FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29013

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleAcquire Land Adjacent to Chiliwist Creek and Develop Summer Chinook and Summer Steelhead Acclimation Pond
Proposal ID29013
OrganizationWashington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameHeather Bartlett
Mailing addressP.O. Box 1646 Okanogan, WA 98840
Phone / email5098267341 / bartlhrb@dfw.wa.gov
Manager authorizing this projectDennis Beich
Review cycleColumbia Cascade
Province / SubbasinColumbia Cascade / Okanogan
Short descriptionAcquire 89 acres of apple orchard adjacent to Chiliwist Creek and develop an acclimation pond to imprint summer chinook and summer steelhead in order to improve return spawn distribution in the Okanogan Subbasin.
Target speciesSummer chinook, summer steelhead
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
48.263 -119.729 89 acres of apple orchard, T32-R25-S20, Tax parcels 12 and 8, adjacent to Chiliwist Creek, parallel to Okanogan River (with Doulgas PUD land in between orchard land and river)
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Action 150

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
1990 -2001 Operation and management of the Carlton Acclimation Pond and Eastbank Hatchery Facility
1990-2001 Summer chinook supplementation program evaluation
1967-2001 Operation and management of the Wells Dam Hatchery
1990-2001 Operation of Similkameen Rearing Pond
1992-2001 Methow Hatchery Construction and management
2001 Upper Columbia Conservation and Management Plan

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
199604200 Restoration and Enhancement of Anadrmous Fish Populations & Habitat in Salmon Creek Restoration of Upper Columbia River summer steelheaad
200001300 Evaluation of an experimental re-introduction of Sockeye Salmon into Skaha Lake Restoration of Upper Columbia anadromous fish populations
200000100 Improvement of Anadromous Fish Habitat and Passage in Omak Creek Restoration of Upper Columbia anadromous fish populations

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Property acquisition a. Acquire title report, appraisal, and appraisal review for property 1 $2,500
b. Purchase title insurance 1 $2,000
c. Conduct necessary environmental assessment 1 $3,000 Yes
d. Purchase land 1 $425,000
2. Acclimation pond design a. Conduct site survey 1 $500 Yes
b. Contract with engineer to examine topography and hydrology of site 1 $1,970 Yes
c. Develop final design and specifications for pond 1 $12,000 Yes
d. Secure additional water for pond and secure permits necessary to move current water intake from Chiliwist Creek to Okanogan River $500
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
1. Enhance Chiliwist property a. Mobilize construction crew 1 $2,000 Yes
b. Construct acclimation pond 1 $200,000 Yes
c. Monitor and refine construction activities as necessary 1 $3,500 Yes
d. Move water intake from Chiliwist Creek to Okanogan River 1 $8,500 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
1. Operate acclimation factility and maintain property a. Operate and maintain acclimation pond 3 $156,482
b. Control weeds on property 3 $6,000
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Operate acclimation factility and maintain property 2004 2005 $355,565
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2004FY 2005
$172,470$183,095

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2003 cost
Personnel FTE: 2.5 (complex manager, fish hatchery specialist 2) $48,500
Fringe @30% $0
Supplies Food, electricity, drugs and chemicals, NPDES permits $55,000
Travel Related to purchase of food, chemicals, etc. $2,500
Indirect 25.2% excluding fish food and capital equipment $38,202
Capital Land purchase price, acclimation pond construction $430,000
NEPA $3,000
PIT tags # of tags: 100,000 $11,700
Subcontractor Pond construction, move water intake $220,000
Other Training $500
$809,402
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost$809,402
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2003 budget request$809,402
FY 2003 forecast from 2002$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or 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. Assuming supplementation is a good strategy, it seems reasonable to spread out the acclimation and planting, as the proposal suggests. However, the sponsors should investigate costs and benefits of truck releases as an alternative strategy to spread out the return points of adults. The response should contain a review of the literature for advantages and disadvantages of the two basic approaches: acclimation ponds versus point releases without acclimation.

The switch to Okanogan River water is good for flows in the Chiliwist, but Okanogan water may be too warm in summer. The thermal difficulties were mentioned, but the solution was not clear and should be further discussed.

The proposal did not say how the pond would be designed. Another proposal from the Twisp River has gone to great lengths to make their ponds "natural" and much like a natural side channel, to be used by river fish, as well. Could this be done to create "off-channel" habitat (including riparian) in this project.

Nothing was said about use of the rest of the land. Are there benefits to wildlife habitat that could be used to help meet BPA mitigate for loss of wildlife habitat? The response needs to include a HEP analysis for value to wildlife, and identification of mitigation credit to BPA and a detailed M&E proposal.

Even if the M&E is to be conducted by another project, details that apply to monitoring and evaluation of the proposed project should be given in this proposal. The specific sample areas, methods, and sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what type where and when) need to be specified. How will one know if this project is a success or a failure?

An M&E proposal for monitoring of wildlife habitat is also needed. The proponents are referred to the ISRP Review of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes' Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Plan (19910600) ( http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2001-4addendum.htm). The project was reviewed in the Mountain Columbia Province to determine whether it provided scientifically sound criteria and protocol to prioritize habitat acquisitions. The ISRP found that document described a good plan for habitat acquisition and restoration of wildlife habitat in mitigation for lost aquatic and riparian habitat due to the Kerr Project No. 5 located on the Flathead River and could serve as a useful model to other habitat and restoration proposals with some minor revision of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) component of the plan. The M&E component has subsequently been reviewed and approved subject to minor modifications in ISRP report (www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2001-4AlbeniFalls.pdf). The proponents are also referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.


Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

This project should be phased to purchase land in FY 03, perform planning, design and permitting in FY 04 and in FY 05 begin construction of the ponds and funding operation. The budget has been adjusted to represent this recommendation. Confirmation of the budget is needed from the project sponsor. Land has not been appraised so land costs are likely higher than fair market value.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Fundable at medium priority. The response is adequate; however, the ISRP notes that supplementation of naturally reproducing salmon with hatchery production remains a controversial issue. The response includes an excellent literature review that describes acclimation pond benefits for chinook survival/homing. The ponds would also be used for steelhead, where the documented benefits are less clear.
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Hatchery/Supplementation project providing alternative release location to improve dispersal of summer chinook spawners.

Comments
Sponsor claims RPA 150 but the major emphasis is on the acclimation project, with little emphasis on habitat. The use of acclimation should be deferred until the completion of an approved HGMP that calls for a particular reform and relevance to listed fish. More acclimation sites may be good, but the need has not been substantiated yet. Potential benefits of acclimation appear to be small with steelhead.

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: