FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 31017
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 |
|---|---|
| 31017 Narrative | Narrative |
| 31005 and 31017 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 31017 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Monitor and evaluate the success of hatchery salmonid reproduction for reintroduction of anadromous salmonids to the upper Cowlitz Basin |
| Proposal ID | 31017 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | John Serl, WDFW, Fish Program |
| Mailing address | 1379B Falls Road Randle, WA 98377 |
| Phone / email | 3604975652 / jserl_cfff@lewiscounty.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Wolf Dammers, WDFW, District Fish Biologist |
| Review cycle | Lower Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Cowlitz |
| Short description | Monitor the success of the reintroduction of anadromous salmonids to the upper Cowltiz Basin, including distribution, timing and success of reproduction of hatchery adults and success of upper basin seeding. |
| Target species | Steelhead (lower Columbia ESU), cutthroat, coho and chinook (lower Columbia ESU) |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.476 | -122.0948 | Cowlitz River and tributaries above Cowlitz Falls Dam, including the Cispus River basin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| 182 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 2001 | Total Smolt collection of 434,000 including nearly 335,000 coho smolts from naturally reproducing hatchery adults |
| 2001 | Flared entrance to collection flume evaluated: tests with this prototype showed no improvement in collection |
| 2001 | Estimates of collection efficiency: 58 % for steelhead, 42 % for coho, 23 % for chinook |
| 2001 | Number of adult coho transported and released to spawn naturally in the upper watershed will exceed 30,000 |
| 2001 | No Coho fry released in the upper watershed |
| 2001 | Estimate of egg-to-smolt yield from hatchery origin coho that spawned naturally is 1.5 % with no correction for sport harvest prior to spawning |
| 2001 | Estimates of smolt yield from chinook fry plants: 32 %, Estimates of smolt yield from steelhead fingerlings: 13 % |
| 2001 | Over 730 late winter adult steelhead released in the upper watershed to spawn naturally; potential egg deposition of 1.2 million |
| 2001 | Over 200 adult spring chinook released in the Cispus and allowed to spawn naturally; potential egg deposition of 381,000 |
| 2001 | Documented emigration of juvenile spring chinook produced from hatchery adults that spawned in the Cispus River in the fall of 2000. |
| 2000 | Total Smolt collection of 178,000 |
| 2000 | Baffle panels modified to improve flow dynamics approaching entrance to collection flume, monitoring collection indicated nearly 66 % of fish collected entered over modified baffle panels. |
| 2000 | Sampling the collection flumes showed that 75 to 83 % of the fish collected used the modified baffle panels |
| 2000 | Estimates of collection efficiency: 65 % for steelhead, 45 % for coho, 24 % for chinook |
| 2000 | Radio telemetry estimates of collection efficiency for steelhead of 66 % |
| 2000 | Radio Telemetry indicates that 92% of steelhead and 72% of chinook smolts are detected within 3m if fish facility flume entrances |
| 2000 | Visual observations by project staff early in season with clear water indicated steelhead smolts readily found collection flume entrances, oriented to entrance flows, then choose to reject or accept |
| 2000 | Second evaluation of directed flow, tests with coho showed increase in collection of up to 38 % over control |
| 2000 | Estimates of smolt yield from coho and chinook fry plants: 22 % and 25 % |
| 2000 | Estimates of smolt yield from steelhead fingerlings: 8.3 % |
| 2000 | Initial estimate of coho smolt to adult return from smolts collected and transported in 1998 of ~ 1.85 % |
| 2000 | Over 200 adult spring chinook released in the Cispus and allowed to spawn naturally; potential egg deposition of 206,000 |
| 2000 | A total of 42,000 adult coho released in the upper watershed and allowed to spawn naturally, potential egg deposition of nearly 62 million eggs |
| 1999 | Total Smolt collection of 52,000 |
| 1999 | Tested Strobe lights installed in induction slot to reduce steelhead passage through the induction slot to the turbine. Strobe lights as tested increased passage through induction slot. |
| 1999 | First radio telemetry estimate of guidance efficiency (passage through baffle panel slots) for coho of ~ 63 % associated with Directed Flow research |
| 1999 | First radio telemetry estimate of collection efficiency for coho of ~ 42 % as part of Directed Flow research |
| 1999 | Estimates of collection efficiency: 41 % for steelhead, 17 % for coho, 24 % for chinook |
| 1999 | Estimates of smolt yield from coho and chinook fry plants: 9 % and 16 % |
| 1999 | Estimates of smolt yield from steelhead fingerlings: 4.0 % |
| 1998 | Total Smolt collection of 168,000 |
| 1998 | First radio telemetry estimate of collection efficiency for steelhead of 55 % (pilot study with 52 tags) |
| 1998 | Estimates of collection efficiency: 38 % for steelhead, 32 % for coho, 18 % for chinook |
| 1998 | Estimates of smolt yield from coho and chinook fry plants: 19 % and 8 % |
| 1998 | Estimates of smolt yield from steelhead fingerlings: 5.4 % |
| 1997 | Total Smolt collection of 46,000 |
| 1997 | Estimates of collection efficiency: 45 % for steelhead, 21 % for coho, 17 % for chinook |
| 1997 | Estimates of smolt yield from coho and chinook fry plants: 5 % and 18 % |
| 1997 | Estimates of smolt yield from steelhead fingerlings: 1.7 % |
| 1997 | Compellation of the new juvenile collection facility at the cost of $18 million and the new acclimation ponds, at a cost of approximately $4 million. |
| 1996 | Operated interim smolt collection facility at the Cowlitz Falls Project for twelve weeks with a capture of ~12,000 smolts |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Cowlitz Falls Project, Anadromous fish reintroduction program | BPA owns the power generation at the Cowlitz Falls Project through 2032 and funds the smolt collection and transport program at Cowlitz Falls through the Contract Generating Resources Office in Richland, WA |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Site, design and permit a temporary two way tributary trap. | 2004 | 2004 | $3,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2004 |
|---|
| $3,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Construct a temporary two-way trap on a selected tributary. | 2004 | 2004 | $20,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 |
|---|
| $20,000 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Operate and maintain temporary weir. | 2004 | 2007 | $102,100 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $25,000 | $25,300 | $25,700 | $26,100 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Monitor number of spawners and spawning distribution and timing of indigenous hatchery and first generation of reintroduced salmonids in the upper Cowlitz basin. | a. Conduct spawning surveys for hatchery and program coho adults from November through January to develop index sites. | ongoing | $16,100 | |
| 1. | b. Conduct spawning surveys for hatchery and program steelhead from April through June to develop index sites. | ongoing | $16,100 | |
| 1. | c. Conduct spawning surveys for hatchery chinook from September through November. | ongoing | $16,000 | |
| 1. | d. Conduct spawning surveys for wild sea-run and resident cutthroat in tributaries where radio telemetry indicates presence. | ongoing | $6,736 | |
| 1. | e. Conduct harvest surveys to estimate angler removals from spawning population. | ongoing | $11,885 | |
| 1. | f. Conduct radio telemetry estimates of fall back rate for adults released into the upper Cowlitz Basin. | 3 | $21,730 | |
| 2. Monitor juvenile populations in tributaries to determine effectivess of seeding of the watershed. | a. Conduct snorkeling surveys to identify area that are unseeded and underseeded with steelhead, chinook or coho juveniles. | ongoing | $18,820 | |
| 3. Conduct population estimates to verify reproductive success and estimate life stage specific survival. | a. Estimate life stage specific populations in selected reaches with known spawning activity levels to estimate reproductive success. Use snorkeling and electroshocking | ongoing | $15,000 | |
| 4. PIT tag juveniles in basin to estimate growth rates and migration timing from selected reaches within the upper basin. | a. Capture and PIT tag juveniles in selected areas using beach seines, electro-fishing and other techniques. | ongoing | $30,330 | |
| b. Compile and enter PIT tagging records. | ongoing | $2,860 | ||
| 5. Monitor impacts of the reintroduction to resident fishes. | a. Estimate population size and composition in areas above and below anadromous barriers in three selected tributaries. | ongoing | $6,450 | |
| 6. Collect stock information adults returning to the reintroduction project. | a. Collect data on returning program adults at the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery separator. | ongoing | $11,150 | |
| 7. Publish results | a. Prepare and publish annual report | ongoing | $10,500 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Monitor number of spawners and spawning distribution and timing of indigenous hatchery and first generation of reintroduced salmonids in the upper Cowlitz basin. | 2004 | 2007 | $381,400 |
| 2. Monitor juvenile populations in tributaries to determine effectiveness of seeding of the watershed. | 2004 | 2007 | $81,200 |
| 3. Conduct population estimates to verify reproductive success and estimate life stage specific survival. | 2004 | 2007 | $65,000 |
| 4. PIT tag juveniles in basin to estimate growth rates and migration timing from selected reaches within the upper basin. | 2004 | 2007 | $143,100 |
| 5. Monitor impacts of the reintroduction to resident fishes. | 2004 | 2007 | $27,600 |
| 6. Collect stock information adults returning to the reintroduction project. | 2004 | 2007 | $48,100 |
| 7. Publish results | 2004 | 2007 | $45,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $189,200 | $194,800 | $200,700 | $206,700 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 27 | $78,480 |
| Fringe | $21,190 | |
| Supplies | including 50 radio tags @ $250/each | $25,500 |
| Travel | $15,000 | |
| Indirect | $34,491 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | # of tags: 4,000 | $9,000 |
| $183,661 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $183,661 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $183,661 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA, Power Generating Resources | Funds basic component of the Cowlitz Falls Anadromous Fish Reintroduction Program | $305,000 | cash |
| USGS-BRD | Radio-telemetry expertise and equipment loan | $20,000 | in-kind |
| USFS | Sediment Monitoring | $15,000 | 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. This project has potential to answer basin-wide questions about the efficacy of supplementation strategies in the restoration of salmonid populations. One strategy for establishing salmon above the dam is to transport mature adults above the dam. Some of these fish will be offspring of naturally spawning fish above the dam (NORs) but some will be offspring of hatchery spawnings (non-"acclimated" [sic], HORs). Why wouldn't a strategy of relying strictly on NOR adults be more successful?A source of mortality for these fish is recreational harvest. What is the justification for allowing harvest of these fish transported above the dam if their purpose is to establish a reproducing, naturally adapted population? Isn't the harvest of NOR adults particularly detrimental to the strategy? What is the experimental design for estimating the proportion that fall back below the dam? What will be the power to estimate the loss rate of the single-season-per-species telemetry studies?
One of the goals is to establish index sites for estimating spawning escapements, particularly of steelhead and coho; why wouldn't a random sampling scheme (e.g. EMAP) provide a more accurate estimate of spawning escapements?
Another strategy for establishing salmon above the dam is to transport fry and fingerling produced in a hatchery above the dam, a version of supplementation strategies in other parts of the basin. These HOR salmon may, probably do, interact detrimentally with NOR fry and parr above the dam. What is the rationale for inducing these detrimental interactions? What is the extent of these interactions? How is the continued introduction of HOR fry and parr justified when NOR salmon are present?
See also comment in 31005: "The following comment also applies to project 31017 and a joint response is likely warranted. A response is requested on how the Anadromous Fish Reintroduction Program is being evaluated. This project could potentially be very worthwhile but its value needs to be assessed within the context of the evaluation, what are the objectives of the evaluation, what are the results of the evaluation to date? The ISRP would strongly recommend the development of an experimental design to utilize this unique opportunity..."
Comment:
This project is considered part of the base for the Biological Opinion by NMFS.Comment:
Defer decision until an appropriate experimental design is developed. Funding of #31005 could proceed independent of #31017 but the value of that investment would be significantly reduced without the full development of the potential studies in the upper Cowlitz River (project #31017).The Basin has witnessed other unique opportunities to learn from new programs, that promised to develop appropriate experimental designs, but results have been less than expected. The upper Cowlitz offers one of the best environments and research opportunity but must be conducted under an appropriate design. At present the project is not conceived of as an experiment and appropriate hypotheses have not been developed. The response included three hypotheses (top page 5) but these only describe hypotheses that are implicit in the reintroduction program, rather than outlining an experimental design that would enable testing of hypotheses and methods for testing them. The study design is not adequate and does not provide any confidence that valuable results will be gained from the project. Based on the responses for projects #31005 and #31017, the ISRP is inclined to recommend Do Not Fund.
The ISRP has clearly indicated their support for the development of these two projects into a potentially important study for the Basin.
"BPA has already invested heavily in the Cowlitz watershed by building the Fish Facility ($22 million) but this proposal has good cost sharing and local support. There is an opportunity for exciting and informative research programs concerning salmon restoration, role of nutrients in the ecosystem, and hatchery versus wild comparisons in the upper Cowlitz watershed."
We continue to support the development of these projects and consequently recommend that a limited time (e.g. six months) be allowed for the development of an appropriate design before a final decision is made on these two projects. There are numerous important questions in the Basin that could be studied in this environment, but the proponents do not seem to be aware of the opportunity presented. An advisory committee could be developed to assistant in the timely development of this design and execution of these projects.
Further, the responses to questions about recreational harvest focus on the regulation allowing targeting of marked hatchery fish and does not directly address the potential problem of incidental catch and release mortality. Discussion of the design should also consider the appropriateness of a recreational fishery in the upper Cowlitz. Can the fishery be relocated or limited to areas to minimize impacts?
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUIndirect; Evaluation/Research on the reproductive success of hatchery fish compared to natural-spawned fish in the Upper Cowlitz Basin.
Comments
An ongoing project that may have relevance to RPA 182, if the information can be transferred/utilized for RPA ESUs. Note also project 31005.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No
Comment:
The Cowlitz Falls Dams is not an FCRPS project. The mitigation effort proposed by this project may more appropriately be addressed with Lewis County PUD rather than the Program. (Need to check with PBL regarding resource acquisition contract.)Comment: