FY 2001 Columbia Gorge proposal 199701725

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

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

No FTE’s are funded through this proposal in FY2001. O & M funding for the above referenced facilities are expected to be covered by Mitchell Act funds, WDFW and other federal agencies. The transition of the Klickitat Hatchery may occur earlier than FY2002. In this event, funds for Klickitat Hatchery O & M will be requested. When the other above referenced production facilities are brought on-line under the YKFP, funding for the appropriate number of FTE’s will also be requested. Outyear budget projections do not reflect contributions or other cost sharing (e.g. Mitchell Act appropriations or NMFS flood repair monies). FY2002 outyear costs reflect forecasted O & M for the Klickitat Hatchery, off - station acclimation sites, Castile Falls Fishway and purchase of an adult and juvenile transport truck. FY2003 outyear costs reflect continuation of O & M activities described for FY2002 (plus 10%), with the reduction of the two fish trucks, plus the addition of O & M costs for Lyle Falls Facility. FY 2004 out year costs reflect continuation of O & M activities in FY 2003 (plus 10%). FY 2005 out year costs reflect continuation of O & M activities in FY 2004 (plus 10%).

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

The need for O & M funds is clearly an essential part of the overall program but this proposal provided only minimal background or technical detail. Substantial increases in program cost can be expected if the Lyle Falls facility proceeds, the Castile Falls passage is undertaken, and KFP assumes management of the Klickitat hatchery. We noted that out-year costs for operation do not yet include additional cost for FTE's.

This proposal is again not amenable to scientific review. The budget can not be assessed by activity since costs were not attributed to objectives in section 6/10. Note that costs for this proposal begin in 2002.

GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE KLICKITAT SUBBASIN AND KLICKITAT PRODUCTION PROJECT (KFP):

The Klickitat River is one of the longest undammed rivers (95mile long) remaining in the Pacific northwest and is the largest drainage basin (1,350 square miles) within the Gorge Province. The mainstem Klickitat contains two passage impediments for salmon and steelhead. One in the lower river at Lyle Falls (river mile RM 2.2) and the second up-river at Castile Falls (RM 64), but neither of these are blockages to fish passage. Using Mitchell Act funds, the Klickitat Hatchery (RM 42.5) and fishways at Lyle Falls (RM 2.2) were constructed in 1952. The lower couple of miles in the mainstem pass through a narrow rock cut and provide one of the few remaining dipnet fishing opportunities for Tribal fishers in the Columbia Basin. "It holds special significance as the one remaining site where Yakama fishers have the opportunity to fish year around using traditional dipnet and jumpnet gears."

The watershed supports a diversity of fish and wildlife. Spring chinook, summer and winter steelhead are endemic to the system. Summer chinook have been detected via electrophoretic surveys (Marshall 2000, in review) but status uncertain. Fall chinook were not know in the basin but lower Columbia River "Tule" stock were introduced in 1946. Fall chinook production was switched to upper river Brights in 1986. Similarly, coho salmon were not present until the early 1950s when lower Columbia River hatchery fish were released. Resident trouts in the Basin include rainbow, resident and adfluvial bull trout in upper basin, brook trout and resident and coastal cutthroat. However, resident cutthroat may not exist in the Basin and the present status of the coastal cutthroat is unknown. Brook trout were introduced in the late 1970s and now naturally reproduce in the upper river tributaries. Pacific lamprey are known to utilize the river up to RM57.

The Subbasin summary identified several threatened or endangered wildlife species within the Klickitat watershed, including Sandhill crane, Western Pond turtle, Oregon spotted frog, Western Grey squirrel, Bald eagle, Northern spotted owl, Canada Lynx, Peregrine falcon, Mardon skipper (small butterfly).

Hatchery production in the Klickitat only involves the one hatchery, but production of fall chinook and coho salmon are brought in from outside facilities. Hatchery HGMPs were provided for spring chinook, fall chinook, and coho salmon but not for steelhead. These plans were incomplete and the steelhead plan needs to be provided given the importance the proponents placed on supplementing production of this endemic species. Levels of production identified in the plans were:

1. spring chinook release targets 500,000 to 600,000 yearlings from an endemic stock to be used to supplement natural production,
2. "Bright" fall chinook releases of about 4 million smolts intended for mitigation of Tribal and non-tribal harvest; no escapement goal was stated for the return of these fish to natural spawning areas,
3. coho salmon release of 1.35 million smolts from Lewis R hatchery and to be acclimated in ponds along the Klickitat systems, production is intend for harvest mitigation and no escapement goal was provided.

Although no HGMP was provided, our understanding is that hatchery production of summer steelhead will be intended to supplement natural production of these fish. Further, although comments were made about the value placed on summer chinook, no reference was made about enhancement of this race.

While the subbasin summary was important as background material for this review, the review committee did identify several topics that would have strengthened the presentation. For example, the season hydrograph, run timing of the races, basic data for stock assessments (catch, escapements, age structure), the basis of management goals, and a basis for prioritizing habitat issues. In the absence of quantitative stock assessments, the proposals fail to justify technically the need for the projects presented. For example, what is the basis for the numbers of hatchery fish to be released?

There was not evidence of a Watershed Council presence in the subbasin and a watershed assessment plan was not incorporated in the summary. As a comparison, we note that the Hood River basin had a strong and capable watershed council presence.

In reviewing these proposals and during interviews, the review committee was concerned about the use of the term "supplementation" which was important in justifying several proposals. The understanding by the Yakama Nation of "supplementation" seems at variance with the orthodox definition, i.e. 'jump starting natural reproduction of a native stock by temporary hatchery reproduction.' Our understanding of 'supplementation' in the Klickitat proposals seems to be the use hatchery production to support harvests while encouraging natural spawning in an aggregate population of hatchery- and wild-spawners. Again this interpretation is strengthened due to a lack of management goals for the natural population. This leads to the paradoxical tactic of increasing spring chinook smolt releases — the apparent rationale being that 'in order to maintain present harvest and have natural spawning too we'll have to increase smolt releases and rely on a predictable SAR consistent with those of recent history". Such a tactic fails to consider density dependence between salmonid smolts (in the river, Bonneville pool, or lower Columbia River) as a limiting factor on the productivity of natural populations. The review panel would encourage the proponents to establish their management goals, phase in hatchery production, and evaluate how to achieve their apparent goals of sustaining catch in the river (established at a sustainable terminal harvest rate), and to develop the monitoring programs necessary to learn from their efforts.

One specific point of confusion during our discussions was the genetic relatedness of hatchery and natural populations of spring chinook and steelhead presently in the Klickitat. Following review of material from A. Marshall and C. Busack (WDFW, Olympia, WA) our understanding of these relationships are:

1. Klickitat spring chinook are genetically different from summer chinook and fall chinook sampled from the Klickitat river;
2. Klickitat spring chinook sampled from the hatchery are different from those sampled from the natural spawners. As a comparison, hatchery springs versus natural springs were as different as summer chinook versus fall chinook;
3. Naturally spawning Klickitat summer steelhead consistently differed from Skamania Hatchery steelhead sampled. Klickitat summer steelhead originally contributed to the development of the Skamania steelhead broodstock, but differences exist between them; and
4. Sampling of Klickitat winter steelhead has been inadequate for conclusions.

Point (2) differs from a statement in the subbasin summary (page 7) but that statement was based on a 1990 report.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATION ON THE FOUR YKFP ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION PROJECTS (198811525, 198812025, 199506325, 199701725): Fundable only if response adequately address the ISRP's concerns. Resubmit proposals on KFP see comments.

The review panel is fully aware that the KFP is being isolated from the YKFP to accommodate the provincial review process and that the proposal organization used is consistent with the four budgetary items included in the proposal template (Part 1). However, from the perspective of a scientific review, it would more informative if the Klickitat Fisheries Program was structured by major program activity rather than budget item. In the present structure, the four interrelated proposals don't allow for assessment of individual project activities and progress, since aspects of major technical programs or activities are included in more than one proposal and can not be reviewed as one comprehensive activity. For example, the M&E proposal includes activities for fish production or habitat programs, but the association of M&E costs associated with one technical activity may not be evident.

As examples of core scientific programs, the KFP may be grouped into Stock Assessment and Production, Habitat Assessment and Restoration, and a core administrative program that included administrative support, data management and GIS staff, watershed assessments, and policy development. Within each of the programs, the costs for each budget component in Part 1 could be specified and objectives, hypotheses, methods, results, and future proposal requests combined for a comprehensive and informative proposal.

Sub-programs within each major program may facilitate administration but the activities within any sub-program would have to be consistent with the objectives of the parent program. For example, the Klickitat Hatchery could be included under a Salmon Assessment and Production program but the production goals of the hatchery program and data for monitoring would be consistent with an overall goal of sustained natural production, achieving spawning goals, and meeting catch objectives established by the managers. Frequently in the present proposals, the rationale for activities was that some other planning document, etc required them. The scientific interest, however, is how a proponent proposes to meet an obligation in a technically sound manner, how to monitor and assess, and what progress has been evident.

In the absence of a set of technically coherent proposals, the review panel is required to interpret the intention or value of major program cost. This is obviously not a desirable situation or basis for allocation of funding over three years. Consequently, this panel recommends that the YFP restructure these proposals and clarify actual project activities are associated with funds requested.

It is notable that in the ISRP's June 15, 1999 report, they recommended that the entire set of proposals included in the umbrella program (20510) should be reorganized so that the scientific approach to achieving the stated objectives could be evaluated. This recommendation applied to all proposals in the Umbrella (including projects 8811525, 8812025, 9506325, and 9701325, which are in this response review). In addition, the ISRP listed specific questions or concerns for each project. The funding recommendation at that time was to fund at an appropriate base level until a programmatic review can be completed.

Comment:

Comment:

Supplementation: Respondents for the KFP stated their objective of using hatchery production to rebuild natural production and provide significant harvest. The harvest objectives were derived from the Tribal Restoration Plan and U.S. vs Oregon. It is clearly not the role or intention of the ISRP to comment on such policy-based objectives. Our task is to advise on the scientific basis of programs to achieve the stated objectives. Given the information provided on natural populations in the Klickitat basin (provided for the original submissions), the stated size of current hatchery releases, and these harvest objectives; this committee remains concerned that the restoration of endemic natural populations will be at risk. Consequently, the committee strongly recommends that quantitative stock assessment programs (including monitoring and research) be implemented on these natural populations, and that the KFP phase-in the desired levels of hatchery production. The establishment of healthy natural populations and the determination of sustainable total exploitation rates would provide a "base" harvest within the Klickitat basin that could then be augmented through hatchery production. However, unless selective harvest is feasible on the hatchery production, fisheries should be limited to the harvest rate sustainable by the natural populations. Hatchery production should be scaled to the allowable harvest level and the hatchery escapement necessary. The committee believes that such a rebuilding/assessment process and integration of hatchery production is the best biological means over time for accomplishing the KFP objectives. The time required to achieve these will be a function of exploitation pressures, habitat productivity, environmental conditions (e.g.. marine survivals), and interactions between hatchery and natural fish.

In our initial review, the limited information on natural populations and the scale of hatchery production, left this committee with a concern that harvest, not restoration, was the principle objective of the KFP supplementation program. However, in the KFP reply the objectives of restoration of natural populations and harvest seemed more balanced. It is our unanimous advice that to achieve this balance, the status and productivity of the natural populations must be well-described and paramount in designing a sustainable fishery program, and that hatchery production can augment harvest but can not compromise restoration of natural production. Restoration of diverse natural populations will be the long-term resource basis within the Klickitat basin and needs to be closely monitored and restored. Furthermore, if substantial harvest rates are expected in terminal areas (i.e., within the Klickitat River or Bonneville pool), then a quantitative in-season management program is also necessary to reduce the risk of over-fishing on an unexpectedly poor return and to meet allocation agreements where appropriate.

Organization of proposals: The KFP clearly disagreed with the ISRP's suggested re-organization of proposals along major program activity types. The ISRP also recognizes the difficulty in identifying individual activity costs if the proposals were "unbundled" as described in the KFP response. Our suggestion, however, was more to "re-bundle" or re-organize proposals along the principal program objectives (e.g.. stock assessment, habitat assessment and restoration, administration and data management, and major project construction). At this time, however, we see little need to prolong this issue since it involves re-organization of activities not whether specific activities merit support.

The objective of our suggestion was to collate activities for evaluation of a comprehensive program. For example, all programs within the basin required a sound technical basis of stock assessment ... involving estimation of numbers of spawners (by stock, location, age and sex), catch by stock/age (and/or exploitation rates), and environmental monitoring. These types of activities are referred to but were components of various proposals and did not specify how these activities would be conducted. Monitoring of spawning escapement was an objective associated with construction of the Lyle Falls fishway; but these falls are apparently not a complete barrier to migration so these counts will be incomplete. How will the total spawning escapements and their distribution be determined? The critical issue for our review is that we understand how the technical assessment or research will be conducted and to what quantitative standards. If the KFP prefers to maintain this organization of proposals, then the onus remains to submit more detailed and explicit descriptions (such as begun in Table 5 of their reply) of methods and programs so that credible peer review can be conducted.

In the absence of these comprehensive work plans, including data requirements and analysis; ? the KFP cannot assure itself of a sufficient information basis for resource development or that it can be conducted in a cost effective manner, and ? the ISRP cannot assess whether a "sound scientific basis" exists to the proposals soliciting funds, as required under the 1996 amendment to the Power Act.

Sequence of Project Implementation: The ISRP was impressed with the related EMG proposal (21004), which promises to provide critical information on fish passage at Lyle and Castile Falls. In a logical progression of project development, the EMG proposal would be funded prior to implementation of the KFP passage improvements at both Lyle and Castile Falls. Information gathered in the EMG proposal could provide critically important information about the degree of passage barrier at the two falls, as well as the energetic costs associated with transiting them. If there is concern about the degree of fish passage problems in the Klickitat, then this work should be undertaken before the KFP proceeds with major expenditures on fish passage, etc. However, if at Lyle Falls, the decision has been made to proceed with construction of the fishway and broodstock capture site, then this investigation could be moved up-river to Castile Falls. Nevertheless, from our discussions, we concluded that there was a definite need for project 21004 to be more integrated with the KFP projects.

Comment:

Adjustment to consensus priority budgets:

Deferral of $3.7 million in FY '01 capital to FY '03. Reserving the capital budget (Project 1988-115-25) will depend on completion of environmental review, continued approvals in the "Three-Step" process and a determination of the Program's scheduled capital investment capacity. Operation and maintenance (Project 1997-017-25) is assumed to be deferred, reflecting the modified construction schedule and lack of agreement for management of the Klickitat Hatchery.

Comment: