FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 199604000

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Reason for change in estimated budget

The additional radio tags, labor and associatied indirect costs to cover the new adult homing and straying study under M/E (Objective 3; task b.)

Reason for change in scope

The significant discrepancy between adult return data from mainstem dam counts and tributary redd counts suggest that there is a large part of the return population that is not accurately homing to regional release locations in the tributaries but rather remaining in the mainstem Columbia River. The added cost to the FY2003 budget and beyond is to evaluate this adult behavior.

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

The larger capital expenditures in this project include 1). the large number of tags (cwt, PIT, and radio) for evaluating this project and the cost of tagging; 2). Evaluating reproductive success through DNA analysis; and 3). Sub-contracts for egg banking which are necessary since this project does not have its own central hatchery facility. The outyear budgets are based on the assumption that a policy decision will be made in early 2005 to expand the program and a formal EIS for the Mid-Columbia region will be initiated.

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

This is a project to lay the groundwork for re-introduction of coho into the Mid-Columbia watersheds of the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Okanogan rivers. Coho have been functionally extinct in the wild in these basins for many years, despite the species being raised and released from area hatcheries (particularly Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery in the Wenatchee basin). The project has been funded since 1996, with experimental work beginning in 1998. It is a feasibility study, with detailed planning, test introductions, monitoring of return rates, and special studies of interactions of the newly introduced coho smolts with existing populations of steelhead and chinook salmon, some of which are ESA listed.

The proposal (with attachments) was well done. The evaluation of re-introduction has been well planned and generally well thought out. An environmental assessment under NEPA was carried out, with a finding of no significant impact (the document was provided with the proposal). Because hatcheries will be used extensively to raise smolts for test releases and potentially for continuing the reintroduction efforts, a Hatchery and Genetics Management Plan was prepared and approved by the ISRP after thorough review (also included with the proposal). The 1999 annual report was appended to give example results. Many of the concerns of ISRP in previous years' reviews were largely addressed during the Step 2 Process and in the proposal.

The proposal generally meets the ISRP review criteria. There would be a definite benefit to fish and wildlife from re-introduction of coho, which once were abundant. The proposal lists valuable results, both in the proposal and in attachments. There is a good background section with references to the Subbasin Summary (although not specifically to the FWP or BiOp). The work has a well-stated vision, with well-defined objectives and strategies. There is an excellent breakdown of objectives, tasks, rationales, and methods (described in a level of detail appropriate for the length of the proposal). Monitoring is built in as an integral part of the feasibility study. Many references are provided (some attached) to document both background and results. Resumes are excellent. There are good maps in the attachments.

Some questions remain. There is quite a bit of subcontracting, but the proposal does not always indicate who the subcontractors are or provide documentation that they are suitable. The costs escalated above the 2002 estimates for 2003, primarily because of additional adult studies. The technical justification for such adult studies seems good, but this cost escalation from 2002 planning might be questioned fiscally. There is no cost sharing; in fact, this proposal funds participation by other agencies that have their own reasons for wanting this work done (and might cost share). These points do not materially affect the ISRP's technical recommendation but may need attention by the BPA COTR.

On a broader scale, the feasibility of reintroduction appears to have been demonstrated with the returns the past few years. Why must the feasibility study continue rather than moving now to a formal reintroduction? The response in the presentation that the risks of interactions with ESA-listed species need further study should be justified in a response. The need to build new facilities is not justified in the proposal, considering that the project has been successful to date using existing facilities. The response in the presentation that better smolt quality and production efficiency would be obtained needs to be documented and justified in the written response, given that the goal is a self-sustaining naturally spawning population (the feasibility of which is being tested). The sampling methods need to be described in greater detail. Genetic monitoring is not adequately justified in the proposal, since it is a reintroduced stock from known parentage. This proposal seems to be over done for a reintroduction feasibility effort. The low-tech reintroduction effort to date appears successful. A response should explain why a simpler program of monitoring would not be better to verify whether the populations already introduced are self-sustaining or habitat limited.

Further explanation of the ISRP conclusions are provided here. It should be emphasized at the outset that the ISRP is in favor of restoring coho to the mid-Columbia tributaries. Many potential limiting factors are present, however, principal among them being the high fishing rate, formerly about 90% before they reach the mid-Columbia, according to information given in the proposal, and presently about 50%, as a result of tightened regulations. These limiting factors can be overcome if the region decides to take action, and if so, the restoration of coho is probably a certainty.

So what is the problem with the proposal? The primary problem is whether this feasibility study actually constitutes the eventual reintroduction. This is more than semantics, and involves defining what constitutes success. It is the same as the question raised by Washington Trout in commenting upon the draft Environmental Assessment prepared by BPA (attached to the proposal). At page 4 of the EA (p. 62 of the proposal), Bonneville asserts that "Contrary to the assertions of some, this project does not constitute a decision to reintroduce coho to mid-Columbia tributaries. BPA is unwilling to commit substantial resources to such an effort without some indication of its potential for success, as reintroduction of an extirpated fish population is not a well researched action." Despite BPA's conservative approach, it should be recognized that there is a strong possibility that the feasibility project conducted so far will actually result in reestablishment of coho in the mid-Columbia.

From one perspective, the actions (tasks) described in this proposal closely resemble actions that would be taken to establish or reestablish a fish population anywhere. While in the first sentence the EA asserts funding of this work does not constitute a decision to reintroduce coho into the mid-Columbia tributaries, the work includes planting of coho juveniles in substantial numbers in the Wenatchee and Methow rivers, and a related project involves planting in the Yakima River. The numbers planted in the "feasibility study" need to be large enough to be able to follow their survival, with the result that the numbers are also large enough that many impartial observers might consider them to be adequate for reintroduction. In fact, sufficient numbers of returning adults have been observed to date that the proposal includes discussion of counts of coho redds in the wild and the use of captured adults as brood stock. Furthermore, coho have been observed in mid-Columbia waters where they were not planted (the proposal mentions observations in the spring of a run at Chelan Falls). This might be considered a successful reintroduction. In the abstract of the proposal it is stated, "Project success will be defined in terms of the development of a localized brood stock, and increasing natural production with limited adverse impacts on listed and sensitive species." It appears that success is at hand. Natural spawning has been observed (it is not difficult to assign this to the reintroduction work, since there was no coho population prior to the project's inception). Returning adults are being intercepted and used as brood stock; other species seem to be persisting in the presence of the introduced coho.

This "feasibility study" has been underway for some time (since 1996; p. 6). The proposal states that experimental work began in 1998 but there were releases of coho smolts into the Methow River beginning in 1995 (Table 2 of the proposal) and continuing to the present, using Lower Columbia River stock. This Lower Columbia River stock has performed quite well in the Wenatchee River, but not in the Methow. A total number of adults estimated as 1,113 to 2,014 returned from the Leavenworth Hatchery and Nason Creek releases made in 1999 (from Table 2). The proposal notes that during October and November 2000, there were 74 coho redds counted in the Icicle River and 3 counted in Nason Creek. Counts in 2001 were not complete at the time the proposal was prepared. Beginning in 1999 sufficient numbers of adults returned to the hatchery to provide a brood stock that had survived from plants of lower river stock in the mid-Columbia. These fish returned as adults to the Winthrop National Fish Hatchery in sufficient numbers (numbers not specified) in 1999 that they were spawned at the hatchery and produced 142,291 smolts that were released into Nason Creek in the Wenatchee Subbasin in 2001. The proposal refers to this as the first release of "mid-Columbia brood" (p. 7). The first adult returns from this release are expected to return and spawn naturally in Nason Creek in 2002.

All indications are that the project is ready to move out of Phase 1, the feasibility study, and into Phase 2, the reintroduction per se. The ISRP, in its Step 2 Review, identified the need for a statement in the proposal of specific goals that would determine when feasibility might be established. The response referred to the "Hatchery and Genetics Management Plan Mid-Columbia Coho Reintroduction Program (HGMP)", wherein some expected adult return numbers for the Wenatchee River in the years 2000 through 2005 are given, and for the Methow River for the years 1999 through 2005 (Table 1 HGMP). Also provided were the expected numbers of returning adults that would be used as brood stock and numbers that were expected to spawn naturally. These numbers are so important to the present proposal that the table should be incorporated into the proposal narrative intact. The text in the proposal should then discuss progress toward these objectives. They may be met already. Since the preparation of an EIS will probably require considerable time, it would be well to begin soon.

The proposal could have done a better job with a literature review of reintroduction efforts, generally. There are numerous research studies documenting the restoration of salmon populations that were formerly eliminated. Salo and Stober (date??) summarized the experience up to the time of their report. Their conclusion was that efforts at restoration were more often successful than not, and they were more successful than attempts to introduce salmon anew. Many examples of restoration of salmon have been reported since that time. Particularly important is a review of criteria used to define success.

Much of the ISRP's concern relates to defining the criteria for success of reintroduction, which should be addressed in a response. The proposal says that, "The long-term vision for this program is to reestablish naturally reproducing coho salmon populations in mid-Columbia river basins with numbers at or near carrying capacity." [= reintroduction of coho] The proposal is for continuation of the feasibility studies. We read in the Abstract, paragraph 1,"The feasibility phase has two primary goals: 1) to determine whether a localized broodstock can be developed from Lower Columbia River coho stocks, whose progeny can survive in increasing numbers to return as adults to the mid-Columbia region, and 2) to initiate natural production in areas of low risk to listed species." What if reintroduction can now considered to be feasible, i.e., Phase 1 is accomplished? What will change in the proposal? Will hatchery plants continue? Why, and under what conditions? What if Phase 1 studies indicate the long-term vision is unfeasible (by what criteria)? How many years would it take to decide that? How would the coho then be removed? Would adults be captured and removed from ladders at mainstem dams, or tributary dams or both. Would the chances be good of removing coho entirely?

Comment:

Comment:

This is a project to lay the groundwork for re-introduction of coho into the Mid-Columbia watersheds of the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Okanogan rivers. Coho have been functionally extinct in the wild in these basins for many years, despite the species being raised and released from area hatcheries (particularly Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery in the Wenatchee basin). The project has been funded since 1996, with experimental work beginning in 1998. It is a feasibility study, with detailed planning, test introductions, monitoring of return rates, and special studies of interactions of the newly introduced coho smolts with existing populations of steelhead and chinook salmon, some of which are ESA listed.

The proposal (with attachments) was well done. The evaluation of re-introduction has been well planned and generally well thought out. An environmental assessment under NEPA was carried out, with a finding of no significant impact (the document was provided with the proposal). Because hatcheries will be used extensively to raise smolts for test releases and potentially for continuing the reintroduction efforts, a Hatchery and Genetics Management Plan was prepared and approved by the ISRP after thorough review (also included with the proposal). The 1999 annual report was appended to give example results. Many of the concerns of ISRP in previous years' reviews were largely addressed during the Step 2 Process and in the proposal.

The proposal generally meets the ISRP review criteria. There would be a definite benefit to fish and wildlife from re-introduction of coho, which once were abundant. The proposal lists valuable results, both in the proposal and in attachments. There is a good background section with references to the Subbasin Summary (although not specifically to the FWP or BiOp). The work has a well-stated vision, with well-defined objectives and strategies. There is an excellent breakdown of objectives, tasks, rationales, and methods (described in a level of detail appropriate for the length of the proposal). Monitoring is built in as an integral part of the feasibility study. Many references are provided (some attached) to document both background and results. Resumes are excellent. There are good maps in the attachments. In its preliminary report, the ISRP discussed several questions raised in review and requested a response.

The response provided a comprehensive set of answers to the ISRP's initial concerns about this project. The ISRP was torn in its preliminary review between the positive early signs of success, and negative aspects such as the apparent acceleration of artificial production facilities that might not be needed, a genetic program that seemed at odds with the fully non-native origins of the fish, and debatable definitions of success. The response demonstrated that there has been a thorough and thoughtful analysis of these matters. The responses, including the attached schedule and table of the permitting decision process, were very helpful. There could still be healthy scientific debate over some of the proposed tasks, but that does not negate the importance of a continued feasibility study (in fact, would be good reason to continue it). The fear that there would be a major commitment to new facilities (either before feasibility was demonstrated or that were unnecessary if feasibility has been demonstrated) was alleviated by the explanations. However, the ISRP's concerns over the genetic portion of the project remain.

The genetic monitoring and analysis and the proposed cryogenic components of the proposed work are not recommended for funding, as they are not justified due to the non-native origin of the coho reintroduction stock. Evaluation of the various donor stocks' performance and fitness could be evaluated more directly from simple tagging studies, using PIT tags or other direct marks. It is not clear what difference genetic background makes in this situation. Traditional genetic analyses are not likely to help measure the degree to which recently naturalized hatchery fish contribute to the population relative to earlier naturalized fish.

Comment:

Comments
The premise of reintroduction in the watersheds chosen is correct but some costs seem excessive. Initial results of feasibility/impact analysis suggest that reintroduction is feasible.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No

Comment:

Comment:

Project Issue 1: Yakama Nation Project 199604000, Evaluate the Feasibility and Risks of Coho Reintroduction in the Mid-Columbia.

This ongoing project is a significant management priority of the Yakama Nation. It is substantial, requesting approximately $2.2 million for both Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004 and $2.3 for Fiscal Year 2005. The goal of this project is to determine the feasibility of re-establishing naturally spawning coho populations in mid-Columbia basins, while keeping adverse ecological impacts within acceptable limits. This project is being developed in two-phases. Phase I is experimental as it evaluates ecological interactions, survival through the system and reproduction success. Phase II will focus on production and restoration activities. The project has been funded since 1996, with experimental work beginning in 1998. It is a feasibility study, with detailed planning, test introductions, monitoring of return rates, and special studies of interactions of the newly introduced coho smolts with existing populations of steelhead and chinook salmon, some of which are ESA- listed.

CBFWA rated the proposal as "High Priority" and Bonneville gave the proposal a "B" rating, commenting that it had questions related to the implementation status of the project (is it moving beyond a feasibility test?).

The ISRP rated this project as "Fundable in Part", but also stated that this was one of two projects that rose above the others in the province because of its potential to add significantly to the numbers of adult salmon returning to the Columbia River and its straightforward efforts to restore salmon to areas from which they have been extirpated, with high likelihood of success.

The "Fundable in Part" rating was provided because the Panel did not believe that the proposed genetic work was a necessary component. Specifically, the genetic monitoring and analysis (Section 7, Objective 1, continue to evaluate trends in project performance indicators to assess the feasibility of successfully reintroducing coho in the Wenatchee and Methow subbasins; task (f), Evaluate the reproductive success of naturally spawning hatchery and naturally produced coho salmon in order to determine if reproductive success is likely to limit project success at $209,200) and the proposed cryogenic components (Section 7, Objective 3, Evaluate the ability of the lower Columbia River donor coho stocks to adapt to local conditions in the Wenatchee and Methow sub-basins; task (a) Monitor divergence between lower Columbia River hatchery stocks and Program stocks with regard to genetic and life history characteristics at $55,000), of the proposed work are not recommended for by the ISRP for funding as they believe these elements are not justified due to the non- native origin of the coho reintroduction stock.

The Yakama Nation has agreed to eliminate its funding request associated with Section 7, Objective 1 task (f), based on the ISRP comments. However, the sponsor believes that the activities under Objective 3 task (a) are important to the success of the project and have requested that it be retained as part of the proposal.

Council Recommendation: Fund this ongoing project following the guidance of the ISRP. The tasks defined in Section 7 (Objective 1, task f and Objective 3, task a) are not recommended for funding. This would reduce the project budget by $264,200. The Council recommends funding the project at $2,140,809 in Fiscal Year 2003. Finally, The Council staff will meet with the sponsor and work to ensure that it addresses the ISRP issues as well as Bonneville's concerns about the possibility that the project was moving beyond a feasibility state before the three-step process permitted.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website