FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 199405300
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 |
|---|---|
| 199405300 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199405300 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 199405300 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| 199405300 Powerpoint Presentation: 2003 Update | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Lower Columbia: Willamette Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Lower Columbia: Willamette Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Middle Fork Willamette River Bull Trout Re-introduction and Basinwide Monitoring |
| Proposal ID | 199405300 |
| Organization | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Alan Hemmingsen |
| Mailing address | 28655 Hwy 34 Corvallis, OR 97333 |
| Phone / email | 5417574263 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Ed Bowels, Director of Fish Division, ODFW |
| Review cycle | Lower Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Willamette |
| Short description | Evaluate protocols for the re-introduction of bull trout into historic habitats in the upper Willamette River subbbasin, and employ methods to monitor and evaluate the status and trends of bull trout populations in the Lower Columbia Province. |
| Target species | Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Columbia River DPS |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 44.2578 | -122.0357 | Anderson Creek plus other McKenzie River locations including , but not limited to areas above Trail Bridge Reservoir and South Fork McKenzie |
| 43.588 | -122.4537 | Multiple locations in the Middle Fork Willamette River watershed above Hills Creek Dam |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| RME RPA Action 180 |
| RME RPA Action 193 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1996 | Surveyed 100+ miles of stream for presence of bull trout. Young of the year bull trout found only in spawning tributaries. |
| 1997 | Completed a risk assessment, rehabilitation plan and monitoring program of Middle Fork Willamette River bull trout. |
| 1998 | Conducted spawning surveys in Anderson Creek, Olallie Creek, and manistem McKenzie River. Detected an increasing trend in bull trout abundance. |
| 1998 | Monitored timing and number of juveniles moving downstream in Anderson Creek using a downstream migrant trap. Data indicated good spawning success. |
| 1998 | Transferred 1,497 juvenile bull trout from the McKenzie Basin to the Middle Fork Willamette Basin. |
| 1998 | Described seasonal movements and habitat use in mainstem McKenzie, South Fork McKenzie and Cougar Reservoir using radio telemetry. |
| 1999 | Estimated the number of spawning adult bull trout in Anderson Creek and Roaring River using electronic fish counters. |
| 1999 | Transferred 1,976 juvenile bull trout from the McKenzie Basin to the Middle Fork Willamette Basin. |
| 1999 | Confirmed survival of juvenile bull trout transferred from the McKenzie Basin to the Middle Fork Willamette Basin in 1998 and 1999. |
| 1999 | Conducted a population estimate of juvenile bull trout rearing in Anderson Creek. |
| 2000 | Conducted spawning surveys, standard pool counts, juvenile trapping, electronic counting of adults and juvenile population estimates for the mainstem McKenzie population of bull trout. |
| 2000 | Conducted spawning surveys, standard pool counts, radio tracking and electronic counting of adults for the South Fork McKenzie population of bull trout. |
| 2000 | Transferred 2,788 McKenzie River juvenile bull trout to six release sites in the Middle Fork Willamette above Hills Creek Reservoir and monitored survival of the 1997-99 releases. |
| 2000 | Prepared and presented paper at Wild Trout VII Conference titled: Using Partnerships for Attaining Long Term Sustainability of Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Populations in the Upper Willamette Basin, Oregon. |
| 2001 | Conducted spawning surveys, juvenile trapping, electronic counting of adults and determined juvenile distribution and microhabitat use for the mainstem McKenzie population of bull trout. |
| 2001 | Conducted spawning surveys and electronic counting of adults for the South Fork McKenzie population of bull trout. |
| 2001 | Transferred 1,456 McKenzie River juvenile bull trout to four release sites in the Middle Fork Willamette above Hills Creek Reservoir and monitored survival of the 1997-2000 releases. |
| 2001 | We estimated approximately 230 age 2+ bull trout were residing in 5.5 miles of the upper Middle Fork Willamette River. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199206800 | Assess Mckenzie Watershed Habitat And Prioritize Projects | Assesses McKenzie Watershed habitat by synthesizing recent watershed analyses and gathering data to address information gaps. The project will provide a basin-wide context for bull trout habitat protection, restoration and monitoring strategies. |
| 199405400 | Bull trout genetics, habitat needs, life history in Central and NE Oregon | Both are Columbia River Basin bull trout studies. 199405300 targets Willamette Subbasin populations 199405400 targets subbasins in Eastern Oregon. |
| 199206800 | McKenzie Watershed Council Coordination | Coordinates McKenzie Watershed Council administration, project planning, implementation and monitoring among multiple stakeholders/landowners. The proposed project would be guided by the ongoing McKenzie Watershed Council framework. |
| 199206800 | Willamette Basin Mitigation Program, Phase III, Wildlife | Habitat for bull trout |
| Cougar Water Temperature Control Project, Fisheries Monitoring | Monitoring work being conducted under this project will add additional data to the monitoring portion of the proposed project. | |
| Willamette National Forest | Personnel, Planning, Financial | |
| US Fish and Wildlife Service | Personnel, Planning, Financial | |
| Eugene Water and Electric Board | Planning, Financial | |
| Oregon Department of Transportation | Financial | |
| Oregon State Police | Personnel | |
| Oregon Council Federation of Flyfishers | Personnel, Planning, Review, Financial | |
| McKenzie Flyfishers | Personnel | |
| National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Bring Back the Natives Program) | Financial | |
| Trout Unlimited | Planning, Financial | |
| Bureau of Land Management | Personnel, Review | |
| Native Fish Society | Review | |
| McKenzie Watershed Council | Planning | |
| Saturday Academy (Apprenticeships in Science and Engineering) | Personnel, Financial | |
| Oregon Chapter American Fisheries Society | Review | |
| Salvelinus confluentus Curiosity Society | Personnel, Review | |
| US Army Corps of Engineers | Planning, Financial | |
| Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | Personnel, Planning, Review, Financial | |
| Weyerhaeuser Company | Personnel, Review |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design 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 Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Determine the feasibility and suitability of relocating bull trout from Anderson Creek to suitable sites in the Middle Fork Willamette River. | Task 1.1. Conduct habitat surveys on Middle Fork Willamette River (above Hills Creek Dam), Salt Creek, Salmon Creek and North Fork Middle Fork Willamette River using Aquatic Inventory Project (ODFW) crews and protocol. | 1 | $33,400 | |
| Task 1.2. Conduct fish presence or absence surveys using Aquatic Inventory Project (ODFW) crews and protocol. | 1 | $23,400 | ||
| Task 1.3. Monitor temperatures in streams listed in Task 1.1, from April through October. | 1 | $6,600 | ||
| Task 1.4. Evaluate the current status of, and risk to, the donor population. | 1 | $7,000 | ||
| Task 1.5 . Conduct trial rearing of YOY Anderson Creek bull trout in Marion Forks Hatchery. | 1 | $17,200 | ||
| Task 1.6. Publish results in annual reports and information reports, and present results at technical meetings. | 1 | $5,200 | ||
| Objective 2. Collect and transfer bull trout from Anderson Creek to suitable re-introduction sites and to Marion Forks Hatchery. | Task 2.1. Collect YOY bull trout from Anderson Creek by screw trap from February to June. | 5 | $0 | |
| Task 2.2. Mark experimental groups with opposite ventral fin clips. | 5 | $0 | ||
| Task 2.3. Transport 50% of removed bull trout to re-introduction sites and 50% to Marion Forks Hatchery. | 5 | $0 | ||
| Task 2.4. Transport hatchery reared bull trout to re-introduction sites during spring following their collection from Anderson Creek. | 5 | $0 | ||
| Objective 3. Monitor re-introduced bull trout and compare response variables between treatments. | Task 3.1. Determine the distribution of re-introduced bull trout using snorkel surveys. | 5 | $0 | |
| Task 3.2. Estimate the number of re-introduced bull trout using calibrated night snorkel counts. | 5 | $0 | ||
| Task 3.3. Estimate the growth of re-introduced bull trout using visual estimation and cohort analysis. | 5 | $0 | ||
| Task 3.4. Conduct bi-weekly spawning surveys from mid-August through mid-November. | 5 | $0 | ||
| Task 3.5. Monitor temperatures at re-introduction sites throughout each year. | 5 | $0 | ||
| Task 3.6. Publish results of the analysis in annual reports and peer-reviewed publications and present results at technical meetings. | 5 | $0 | ||
| Objective 4. Continue to monitor Anderson Creek bull trout and refine estimates of their status and risk. | Task 4.1 Operate a screw trap during February through June to estimate the number of migrating juveniles. | 5 | $10,300 | |
| Task 4.2 Conduct calibrated snorkel surveys to estimate the number of resident juveniles. | 5 | $7,400 | ||
| Task 4.3 Count the number of adults returning to Anderson Creek during August through October. | 5 | $7,000 | ||
| Task 4.4. Conduct bi-weekly spawning surveys from mid-August through mid-November. | 5 | $5,400 | ||
| Task 4.5. Publish results in annual reports and information reports, and present results at technical meetings. | 5 | $3,300 | ||
| Objective 5. Monitor other populations of bull trout in the McKenzie River and Middle Fork Willamette River watersheds. | Task 5.1. Conduct bi-weekly spawning surveys in Olallie Creek, Sweetwater Creek, Upper McKenzie River (above Trial Bridge Reservoir), South Fork McKenzie River, Roaring River Middle Fork and Willamette River from mid-August through October. | 5 | $16,900 | |
| Task 5.2. Determine the distribution of bull trout in the mainstem McKenzie River and Middle Fork Willamette River by snorkeling during summer months. | 5 | $11,100 | ||
| Task 5.3. Publish results in annual reports and information reports, and present results at technical meetings. | 5 | $5,200 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 2. Collect and transfer bull trout from Anderson Creek to suitable re-introduction sites and to Marion Forks Hatchery. | 2004 | 2008 | $39,200 |
| Objective 3. Monitor re-introduced bull trout and compare response variables between treatments. | 2004 | 2008 | $79,000 |
| Objective 4. Continue to monitor Anderson Creek bull trout and refine estimates of their status and risk. | 2004 | 2008 | $32,400 |
| Objective 5. Monitor other populations of bull trout in the McKenzie River and Middle Fork Willamette River watersheds. | 2004 | 2008 | $21,800 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $172,400 | $179,600 | $192,200 | $204,800 |
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 |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
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: 2.33 | $70,370 |
| Fringe | 34%, varies by position | $36,180 |
| Supplies | $11,182 | |
| Travel | $10,300 | |
| Indirect | $31,368 | |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | # of tags: 0 | $0 |
| Subcontractor | $0 | |
| $159,400 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $159,400 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $159,400 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Willamette National Forest | Daily sampling of screw trap in Anderson Cr., spawning and snorkel surveys above Trail Bridge Reservoir. | $48,000 | in-kind |
| Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | Liason with cooperators, data maintenance, field assistance as needed. | $9,300 | 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. This work could provide useful information concerning strategies for reintroduction of bull trout and status and trends of bull trout in the Upper Willamette basin. However, the details of the research design, sampling protocols, and data analysis for the reintroduction study have not been adequately discussed. The sponsors need to justify why only 1-2 sites per experimental group are being considered for reintroduction. It would seem that if the results were to be generalizable over a wide area, as the sponsors suggest they would, and for greater statistical power more reintroduction sites for each experimental group would be needed. How will the authors determine how many fry and yearlings will be reintroduced at each site? Will there be an assessment of habitat carrying capacity of each reintroduction site? Will the researchers attempt to equalize numerical density or biomass between individual fry and yearling plants to help to control for density dependent effects? What will be done to assess the possible interactive effects of non-native fishes on bull trout? How often will the reintroduction sites be sampled annually and when? An important factor in determining relative success of reintroductions is habitat quality and quantity. Presumably habitat characteristics will not be identical between reintroduction sites. Is there going to be comprehensive assessment of habitat composition and utilization by reintroduced fish during the monitoring phase. If so, how will it be done and how will the information be used to evaluate reintroduction success.Comment:
USFWS has identified that this project is a BiOp project. The proposed project will investigate strategies for reintroduction of bull trout and status and trends of bull trout in the Upper Willamette basin; however, CBFWA believes that the proposed experimentComment:
Not fundable on a technical basis. The investigators explain well the constraints on sampling but do not provide adequate detail of their experimental/statistical design, an indication of the power they would have to detect differences between strategies given their constraints on numbers of fish and sites. If properly designed this work could provide useful information concerning strategies for reintroduction of bull trout and status and trends of bull trout in the Upper Willamette basin. In a revised proposal the ISRP suggests that it would be valuable to use excised fin tissues as a basis for a parentage analysis of the subject bull trout, for observing whether survival is random with respect to families, i.e. for observing the effective population size of bull trout.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUComments
Not Reviewed
Already ESA Req?
Biop? No
Comment:
Recommend deferring consideration of new ESA listed fish mitigation proposals in the Willamette Subbasin until issuance of the NMFS/USFWS BiOp for the Willamette Basin federal hydroprojects. It is questionable whether continued support of projects enabling fishing opportunities for ESA listed stocks is justified without a thorough review of the stock's status.Comment:
Willamette Issue 2: Middle Fork Willamette Bull Trout Re-introduction and Basinwide Monitoring (Project 199405300)
Council Recommendation: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has been evaluating the status and trends of bull trout populations in the Willamette system for several years. Although CBFWA designated this ongoing project as a High Priority, the ISRP rated it as "Do Not Fund", the only ongoing project in these provinces to receive that ISRP rating. Bonneville recommended "deferring consideration of new ESA listed fish mitigation proposals in the Willamette until issuance of the NOAA Fisheries/USFWS Biological Opinion for the Willamette." Though the project proposed new work in an expansion of the ongoing project, Bonneville's comments do not address the ongoing work associated with the project.
In the series of meetings staff conducted to review projects in these provinces, ODFW stated that they had addressed the ISRP concerns with the project by dropping the expanded tasks and new work that ISRP disliked and asked that staff recommend funding for the ongoing activities. The Council, however, finds no compelling evidence to confirm the sponsor's contention that ISRP supported the ongoing work. The Panel gave a Do Not Fund recommendation to the project, not a Fund in Part recommendation for the ongoing work. Without such a distinction and without a compelling policy justification to continue the ongoing work, the Council recommends not funding the project.
Comment:
Comment: