Unknown. Predation of juveniles in Foster Reservoir is exacerbated by the incidence of exotic fish.
What is the survival through the dam? • Kaplan turbines designed to pass outmigrating juvenile salmon were installed. Wagner and Ingram (1973) estimated 8 percent mortality for juvenile salmonids migrating through Foster Dam’s Kaplan turbines (USACE Reconnaissance Study, 1995)
What is the habitat availability and potential for production below dam? • Naturally produced fish emerge prematurely below Foster Reservoirs due to warm water discharges in the fall that shorten the incubation time of spring chinook eggs, thus reducing juvenile fish survival by increasing their exposure to winter freshets and forcing them to feed during a nutrient poor time period
Is the area above the dams included in the ESU or as critical habitat? • Yes.
Are there benefits to other species? • The ecological benefits of nutrient cycling have been well documented and would be a positive influence on the rivers above the projects.
What are the impacts to fisheries? • Anglers in Foster Reservoir catch juvenile salmon as trout. If unmarked adults are released above the reservoir, fisheries would have to be included in ODFW’s Take Permit or we would need to change to an adipose only fishery. • Surviving production from above projects can produce additional unmarked adult chinook for in river fisheries.
What is the origin of the hatchery broodstock? • South Santiam Hatchery broodstock originated mainly from wild South Santiam chinook.
What is the availability of marked and unmarked chinook? • Several thousand excess adults are available, however, only 5to 6% are unmarked.
Can adult chinook be collected and transported from throughout the run? • Yes.
Are there operational changes that would improve juvenile survival? • Operations are currently in place to allow outmigration of winter steelhead smolts. Similar operations could be put in place to increase juvenile chinook survival. .
87 NMFS HGMP Template - 12/30/99 Net Benefits of Alternatives
Alternative 1. Marked chinook only above Foster Reservoir. Generally, there are ecological benefits of releasing chinook above the project. The risk to wild fish production below the project is minimal.
Alternative 2. Unmarked and marked chinook released above Foster Reservoir It is clear that natural production below the project is very low. With the apparent low mortality rates through the projects, releasing unmarked fish above the reservoirs can likely increase survival of production from unmarked adults.
Critical Information Needs:
• Assessment of survival past the turbines and the regulating outlets. • Investigation of short and long-term operational changes that could improve survival through the projects. • Assessment of the interaction of juvenile chinook with the reservoir environment and reservoir fisheries (delays, residualism, ESA considerations, etc.) • Long term survival studies of juveniles naturally reproduced above the reservoir (CWT studies) • Determination of the level of natural production from spawning observed in the mainstem below dams (test assumptions).
Recommendations:
• Continue transporting all unmarked (naturally produced) chinook returning to the Foster trap into the mainstem South Santiam above Foster Reservoir. Augment, as necessary, these releases with marked (hatchery) fish to provide increased opportunity for full seeding of available habitat.
Green Peter Project
Critical Questions
Are streams above the reservoir within the historic natural production area for spring chinook and is quality habitat available? • Yes. An estimated 85 percent of the historical production area of spring chinook in the South Santiam basin was upstream from Foster Dam.
Is there evidence of significant natural production above the reservoir? • Some. Kokanee salmon are currently reproducing successfully above the reservoir.
What is the survival of fish in the reservoir? • Poor. Predation of juveniles in Green Peter Reservoir is exacerbated by the incidence of large populations of northern pikeminnow and exotic fish.
88 NMFS HGMP Template - 12/30/99 What is the survival through the dam? • Survival through turbines or regulating outlet unknown. • Downstream migrant facilities operated prior to 1987 were effective in capturing juvenile fish that survived the journey through the reservoir.
What is the habitat availability and potential for production below dam? • Poor habitat and production potential below Green Peter Dam.
Is the area above the dams included in the ESU or as critical habitat? • No.
Are there benefits to other species? • The ecological benefits of nutrient cycling have been well documented and would be a positive influence on the rivers above the projects.
What are the impacts to fisheries? • Anglers in Green Peter Reservoir could harvest juvenile salmon as trout. If unmarked adults are released above the reservoir, fisheries would have to be included in ODFW’s Take Permit or we may need to change to an adipose only fishery. • Surviving production from above projects can produce additional unmarked adult chinook for in river fisheries.
What is the origin of the hatchery broodstock? • South Santiam Hatchery broodstock originated mainly from wild South Santiam chinook.
What is the availability of marked and unmarked chinook? • Several thousand excess marked adults are available. • All unmarked chinook are scheduled for release in the South Santiam above Foster Reservoir.
Can adult chinook be collected and transported from throughout the run? • Yes.
Are there operational changes that would improve juvenile survival? • Operations are currently in place to allow outmigration of winter steelhead smolts at Foster Dam. Similar operations could be put in place to increase juvenile chinook survival. .
Net Benefits of Alternatives
Alternative 1. Marked chinook only above Green Peter Reservoir. Generally, there are ecological benefits of releasing chinook above the project. The risk to wild fish production below the project is minimal.
Alternative 2. Unmarked and marked chinook released above Green Peter Reservoir. It is clear that natural production below the project is very low, however, low survival of 89 NMFS HGMP Template - 12/30/99 juveniles in Green Peter Reservoir results in a net loss for releases of unmarked adults above Green Peter Reservoir.
Critical Information Needs:
• Assessment of survival past the turbines and the regulating outlets. • Investigation of methods to reduce predation within the reservoir.
Recommendations:
Consider transporting marked chinook returning to the Foster trap into streams above Green Peter Reservoir to restore chinook to the ecosystem.
MCKENZIE RIVER BASIN
Cougar Project
Critical Questions
Are streams above the reservoir within the historic natural production area for spring chinook and is quality habitat available? • Yes. An estimated 4,000 spring chinook spawned in the South Fork McKenzie River at the time Cougar Dam was built.
Is there evidence of significant natural production above the reservoir? • Yes. Spawning and snorkel surveys above Cougar Reservoir have documented good production.
What is the survival of fish in the reservoir? • Good prior to 2002. Predation of juveniles in low because of a low incidence of exotic fish. • During 2002-04, Cougar Reservoir will be drawn down to accommodate construction of the Cougar Temperature Control Project. The resulting small reservoir will probably be less productive for juvenile chinook. What is the survival through the dam? • Prior to 2002: turbine passage estimated at approximately 82 to 93%, and regulating outlet about 68%. • During 2002-04, most passage will be through a reservoir evacuation tunnel. Survival through the tunnel is unknown; however, it is expected to be very low. What is the habitat availability and potential for production below dam? • Good spawning habitat is present below Cougar Reservoir, however, naturally produced chinook emerge prematurely below Cougar Reservoirs due to warm water discharges. After 2004, production below the dam should emerge at times similar to natural conditions. Is the area above the dams included in the ESU or as critical habitat? • Yes. Are there benefits to other species? 90 NMFS HGMP Template - 12/30/99 • The ecological benefits of nutrient cycling have been well documented and would be a positive influence on the rivers above the projects. • The presence of chinook salmon above Cougar Reservoir is expected to be a key component to recovering ESA listed bull trout in the South Fork McKenzie Basin. What are the impacts to fisheries? • Anglers in Cougar Reservoir catch juvenile salmon as trout. If unmarked adults are released above the reservoir, fisheries impacts should be included in ODFW’s Take Permit or angling regulations would need to change to allow harvest of only adipose marked fish. • Surviving production from above projects can produce additional unmarked adult chinook for in river fisheries. What is the origin of the hatchery broodstock? • McKenzie Hatchery broodstock originated mainly from wild McKenzie chinook. What is the availability of marked and unmarked chinook? • Several thousand excess adults are available at McKenzie Hatchery. • Unmarked chinook returning from natural reproduction above Cougar Reservoir could be available at a capture facility scheduled to be built below the dam in 2002-03. Can adult chinook be collected and transported from throughout the run? • Yes. Are there operational changes that would improve juvenile survival? • After the Cougar Temperature Control Project is finished, the number of juvenile chinook passing the dam could increase because of the increased surface flow into the outlet tower. Survival through the new tower will be determined after 2004.
Net Benefits of Alternatives Alternative 1. Marked chinook only above Cougar Reservoir. There are many ecological benefits of releasing chinook above the project including increasing production of bull trout in the South Fork McKenzie. The risk to wild fish production below the project is likely minimal although there is a question about potentially inundating wild production with F1 generation hatchery chinook.
Alternative 2. Unmarked and marked chinook released above Cougar Reservoir Although abnormal water temperatures currently affect natural production below the project, this problem should be alleviated after 2004. With the apparent low mortality rates through the project, releasing unmarked fish into the abundant habitat above the reservoirs can likely increase survival of production from unmarked adults.
Critical Information Needs: • Assessment of survival past the turbines and the regulating outlets after the temperature control tower is completed in 2004. • Investigation of short and long-term operational changes that could improve survival through the projects. • Assessment of the interaction of juvenile chinook with the reservoir environment and reservoir fisheries (delays, residualism, ESA considerations, etc.) • Long term survival studies of juveniles naturally reproduced above the reservoir (CWT studies) 91 NMFS HGMP Template - 12/30/99 • Determination of the level of natural production from spawning observed in the mainstem below dams (test assumptions).
Recommendations:
• Continue transporting marked chinook returning to McKenzie Hatchery into the South Fork McKenzie above Cougar Reservoir. Provided the temperature control tower does not increase mortality rates through the project, include the release of unmarked fish after 2004.
Blue River Project
Critical Questions
Are streams above the reservoir within the historic natural production area for spring chinook and is quality habitat available? • Yes. An estimated 200 spring chinook spawned in Blue River at the time the dam was built.
Is there evidence of significant natural production above the reservoir? • No. Adult chinook have not been released above the reservoir.
What is the survival of fish in the reservoir? • Good. Studies in the early 1990’s indicated up to approximately 80,000 outmigrant chinook were produced in Blue River Reservoir. • Predation of juveniles in low because of a low incidence of exotic fish.
What is the survival through the dam? • Poor. Outmigrant studies found between 60 and 80 % mortality through the regulating outlet. • A temperature control project is planned for Blue River Dam and could benefit survival of outmigrants through the project.
What is the habitat availability and potential for production below dam? • Very limited spawning and rearing habitat is present in Blue River below the reservoir.
Is the area above the dams included in the ESU or as critical habitat? • No.
Are there benefits to other species? • The ecological benefits of nutrient cycling have been well documented and would be a positive influence on the rivers above the projects.
What are the impacts to fisheries? • Anglers in Blue River Reservoir catch juvenile salmon as trout. If unmarked adults are released above the reservoir, fisheries impacts should be included in ODFW’s Take Permit or angling regulations would need to change to allow harvest of only adipose marked fish. 92 NMFS HGMP Template - 12/30/99 • Surviving production from above projects can produce additional unmarked adult chinook for in river fisheries.
What is the origin of the hatchery broodstock? • McKenzie Hatchery broodstock originated mainly from wild McKenzie chinook.
What is the availability of marked and unmarked chinook? • Several thousand excess adults are available at McKenzie Hatchery. • Unmarked chinook are not likely to be available.
Can adult chinook be collected and transported from throughout the run? • Yes.
Are there operational changes that would improve juvenile survival? • After the Blue River Temperature Control Project is finished, the number of juvenile chinook passing the dam could increase because of the increased surface flow into the outlet tower. Survival through the new tower would be determined after the project is completed.
Net Benefits of Alternatives
Alternative 1. Marked chinook only above Blue River Reservoir. Releasing chinook above the project would benefit aquatic and terrestrial species in the Blue River Basin. The risk to wild fish production below the project is likely minimal although there is a question about potentially inundating wild production in the mainstem McKenzie with F1 generation hatchery stock.
Alternative 2. Unmarked and marked chinook released above Blue River Reservoir With the current high mortality rates through the project, releasing unmarked chinook above the reservoir would likely result in a net loss of production.
Critical Information Needs:
• Assessment of survival past the regulating outlets after the temperature control tower is completed. • Investigation of short and long-term operational changes that could improve survival through the project. • Assessment of the interaction of juvenile chinook with the reservoir environment and reservoir fisheries (delays, residualism, ESA considerations, etc.) • Long term survival studies of juveniles naturally reproduced above the reservoir (CWT studies).
Recommendations:
Consider transporting marked chinook returning to McKenzie Hatchery into Blue River above the reservoir. 93 NMFS HGMP Template - 12/30/99
MIDDLE FORK WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN
Lookout Point /Dexter Project
Critical Questions
Are streams above the reservoirs within the historic natural production area for spring chinook and is quality habitat available? • Yes. At the time the Lookout Point/Dexter Project was built an estimated 80% of spring chinook destined for the Middle Fork Willamette spawned above Dexter Dam.
Is there evidence of significant natural production above the reservoir? • Yes. Spawning surveys and fish sampling have documented good production in the North Fork Middle Fork Willamette and some production in Salt Creek and the mainstem Middle Fork.
What is the survival of fish in the reservoirs? • Fair. Predation of juveniles by northern pikeminnow and largemouth bass is probably significant in Lookout point and Dexter reservoirs. • In 2001-2002, ODFW estimated approximately 40,000 naturally reproduced juvenile chinook migrated through Lookout Point Dam.
What is the survival through the dams? • In 2001-02: survival though the turbines at Lookout Point Dam was estimated at approximately 88%. • Survival through Dexter Dam is unknown. However, because it has a Kaplan turbine and a similar height as Foster Dam, it may have a similar survival rate (92%).
What is the habitat availability and potential for production below dam? • Good spawning habitat is present below Dexter Dam, however, naturally produced chinook emerge prematurely because of warm water discharges. • ODFW surveys have found an extremely small number of naturally produced chinook in the Middle Fork below Dexter Dam • Investigations of egg survival in the Middle Fork below Dexter have found nearly 100% loss because of fungus attacks.
Is the area above the dams included in the ESU or as critical habitat? • Yes.
Are there benefits to other species? • The ecological benefits of nutrient cycling have been well documented and would be a positive influence on the rivers above the projects. • The presence of chinook salmon above Lookout Point Reservoir could be a key component to recovering ESA listed bull trout if reintroduction efforts are successful in the Middle Fork Willamette Basin. 94 NMFS HGMP Template - 12/30/99 What are the impacts to fisheries? • Anglers in Lookout Point and Dexter reservoirs catch juvenile salmon as trout. If unmarked adults are released above the reservoir, fisheries impacts should be included in ODFW’s Take Permit or angling regulations would need to change to allow harvest of only adipose marked fish. • Surviving production from above projects can produce additional unmarked adult chinook for in river fisheries.
What is the origin of the hatchery broodstock? • Willamette Hatchery broodstock originated mainly from wild Middle Fork Willamette chinook.
What is the availability of marked and unmarked chinook? • Several thousand excess adults are available at Willamette Hatchery. • Unmarked chinook returning from natural reproduction above Lookout Point Reservoir could be available at the Dexter capture facility in 2002-03.
Can adult chinook be collected and transported from throughout the run? • Yes.
Are there operational changes that would improve juvenile survival? • Unknown.
Net Benefits of Alternatives
Alternative 1. Marked chinook only above Lookout Point Reservoir. There are many ecological benefits of releasing chinook above the project including increasing production of bull trout at some future date. The risk to wild fish production below the project is virtually non-existent because few if any wild fish have persisted since the projects were built.
Alternative 2. Unmarked and marked chinook released above Lookout Point Reservoir Abnormal water temperatures currently prohibit successful natural reproduction below the project. With the apparent low mortality rates through the project, releasing unmarked fish into the abundant habitat above the reservoirs will likely increase survival of production from unmarked adults.
Critical Information Needs:
• Assessment of survival past the turbines and the regulating outlets at both Lookout Point and Dexter dams. • Investigation of short and long-term operational changes that could improve survival through the projects. • Assessment of the interaction of juvenile chinook with the reservoir environment and reservoir fisheries (delays, residualism, predation, ESA considerations, etc.) • Long term survival studies of juveniles naturally reproduced above the reservoir (CWT 95 NMFS HGMP Template - 12/30/99 studies)
Recommendations:
• Continue transporting both marked and unmarked chinook returning to Dexter Dam into the North Fork Middle Fork Willamette, Salt Creek, and the mainstem Middle Fork Willamette above Lookout Point Reservoir.
Hills Creek Project
Critical Questions
Are streams above the reservoir within the historic natural production area for spring chinook and is quality habitat available? • Yes. At the time the Lookout Point/Dexter Project was built an estimated 80% of spring chinook destined for the Middle Fork Willamette spawned above Dexter Dam.
Is there evidence of significant natural production above the reservoir? • Yes. Spawning and snorkel surveys and fish sampling in the reservoir have documented good production in the Middle Fork Willamette above Hills Creek Reservoir.
What is the survival of fish in the reservoir? • Fair to good. Survival of juveniles in the reservoir may be compromised by exotic fish including bass, crappie and brown bullhead catfish. • In 1999-2000, the Willamette National Forest and ODFW estimated approximately 9,000 naturally reproduced juvenile chinook migrated through Hills Creek Dam.
What is the survival through the dam? • In 1999-2000: survival though the turbines and regulating outlet at Hills Creek Dam was estimated at approximately 41% and 68%, respectively.
What is the habitat availability and potential for production below dam? • Although some good spawning and rearing habitat is present below Hills Creek Dam, it is not useable because the Lookout Point/Dexter Project blocks access to it.
Is the area above the dams included in the ESU or as critical habitat? • Yes.
Are there benefits to other species? • The ecological benefits of nutrient cycling have been well documented and would be a positive influence on the rivers above the projects. • The presence of chinook salmon above Hills Creek Reservoir is a key component to recovering ESA listed bull trout in the Middle Fork Willamette Basin. Early results of re- introduction efforts above Hills Creek Dam have appeared promising.
96 NMFS HGMP Template - 12/30/99 What are the impacts to fisheries? • Anglers in Hills Creek Reservoir catch juvenile salmon as trout. If unmarked adults are released above the reservoir, fisheries impacts should be included in ODFW’s Take Permit or angling regulations would need to change to allow harvest of only adipose marked fish. ODFW is currently taking steps to provide for an adipose only harvest of trout in Hills Creek Reservoir in 2004. • Surviving production from above projects can produce additional unmarked adult chinook for in river fisheries.
What is the origin of the hatchery broodstock? • Willamette Hatchery broodstock originated mainly from wild Middle Fork Willamette chinook.
What is the availability of marked and unmarked chinook? • Several thousand excess adults are available at Willamette Hatchery. • Unmarked chinook returning from natural reproduction above Lookout Point Reservoir could be available at the Dexter capture facility in 2002-03.
Can adult chinook be collected and transported from throughout the run? • Yes.
Are there operational changes that would improve juvenile survival? • Unknown.
Net Benefits of Alternatives
Alternative 1. Marked chinook only above Hills Creek Reservoir. There are many ecological benefits of releasing chinook above the project including increasing production of bull trout. The risk to wild fish production below the project is virtually non- existent because few (if any) wild fish have persisted since the projects were built.
Alternative 2. Unmarked and marked chinook released above Hills Creek Reservoir With the high mortality rates through the project, and the cumulative mortality through Lookout Point and Dexter dams, releasing unmarked fish into habitat above Hills Creek Reservoir is not a prudent option at this time. Unmarked chinook would be more likely to benefit natural production if used in the Middle Fork Willamette Basin below Hills Creek Dam.
Critical Information Needs:
• An assessment of cumulative survival past the turbines and the regulating outlets at Hills Creek, Lookout Point and Dexter dams. • Investigation of short and long-term operational changes that could improve survival through the projects. • Assessment of the interaction of juvenile chinook with the reservoir environment and reservoir fisheries (delays, residualism, predation, ESA considerations, etc.) 97 NMFS HGMP Template - 12/30/99 • Long term survival studies of juveniles naturally reproduced above the reservoir (CWT studies)
Recommendations:
Continue transporting marked chinook returning to Dexter Dam into the Middle Fork Willamette above Hills Creek Reservoir.
Fall Creek Project
Critical Questions
Are streams above the reservoir within the historic natural production area for spring chinook and is quality habitat available? • Yes. Although spawning and rearing habitats are marginal for spring chinook.
Is there evidence of significant natural production above the reservoir? • Unknown
What is the survival of fish in the reservoir? • Good. Studies of fingerling chinook releases in Fall Creek Reservoir in the early 1990’s have demonstrated a production capability of up to 275,000 outmigrants. • Survival of juveniles in the reservoir may be compromised by exotic fish including bass, crappie and brown bullhead catfish.
What is the survival through the dam? • In 1990-1992: survival though the regulating outlet at Fall Creek Dam was estimated at approximately19 to 29%.
What is the habitat availability and potential for production below dam? • Although some good spawning and rearing habitat is present below Fall Creek Dam, it is highly altered because of reservoir operations.
Is the area above the dams included in the ESU or as critical habitat? • Yes.
Are there benefits to other species? • The ecological benefits of nutrient cycling have been well documented and would be a positive influence on the rivers above the projects.
What are the impacts to fisheries? • Anglers in Fall Creek Reservoir catch juvenile salmon as trout. If unmarked adults are released above the reservoir, fisheries impacts should be included in ODFW’s Take Permit or angling regulations would need to change to allow harvest of only adipose marked fish. • Surviving production from above the project can produce additional unmarked adult chinook 98 NMFS HGMP Template - 12/30/99 for in river fisheries.
What is the origin of the hatchery broodstock? • Willamette Hatchery broodstock originated mainly from wild Middle Fork Willamette chinook.
What is the availability of marked and unmarked chinook? • Several thousand excess adults are available at Willamette Hatchery. • Unmarked chinook returning from natural reproduction above Fall Creek Reservoir could be available at the Fall Creek capture facility in 2002-03.
Can adult chinook be collected and transported from throughout the run? • Yes.
Are there operational changes that would improve juvenile survival? • Yes. Mortality studies conducted in 1990-91 indicated early drawdown decreases head pressure and flow volume during the fall outmigration period, and significantly improves survival of chinook leaving the reservoir.
Net Benefits of Alternatives
Alternative 1. Marked chinook only above Fall Creek Reservoir. There are many ecological benefits of releasing chinook above the project including increasing production of bull trout. The risk to wild fish production below the project is virtually non- existent because few (if any) wild fish have persisted since the project was built.
Alternative 2. Unmarked and marked chinook released above Fall Creek Reservoir With the high mortality rates through the project releasing unmarked fish into habitat above Fall Creek Reservoir may not a prudent option at this time. Unmarked chinook would be more likely to benefit natural production if released in the Fall Creek Basin below Fall Creek Dam.
Critical Information Needs:
• An assessment of spawning success above Fall Creek Reservoir. • Investigation of structural changes to existing fish passage facilities that could improve survival through the projects. • Assessment of the interaction of juvenile chinook with the reservoir environment and reservoir fisheries (delays, residualism, predation, ESA considerations, etc.)
Recommendations:
Continue transporting marked chinook returning to Fall Creek Dam into the Fall Creek above the reservoir.
99 NMFS HGMP Template - 12/30/99 COAST FORK WILLAMETTE BASIN
Dorena and Cottage Grove Projects
Critical Questions
Are streams above the reservoirs within the historic natural production area for spring chinook and is quality habitat available? • Yes for a very limited number of spring chinook. Spawning and rearing habitats are marginal.
Is there evidence of significant natural production above the reservoirs? • No
What is the survival of fish in the reservoirs? • Unknown. Survival of juveniles in the reservoir would likely be compromised by exotic fish including bass, crappie and brown bullhead catfish. • After rotenone treatments in the early 1970’s, an estimated 112,000 to 345,000 chinook migrated out of Cottage Grove Reservoir.
What is the survival through the dam? • Unknown.
What is the habitat availability and potential for production below the dams? • Limited spawning and rearing habitat is present in the Coast Fork below these projects.
Is the area above the dams included in the ESU or as critical habitat? • No.
Are there benefits to other species? • The ecological benefits of nutrient cycling have been well documented and could be a positive influence on the streams above the projects.
What are the impacts to fisheries? • Anglers in Dorena and Cottage Grove reservoirs catch juvenile salmon as trout. If unmarked adults are released above the reservoir, fisheries impacts should be included in ODFW’s Take Permit.
What is the origin of the hatchery broodstock? • No Coast Fork Willamette chinook have been known to exist since before the 20th century. Willamette Hatchery broodstock originated mainly from wild Middle Fork Willamette chinook.
What is the availability of marked and unmarked chinook? • Several thousand excess adults are available at Willamette Hatchery. 100 NMFS HGMP Template - 12/30/99 • Unmarked chinook returning from natural reproduction above Lookout Point Reservoir could be available at the Dexter capture facility in 2002-03.
Can adult chinook be collected and transported from throughout the run? • Yes.
Are there operational changes that would improve juvenile survival? • Early drawdown would likely benefit outmigrants.
Net Benefits of Alternatives
Alternative 1. Marked chinook only above Dorena and Cottage Grove reservoirs. There are many ecological benefits of releasing chinook above the projects. The risk to wild fish production below the project is virtually non-existent because no wild fish have been documented since the 1800’s.
Alternative 2. Unmarked and marked chinook released above Fall Creek Reservoir Poor habitat and potentially high mortality rates through the projects warrant that no unmarked fish should be released into habitat above these reservoirs.
Critical Information Needs:
• Assessment of the interaction of juvenile chinook with the reservoir environment and reservoir fisheries (delays, residualism, predation, ESA considerations, etc.)
Recommendations:
Consider transporting marked chinook returning to Dexter Dam into the streams above the Dorena and Cottage Grove reservoirs.
101 NMFS HGMP Template - 12/30/99
102 NMFS HGMP Template - 12/30/99