FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29006

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleSupplement Spring Chinook in Early Winters Creek
Proposal ID29006
OrganizationMethow Salmon Recovery Foundation, Chewuch Basin Council (co-sponsor), Colville Confederated Tribes (co-sponsor), Yakima Indian Nation (co-sponsor), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (co-sponsor) (MSRF)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameTerry M. O'Reilly
Mailing addressPO Box 756 Winthrop, WA. 98862
Phone / email5099962787 / msrf@methow.com
Manager authorizing this projectTerry M. O'Reilly
Review cycleColumbia Cascade
Province / SubbasinColumbia Cascade / Methow
Short descriptionDevelop a "natural" acclimation/rearing site on Early Winters Creek to supplement native fish stocks.
Target speciesSpring chinook salmon ( targeted- endangered upper Columbia ESU), summer steelhead (affected- endangered upper Columbia ESU), bull trout ( affected- threatened upper Columbia ESU).
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
48.6012 -120.4364 Approximately 16 miles West of Winthrop on Highway 20 just South of Early Winters Creek bridge.
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
151
184

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
199802500 Early Winters Creek Habitat Restoration -restored historic fish, riparian and floodplain habitat, identified methods to augment instream flow to increase spawner success and juvenile survival. Project was completed summer of 2000 with some follow-up monit Provides potential to provide flow augmentation of up to 30% of late season flows and supplement natural production in Early Winters Creek and the Methow system.
WDFW Spring chinook program Provides satelite acclimation facility to assist in maintaining supplementation programs and provide for improved distribution. Provides upper basin site to facilitate on-going and future studies.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Planning, Design, and Permitting 1a. Complete design phase of project 1 $40,000 Yes
1b. Complete permitting 1 $10,000 Yes
1c. Develop HGMP and Fish Production Plan 1 $16,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
2. Construct Facility 2a.Construct pond/control structures 1 $90,500 Yes
Water supply system Construct well and supply system 1 $52,000 Yes
Install fish protection/feed systems Fish protection 1 $7,500 Yes
Re-vegatation of disturbed areas Landscaping 1 $10,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
3. Acclimate and Release 2004 2007 $20,000
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$5,000$5,000$5,000$5,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
4. Monitor and Evaluate 4a.Assess juvenile migration ongoing $0 Yes
4b.Assess adult return ongoing $0 Yes
4c. Reporting $5,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
4. Monitor and evaluate 2004 2007 $0
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2003 cost
Personnel FTE: 0.333 $20,000
Fringe 50% $10,000
Supplies 25% $7,500
Travel To and from site $3,000
NEPA $10,000
Subcontractor Golder Assoc.design/engineering, Contractor for all equipment and materials $180,500
$231,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost$231,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2003 budget request$231,000
FY 2003 forecast from 2002$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
MSRF/WDFW Monitoring $30,000 in-kind
MSRF/WDFW Reporting $8,000 in-kind
R.D Merrill Co. Land donation/longterm access agreement $75,000 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
Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

A response is needed to justify the need of an acclimation pond compared to trucking and dumping the fish by reviewing the current literature. This proposal and 29038 should provide some insight into the data supporting acclimation benefits versus direct release. See also review comments for project 29038. This is a good proposal that is a close analog to 29039 (ponds on the Chewuch) except that the focus here is on spring Chinook on Early Winters Creek. New ponds would be built on the same "natural" model. Reviewers have the same general concerns in this project about actually sunsetting as were described for 29038.

The proposal anticipates sunsetting (termination) after natural production has risen to expected levels, but how realistic is this? Would wild fish actually use the site? Would the fisheries managers let go of it? The reviewers would like assurance that the project would 'sunset' and would like to review the criteria for it.

Where will the fish for acclimation come from? Is acclimation necessary or desirable? Kenaston, Lindsay, and Schroeder found no difference in homing ability or survival of acclimated steelhead compared to steelhead directly trucked and released into the stream. The same may apply to spring chinook salmon.

The response needs to provide a critical analysis from the literature on the subject of supposed benefits of acclimation. See the following references for useful discussion points in the response.


Kenaston, K. R., R. B. Lindsay, and R. K. Schroeder 2001. Effect of acclimation on the homing and survival of hatchery winter steelhead North Amer. Journal of Fish. Mgmt. 21:765-773:

Savitz, J., L. G. Bardygula, and G. Funk 1993, Returns of non-cage-released chinook and coho salmon to Illinois harbors of Lake Michigan. North Amer. Journal of Fish. Mgmt. 13:550-557.

Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

The hatchery programs in the Methow are currently undergoing evaluation and potentially restructuring. The PUD hatchery committee will be organizing and planning in the near future. The BOR hatchery program is considering moving towards supplementation, but decisions have not been made. This project may be ahead of those efforts and cannot be tied to specific planning documents at this time. This project may be a key element in the future, but at this time that cannot be determined. NMFS has identified this as a BiOp project.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Fundable. This proposal and 29038 should provide some insight into the data supporting acclimation benefits versus direct release, and the response adequately addresses the ISRP's concerns with this issue. See also review comments for project 29038. This is a good proposal that is a close analog to 29039 (ponds on the Chewuch) except that the focus here is on spring chinook on Early Winters Creek. New ponds would be built on the same "natural" model.
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Hatchery/Supplementation project to increase the numbers of natural spawning spring chinook. In addition, the potential flow augmentation portion of the proposed project may benefit ESA listed steelhead and bull trout by increasing instream flows.

Comments
May provide another test of NATURES, but not every application of NATURES rearing is a RPA 184 project. Hatchery reform will generally follow the completion of an approved HGMP.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No


Recommendation:
C
Date:
Jul 26, 2002

Comment:

Recommend deferral to Subbasin Planning
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: