FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29006
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 29006 Narrative | Narrative |
| Early Winters Supplementation Site Map | Narrative Attachment |
| Early Winters Vicinity Map | Narrative Attachment |
| Early Winters Proposed Site Photo | Narrative Attachment |
| Response in Opposition from Okanogan Wilderness League | Response |
| Response in Opposition from USFWS | Response |
| 29006 & 29038 Response | Response |
| 29006 and 29038 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| 29006 and 29038 Powerpoint Presentation Embedded Movie File | Powerpoint Presentation Embedded File |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Supplement Spring Chinook in Early Winters Creek |
| Proposal ID | 29006 |
| Organization | Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation, Chewuch Basin Council (co-sponsor), Colville Confederated Tribes (co-sponsor), Yakima Indian Nation (co-sponsor), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (co-sponsor) (MSRF) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Terry M. O'Reilly |
| Mailing address | PO Box 756 Winthrop, WA. 98862 |
| Phone / email | 5099962787 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Terry M. O'Reilly |
| Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Methow |
| Short description | Develop a "natural" acclimation/rearing site on Early Winters Creek to supplement native fish stocks. |
| Target species | Spring chinook salmon ( targeted- endangered upper Columbia ESU), summer steelhead (affected- endangered upper Columbia ESU), bull trout ( affected- threatened upper Columbia ESU). |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.6012 | -120.4364 | Approximately 16 miles West of Winthrop on Highway 20 just South of Early Winters Creek bridge. |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| 151 |
| 184 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199802500 | Early Winters Creek Habitat Restoration -restored historic fish, riparian and floodplain habitat, identified methods to augment instream flow to increase spawner success and juvenile survival. Project was completed summer of 2000 with some follow-up monit | Provides potential to provide flow augmentation of up to 30% of late season flows and supplement natural production in Early Winters Creek and the Methow system. |
| WDFW Spring chinook program | Provides satelite acclimation facility to assist in maintaining supplementation programs and provide for improved distribution. Provides upper basin site to facilitate on-going and future studies. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planning, Design, and Permitting | 1a. Complete design phase of project | 1 | $40,000 | Yes |
| 1b. Complete permitting | 1 | $10,000 | Yes | |
| 1c. Develop HGMP and Fish Production Plan | 1 | $16,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2. Construct Facility | 2a.Construct pond/control structures | 1 | $90,500 | Yes |
| Water supply system | Construct well and supply system | 1 | $52,000 | Yes |
| Install fish protection/feed systems | Fish protection | 1 | $7,500 | Yes |
| Re-vegatation of disturbed areas | Landscaping | 1 | $10,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3. Acclimate and Release | 2004 | 2007 | $20,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4. Monitor and Evaluate | 4a.Assess juvenile migration | ongoing | $0 | Yes |
| 4b.Assess adult return | ongoing | $0 | Yes | |
| 4c. Reporting | $5,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4. Monitor and evaluate | 2004 | 2007 | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 0.333 | $20,000 |
| Fringe | 50% | $10,000 |
| Supplies | 25% | $7,500 |
| Travel | To and from site | $3,000 |
| NEPA | $10,000 | |
| Subcontractor | Golder Assoc.design/engineering, Contractor for all equipment and materials | $180,500 |
| $231,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $231,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $231,000 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSRF/WDFW | Monitoring | $30,000 | in-kind |
| MSRF/WDFW | Reporting | $8,000 | in-kind |
| R.D Merrill Co. | Land donation/longterm access agreement | $75,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Mar 1, 2002
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed to justify the need of an acclimation pond compared to trucking and dumping the fish by reviewing the current literature. This proposal and 29038 should provide some insight into the data supporting acclimation benefits versus direct release. See also review comments for project 29038. This is a good proposal that is a close analog to 29039 (ponds on the Chewuch) except that the focus here is on spring Chinook on Early Winters Creek. New ponds would be built on the same "natural" model. Reviewers have the same general concerns in this project about actually sunsetting as were described for 29038.The proposal anticipates sunsetting (termination) after natural production has risen to expected levels, but how realistic is this? Would wild fish actually use the site? Would the fisheries managers let go of it? The reviewers would like assurance that the project would 'sunset' and would like to review the criteria for it.
Where will the fish for acclimation come from? Is acclimation necessary or desirable? Kenaston, Lindsay, and Schroeder found no difference in homing ability or survival of acclimated steelhead compared to steelhead directly trucked and released into the stream. The same may apply to spring chinook salmon.
The response needs to provide a critical analysis from the literature on the subject of supposed benefits of acclimation. See the following references for useful discussion points in the response.
Kenaston, K. R., R. B. Lindsay, and R. K. Schroeder 2001. Effect of acclimation on the homing and survival of hatchery winter steelhead North Amer. Journal of Fish. Mgmt. 21:765-773:
Savitz, J., L. G. Bardygula, and G. Funk 1993, Returns of non-cage-released chinook and coho salmon to Illinois harbors of Lake Michigan. North Amer. Journal of Fish. Mgmt. 13:550-557.
Comment:
The hatchery programs in the Methow are currently undergoing evaluation and potentially restructuring. The PUD hatchery committee will be organizing and planning in the near future. The BOR hatchery program is considering moving towards supplementation, but decisions have not been made. This project may be ahead of those efforts and cannot be tied to specific planning documents at this time. This project may be a key element in the future, but at this time that cannot be determined. NMFS has identified this as a BiOp project.Comment:
Fundable. This proposal and 29038 should provide some insight into the data supporting acclimation benefits versus direct release, and the response adequately addresses the ISRP's concerns with this issue. See also review comments for project 29038. This is a good proposal that is a close analog to 29039 (ponds on the Chewuch) except that the focus here is on spring chinook on Early Winters Creek. New ponds would be built on the same "natural" model.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUHatchery/Supplementation project to increase the numbers of natural spawning spring chinook. In addition, the potential flow augmentation portion of the proposed project may benefit ESA listed steelhead and bull trout by increasing instream flows.
Comments
May provide another test of NATURES, but not every application of NATURES rearing is a RPA 184 project. Hatchery reform will generally follow the completion of an approved HGMP.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No
Comment:
Recommend deferral to Subbasin PlanningComment: