FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29013
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 |
|---|---|
| 29013 Narrative | Narrative |
| 29013 Sponsor Response to ISRP | Response |
| 29013 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Letter from T. Fitzsimmons (WA Dept of Ecology) and J. Koenings (WDFW) to F. Cassidy and T. Karier (NPCC) RE: State of Washington project proposals for the Columbia Cascade and Lower Columbia Provinces | Correspondence |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Acquire Land Adjacent to Chiliwist Creek and Develop Summer Chinook and Summer Steelhead Acclimation Pond |
| Proposal ID | 29013 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Heather Bartlett |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 1646 Okanogan, WA 98840 |
| Phone / email | 5098267341 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Dennis Beich |
| Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Okanogan |
| Short description | Acquire 89 acres of apple orchard adjacent to Chiliwist Creek and develop an acclimation pond to imprint summer chinook and summer steelhead in order to improve return spawn distribution in the Okanogan Subbasin. |
| Target species | Summer chinook, summer steelhead |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.263 | -119.729 | 89 acres of apple orchard, T32-R25-S20, Tax parcels 12 and 8, adjacent to Chiliwist Creek, parallel to Okanogan River (with Doulgas PUD land in between orchard land and river) |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Action 150 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1990 -2001 | Operation and management of the Carlton Acclimation Pond and Eastbank Hatchery Facility |
| 1990-2001 | Summer chinook supplementation program evaluation |
| 1967-2001 | Operation and management of the Wells Dam Hatchery |
| 1990-2001 | Operation of Similkameen Rearing Pond |
| 1992-2001 | Methow Hatchery Construction and management |
| 2001 | Upper Columbia Conservation and Management Plan |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199604200 | Restoration and Enhancement of Anadrmous Fish Populations & Habitat in Salmon Creek | Restoration of Upper Columbia River summer steelheaad |
| 200001300 | Evaluation of an experimental re-introduction of Sockeye Salmon into Skaha Lake | Restoration of Upper Columbia anadromous fish populations |
| 200000100 | Improvement of Anadromous Fish Habitat and Passage in Omak Creek | Restoration of Upper Columbia anadromous fish populations |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Property acquisition | a. Acquire title report, appraisal, and appraisal review for property | 1 | $2,500 | |
| b. Purchase title insurance | 1 | $2,000 | ||
| c. Conduct necessary environmental assessment | 1 | $3,000 | Yes | |
| d. Purchase land | 1 | $425,000 | ||
| 2. Acclimation pond design | a. Conduct site survey | 1 | $500 | Yes |
| b. Contract with engineer to examine topography and hydrology of site | 1 | $1,970 | Yes | |
| c. Develop final design and specifications for pond | 1 | $12,000 | Yes | |
| d. Secure additional water for pond and secure permits necessary to move current water intake from Chiliwist Creek to Okanogan River | $500 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Enhance Chiliwist property | a. Mobilize construction crew | 1 | $2,000 | Yes |
| b. Construct acclimation pond | 1 | $200,000 | Yes | |
| c. Monitor and refine construction activities as necessary | 1 | $3,500 | Yes | |
| d. Move water intake from Chiliwist Creek to Okanogan River | 1 | $8,500 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Operate acclimation factility and maintain property | a. Operate and maintain acclimation pond | 3 | $156,482 | |
| b. Control weeds on property | 3 | $6,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Operate acclimation factility and maintain property | 2004 | 2005 | $355,565 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| $172,470 | $183,095 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 2.5 (complex manager, fish hatchery specialist 2) | $48,500 |
| Fringe | @30% | $0 |
| Supplies | Food, electricity, drugs and chemicals, NPDES permits | $55,000 |
| Travel | Related to purchase of food, chemicals, etc. | $2,500 |
| Indirect | 25.2% excluding fish food and capital equipment | $38,202 |
| Capital | Land purchase price, acclimation pond construction | $430,000 |
| NEPA | $3,000 | |
| PIT tags | # of tags: 100,000 | $11,700 |
| Subcontractor | Pond construction, move water intake | $220,000 |
| Other | Training | $500 |
| $809,402 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $809,402 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $809,402 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed. Assuming supplementation is a good strategy, it seems reasonable to spread out the acclimation and planting, as the proposal suggests. However, the sponsors should investigate costs and benefits of truck releases as an alternative strategy to spread out the return points of adults. The response should contain a review of the literature for advantages and disadvantages of the two basic approaches: acclimation ponds versus point releases without acclimation.The switch to Okanogan River water is good for flows in the Chiliwist, but Okanogan water may be too warm in summer. The thermal difficulties were mentioned, but the solution was not clear and should be further discussed.
The proposal did not say how the pond would be designed. Another proposal from the Twisp River has gone to great lengths to make their ponds "natural" and much like a natural side channel, to be used by river fish, as well. Could this be done to create "off-channel" habitat (including riparian) in this project.
Nothing was said about use of the rest of the land. Are there benefits to wildlife habitat that could be used to help meet BPA mitigate for loss of wildlife habitat? The response needs to include a HEP analysis for value to wildlife, and identification of mitigation credit to BPA and a detailed M&E proposal.
Even if the M&E is to be conducted by another project, details that apply to monitoring and evaluation of the proposed project should be given in this proposal. The specific sample areas, methods, and sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what type where and when) need to be specified. How will one know if this project is a success or a failure?
An M&E proposal for monitoring of wildlife habitat is also needed. The proponents are referred to the ISRP Review of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes' Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Plan (19910600) ( http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2001-4addendum.htm). The project was reviewed in the Mountain Columbia Province to determine whether it provided scientifically sound criteria and protocol to prioritize habitat acquisitions. The ISRP found that document described a good plan for habitat acquisition and restoration of wildlife habitat in mitigation for lost aquatic and riparian habitat due to the Kerr Project No. 5 located on the Flathead River and could serve as a useful model to other habitat and restoration proposals with some minor revision of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) component of the plan. The M&E component has subsequently been reviewed and approved subject to minor modifications in ISRP report (www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2001-4AlbeniFalls.pdf). The proponents are also referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.
Comment:
This project should be phased to purchase land in FY 03, perform planning, design and permitting in FY 04 and in FY 05 begin construction of the ponds and funding operation. The budget has been adjusted to represent this recommendation. Confirmation of the budget is needed from the project sponsor. Land has not been appraised so land costs are likely higher than fair market value.Comment:
Fundable at medium priority. The response is adequate; however, the ISRP notes that supplementation of naturally reproducing salmon with hatchery production remains a controversial issue. The response includes an excellent literature review that describes acclimation pond benefits for chinook survival/homing. The ponds would also be used for steelhead, where the documented benefits are less clear.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUHatchery/Supplementation project providing alternative release location to improve dispersal of summer chinook spawners.
Comments
Sponsor claims RPA 150 but the major emphasis is on the acclimation project, with little emphasis on habitat. The use of acclimation should be deferred until the completion of an approved HGMP that calls for a particular reform and relevance to listed fish. More acclimation sites may be good, but the need has not been substantiated yet. Potential benefits of acclimation appear to be small with steelhead.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No
Comment:
Recommend deferral to Subbasin PlanningComment: