Docstoc

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program - CBFWA website

Document Sample
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program - CBFWA website Powered By Docstoc
					 Mid-Columbia Coho
Restoration Program
 BPA Project # 1996-040-000
Background
   Formally established by the Yakama
    Nation in 1995
   Recommended for funding by the NPPC in
    1996
   Currently guided by the Mid-Columbia
    Coho Technical Workgroup
Long Term Vision
   Re-establish naturally spawning coho
    salmon in mid-Columbia tributaries at a
    habitat capacity level with a significant fall
    fishery, while keeping adverse ecological
    impacts within acceptable limits
Project Goals
   Short term goal
       Evaluate coho restoration experimentally in
        terms of feasibility: ecological interactions,
        project performance indicators, and
        broodstock development
   Long term goal
       Production and restoration of naturally
        reproducing populations of coho in the
        Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow river basins.
Limiting Factors
   Extirpation of coho in the region
   Lack of useful, scientifically based species
    interaction studies involving coho
   Lack of fish production and
    acclimation/release facilities for coho in
    the region
Project Outline
   Broodstock Development
   Project Performance Indicators
   Ecological Interactions
Broodstock Development
Broodstock Development
   Acclimation
   Broodstock Collection
   Spawning and Incubation
Acclimation / Broodstock
Development Strategy
   Icicle Creek and WNFH – serve as focal
    broodstock development release sites through
    the release of large numbers of acclimated coho
    smolts specifically for the purpose of trapping
    returning adults and establishing a local
    broodstock.
   Upper Wenatchee Basin Sites –including Nason
    Creek, Beaver Creek, and Little Wenatchee
    River function to initiate natural production in
    areas of coho habitat, and to evaluate species
    interactions.
Acclimation / Broodstock
Development Strategy Cont’
   Initially only low #’s of coho were released
    in upper basin sites, but as we develop a
    local brood and study ecological
    interactions between coho and listed
    species, the numbers of coho smolts
    released in natural spawning areas have
    been increasing while the numbers
    released from Icicle Creek have been
    decreasing
Wenatchee Basin Release
Summary

                      1000000
  Numbers of Smolts




                      800000
     Released




                      600000                   Icicle Creek
                      400000                   Upper Basin

                      200000

                           0
                             99
                             00
                             01
                             02
                             03
                           19
                           20
                           20
                           20
                           20




                                Release Year
Mid-Columbia Coho Acclimation
Sites
   The mid-Columbia coho reintroduction feasibly
    study relies on low-cost natural ponds for
    acclimation
      Benefits
            Fish color similar to wild fish, natural temperature
             regime, natural food sources, imprinting on local
             waters, low cost
       Difficulties
            Increased predation, variability in water
             availability, accessibility, difficult to treat disease
Current Acclimation Sites (2003)
   Icicle Creek (490,600)
       Dam 5 (LNFH)
   Nason Creek (272,700)
       Butcher Ck. Pond
       Coulter Ck. Pond
       Mahar Ck. Pond
   Little Wenatchee River (100,800)
       Two Rivers
   Beaver Creek (75,000)
       Beaver Ck. Pond
Dam 5 – Icicle Creek
Acclimation Site
Butcher Creek Acclimation Site
Mahar Pond
Coulter Creek Acclimation Site
Beaver Creek Acclimation Site
Two Rivers Acclimation Site
Acclimation
   Predation Control
       Presence of people (avian and mammal)
       Hazing (avian predators)
            bird bangers and other noise makers
       Live Trapping
            some limited trapping for otters
Acclimation
   Data collected
       Number of dead fish recovered
          number of predators observed
          % of dead fish with predation marks Dissolved
           oxygen
       Dissolved Oxygen
       Temperature
       Food fed (lbs)
Acclimation – Sampling and
Determination of Release Date
   Weekly Growth Sampling
       Fish per pound
       Sample size 100
         Fork length (mm)
         Weight (g)

         Condition factor

         Stage of smoltification
Sampling Coho at Dam 5
Classification of Developmental
Stages
   Parr
       Obvious vertical markings expressed (parr
        marks)
       Various hues of orange coloration observed in
        fins
       1st three rays of anal fin had white coloration
        followed by a fourth black fin ray
       The dorsal body coloration varied from a light
        to medium brown
Classification of Smoltification Stages

   Smolt
       Silvery appearance w/ a bluish green dorsal
        coloration
       Parr marks were very faint or absent
       Anal, caudal, and dorsal fins appear
        transparent
       Changes occur due to smoltification
            Increased gill K-ATPase activity
Classification of Smoltification Stages

   Transitional
       Displayed both parr and smolt characteristics
       Varies per individual
       Fin coloration seems to fade while parr marks
        are still obvious
Juvenile Morphology and
Development: Dam 5, 2002

                    80%
                                        Parr
                    70%
                                        Transitional
% of coho sampled




                    60%                 Smolt

                    50%

                    40%

                    30%

                    20%

                    10%

                    0%
                          April 3   April 10           April 16   April 24
                                               Date
Pre-Release Fish Health
Assessment: OSI
   External and internal fish health evaluation
   Assess the normality of external features
       Eyes, fins, opercules etc.
   Assess the normality of internal organs and
    blood components
       Liver, Spleen, Kidney, Gills etc
       Mesenteric fat level
       Proportion of leucocytes, hemocytes, and plasma
        protein
Acclimation – Smolt Release
   Volitional Release
       Typically between April 24 – May 5
       Release date is based on water flow, fish
        behavior, and stage of smoltification
       Typical releases last from 3 weeks to 1 month
       All release are monitored
       Some sites have PIT tag detection capability
Broodstock Collection
   Methow Basin
       Collection goal: 497 Adults or 144 Females
       Collection sites
            Wells Dam
            WNFH swim-in’s
   Wenatchee Basin
       Collection goal: 1464 Adults or 673 Females
       Collection sites
            Dryden Dam
            Dam 5 (LNFH)
Dryden Dam Fish Trapping
Spawning
   Methow Basin
       WNFH
   Wenatchee Basin
       2000 – Chiwawa Acclimation Ponds
       2001 – Chiwawa Acclimation Ponds
       2002 – Entiat National Fish Hatchery
       2003 – Entiat National Fish Hatchery
Spawning at Chiwawa
Acclimation Ponds
Spawning at Chiwawa
Acclimation Ponds
Spawning Coho at ENFH
Incubation and Egg
Transportation
   2000
       LNFH: Vertical stack incubators
   2001
       LNFH: Vertical stack incubators
       Peshastin Facility: Deep troughs
   2002 & 2003
       ENFH: Deep troughs
       Peshastin Facility: Deep troughs
Egg Transportation
 and Incubation
      Broodstock Development -
      Progress Report
     BY    Rel.   Location    Brood     Adult       Mid-Col. Hat. Smolt
           Year               Source   Ret. Year        Production
96        98      Methow     LCR       1999        143,000 MCR A
                             (341K)
97        99      LNFH       LCR       2000        585,000 MCR B
                             (450K)
                  Swamp      LCR
                  Ck.        (50K)
98        00      Methow     LCR       2001        162,800 MCR Cm
                             (200K)
                  Dam 5      LCR                   738,900 MCR Cw
                             (890K)
                  Butcher    LCR
                  Ck         (77K)
     Broodstock Development -
     Progress Report (continued)
 BY    Rel.   Location   Brood Source    Ret.       Hatchery Smolt
       Year                              Year         Production
99     01     Methow     LCR (260K)     2002    22,000 MCR DM

              Dam 5      LCR (855K)     2002    133,000 MCR DW

              Butcher    MCR A (142K)   2002
              Ck.
00     02     Methow     LCR (186K)     2003    ?

              Dam 5      MCR B (350K)   2003    ?
                         LCR (420K)
              Butcher    MCR B (146K)   2003
              Ck
              Early Pd   MCR B (17K)    2003

              Beaver Ck MCR B (73K)     2003
     Broodstock Development -
     Progress Report (continued)
 BY    Rel.    Location   Brood Source    Ret.       Hatchery Smolt
       Year                 & No. Rel.    Year         Production
01     03     Methow      LCR (244K)      2005   ?

              Dam 5       MCR Cw (290K) 2005     ?
                          MCR Cm (163K)
                          LCR (37K)
              Butcher     MCR Cw (150K)   2005
              Ck
              Coulter Ck MCR Cw (88K)     2005

              Mahar Pd    MCR Cw (35K)    2005

              Two Rivers MCR Cw (100K)    2005

              Beaver Ck   MCR Cw (75K)    2005
Program Monitoring &
     Evaluation
Program Monitoring and
Evaluation
   Adaptability to local conditions
   Project performance indicators
   Species interactions
Adaptability to Local Conditions
Adaptability to Local Conditions
   Genetic Divergence
   Phenotypic Traits
       Life history traits
            Run timing, spawn timing, emergence timing (etc)
       Morphological traits
            Fish size, Egg Size, Fecundity etc.
Comparative Run Timing
Bonneville Adult PIT Detections 2003

                           20
Frequency of Detection




                           18
                           16
                           14
                           12                                                       Icicle LCR
                           10                                                       Icicle MCR
                            8                                                       Nason MCR
                            6
                            4
                            2
                            0
                             ug


                                      ug


                                               ug


                                                        ug




                                                                       ep


                                                                               ep
                                                               ep

                                                                      -S


                                                                              -S
                                                                S
                           -A


                                    -A


                                             -A


                                                      -A


                                                             7-

                                                                    14


                                                                            21
                         10


                                  17


                                           24


                                                    31




                                                    Detection Date
Project Performance Indicators
   Downstream smolt survival rates
   Smolt-to-adult survival rates
   Natural production
   Stray rates
Survival Rates
Downstream Smolt Survival
Rates
   Release to McNary Dam
   Measured by PIT tags
   Survival Index =


        [   # PIT coho detected at McNary
            McNary detection efficiency     ]
            # of PIT tagged coho released
Downstream Smolt Survival
Release to McNary Dam
100%
 90%
 80%
 70%
 60%
 50%
 40%
                                   Methow
 30%
 20%                               Icicle LCR
 10%                               Icicle MCR
  0%                               Nason MCR
       1999   2000   2001   2002
Smolt-to-Adult Survival Rates
    Wenatchee Basin
    1)   Dryden Dam counts expanded for non-
         trapping days
    2)   Dryden Dam counts plus redd counts and
         est. of fish/redd based on sex ratio
    3)   Mainstem Dam counts (Rock Island – Rocky
         Reach)
Smolt-to-Adult Survival Rates
    Methow Basin
    1)   Broodstock collected (Wells Dam and Swim-
         ins) plus redd counts expanded by est.
         fish/redd
    2)   Wells Dam counts
Survival Rates
Release   Methow –   Wenatchee   Methow   Wenatchee
Year      McNary     - McNary    SAR      SAR %
1999      N/A        53.9%       N/A      0.21-0.38

2000      33.3%      63.0%       0.17-    0.17-0.86
                                 0.27
2001      9.3%       19.8%       0.02-    0.03-0.13
                                 0.05
2002      N/A        78-87% L    ?        ?
                     39% BC
2002 Wenatchee Basin SARs
0.040%
0.035%
0.030%
            0.031%
0.025%                                      0.028%
0.020%                      0.023%                        SAR
0.015%
0.010%
0.005%
0.000%
         Butcher Ck MCR LNFH LCR (CWT)   LNFH LCR (All)
Natural Production
Natural Production: Redd Counts
   Weekly spawning ground surveys on Nason
    Creek and Icicle Creek
   Peak and final counts in Wenatchee River
   Peak and final counts on Methow River
   Individual redds are counted, marked and the
    locations are recorded with GPS
   Recovered carcasses:
       FL, POH, snouts removed
       Females checked for egg retention
       Scales taken from each fish
Natural Production: Spawning
Ground Surveys
   Icicle Creek
       Dam 5 to mouth (rm 2.8 – 0.0)
            Dam 5 to hatchery (I3)
            Hatchery to Icicle Rd. bridge (I2)
            Icicle Rd. bridge to mouth (I1)
   Nason Creek
       Whitepine Creek to mouth (rm 15.6 – 0.0)
            Whitepine creek to Rayrock (N5)
            Rayrock to wooden bridge (N4)
            Wooden bridge to HiVolt lines (N3)
            HiVolt lines to Kahler bridge (N2)
            Kahler bridge to mouth (N1)
Natural Production: Spawning
Ground Surveys
   Wenatchee River
       Lake Wenatchee outlet to mouth (rm 54.2-0.0)
            Lake to Tumwater Br. (W8)
            Tumwater Br. to Icicle Rd. Br. (W7)
            Icicle Rd. Br. to Leavenworth Br. (W6)
            Leavenworth Br. to Dryden Dam (W5)
            Dryden Dam to lower Cash. Br. (W4)
            Lower Cash. Br. to Monitor Br. (W3)
            Monitor Br. to Sleepy Hollow Br. (W2)
            Sleepy Hollow Br. to mouth (W1)
Natural Production: Spawning
Ground Surveys
   Methow River
       Wolf Creek to mouth (rm 53.0 – 0.0)
            Wolf Creek to HDD (M5)
                 Hatchery Diversion Dam (HDD)
            HDD to Winthrop bridge (M4)
            Winthrop Br. to Twisp Br. (M3)
            Twisp Br. to Carlton Br. (M2)
            Carlton Br. to mouth (M1)
Natural Production:
Icicle Creek Redd Counts
160               151
140
120
100                                              Icicle Ck
      74                                         Nason Ck
80                             65
                                                 Wenatchee R.
60
                                                 Methow R.
40
                                    21
20         3            3                1 5 7
 0
           2000         2001             2002
Natural Production: Smolt
Emigration
   Spring 2002 marked the first year that naturally
    produced coho smolts emigrating from the
    Wenatchee River.
   YN has worked cooperatively with WDFW on the
    WDFW operated smolt trap to collect information
    during the smolt migration.
   The monitor smolt trap has an extremely low
    trap efficiency, making data analysis
    complicated.
Natural Production: Smolt
Emigration
   Trap efficiency tests are conducted with
    hatchery coho smolts
   Due to low trap efficiency data from
    multiple years is pooled to provide a better
    estimate trap efficiency and subsequent
    natural migration numbers
Natural Production: Smolt
Emigration
40,000                           36,678
35,000
30,000
25,000
            17,054                          Naturally Produced
20,000
                                            Coho
15,000
10,000
 5,000
     0
             2002                    2003
                    Migratory Year
 Data Provided by T. Miller, WDFW
 Confidence intervals not yet available
Stray and Drop-out Rates
Stray Rates
   CWTs
       100% mark beginning with 2002 release
       Allows for recovery of CWT as natal
        hatcheries
   Radio-Telemetry
       Tagging Locations
           Priest Rapids Dam, Wells Dam, Tumwater Dam,
            Bonneville Dam
Stray Rates – Radio-telemetry
 High stray rates or failure to home back to
 acclimation streams may be a potential factor
 that could limit project success.
 Observations made during spawning in 2001&
 2002 indicate that coho are spawning in the
 Lower Wenatchee and lower Methow as well as
 other tributaries on the migratory route (Entiat
 River, Chelan Falls).
 The numbers of coho spawning in lower
 mainstem tributaries of release and other
 tributaries is unknown: results in errors in
 smolt/adult survival estimates
Stray Rates – Radio-telemetry
   2002
       Initiated a mid-Columbia mainstem telemetry
        evaluation to study stray and drop-out rates
        for coho returning to the Wenatchee and
        Methow Rivers
   2003
       Continuation of the telemetry evaluation
Stray Rates – Radio-telemetry

 Are stray rates high enough to limit project
 success?
 If yes, will the problem correct itself with the
 development of a local broodstock?
 Which fish are dropping out?
 What is the spawning distribution of returning
 mid-Col. coho?
Radio-Telemetry : Sample Size
and Dates
   Desired sample size
       2002: 200 tagged coho
       2003: 300 tagged coho
   3 equal size tag groups
       Early Run: Aug 28 to Sept 18
       Middle Run: Sept 19 to Oct 16
       Late Run: Oct 16 to Nov 13
    Radio-Telemetry: Tagging
    Locations
   Priest Rapids Dam
       Focal tagging location
       Allows for evaluation of stray rates for coho returning to the
        Wenatchee and Methow Rivers
   Bonneville Dam
       Trial in 2003-15 tags only to evaluate the feasibility of
        tagging mid-Columbia coho at Bonneville Dam
   Wells Dam
       To meet objective 4 in the Methow
       20 tags
   Tumwater Dam
       To meet objective 4 in the Wenatchee
       30 tags
Locations of Fixed
Monitoring Stations
Radio-Telemetry: Mobile Tracking
   Truck mounted antenna
   Boat mounted antenna (Columbia River)
   Foot/Raft during spawning ground surveys
   Aerial Surveys (2003)*



* Indicates cost share with USFWS & CPUD
Gastrically Inserting
Radio Transmitter
Radio-Telemetry Results
   2002
       Only 15 adult coho were trapped at Priest Rapids
        Dam between August 25th and November 17th
       Tagged 14 adult coho at Priest Rapids Dam
       All coho were tagged during the month of October
       One coho ascended the Wenatchee River
       One coho ascended the Methow River
       Insufficient sample size to draw any valid conclusions
Radio-Telemetry Results
   2003
       As of 9/18 we have tagged and released 86
        coho
       We are optimistic that we will reach our
        desired sample size of 300 fish
       In 2003 we should be able to meet the
        objectives of this telemetry evaluation
Species Interactions
Species Interactions
   Hatchery Released Coho
       Residualism
       Direct predation
   Naturally Produced Coho
       Direct predation
       Competition for space and food
Residualism
   Snorkel surveys following a systematic
    sampling design to evaluate residualism in
    acclimated hatchery coho smolts in 2000
    & 2001
   20% sample rate
       Icicle Creek
       Nason Creek (25% sample rate in 2001)
       Methow River
Residualism: Nason Creek
   2000
       Two surveys from RM 9.5 to Mouth
       No residual coho found
   2001
       One survey from RM 9.5 to Mouth
       No residual coho found
Residualism: Icicle Creek
   2000
       Three complete surveys (Hatchery to Mouth)
          July 5: Four residual coho found (expands to 20)
          July 24: No residual coho found

          Aug 3: One residual coho found (expands to 5)

   2001
       One complete survey (Hatchery to Mouth)
            July: Two residual coho observed (expands to 10)
Residual Surveys: Methow River
   2000
       Two surveys (Foghorn Dam to Twisp River)
         July 16 &17: No residual coho found
         August 7 & 8: Four residual coho found (expands
          to 25 for reach)
   2001
       One survey (Foghorn Dam to Twisp River)
           July: One residual coho found (expands to 5 for
            reach)
Residual Surveys: Conclusions
 Low rates of residualism in acclimated coho
  released in Nason Creek, Icicle Creek, and the
  Methow River in 1999 and 2000, and 2001.
 WDFW surveys confirm low rates of residualism
  in the Wenatchee River ( 1 residual coho caught
  in 2001)
 Potential for predation or competition is low
Predation Studies
Predation Studies
   2001 Nason Creek
       Hatchery coho and spring chinook fry
   2003 Nason Creek
       Hatchery coho and spring chinook fry
       Naturally reared coho and spring chinook fry
   2003 Lake Wenatchee
       Hatchery coho and sockeye fry
Predation Study Methods
   Smolt trapping downstream from acclimation site
    is the primary method to recapture hatchery
    smolts
       Nason Creek
            5’ rotary smolt trap located at Nason Ck campground (rm0.8)
       Lake Wenatchee
            WDFW's Lake Wenatchee outlet smolt trap
   Live boxes are emptied hourly to prevent
    predation within the live box
Predation Study Methods Cont’
   Mean daily river temperature was recorded
   A random sample of up to 100 coho were
    retained nightly for stomach content analysis
   Retained coho were given a lethal dose of MS-
    222
   a small amount of 10% formalin solution was
    injected into the stomach of each fish
Predation Study Methods Cont’
   Up to 5 fish were preserved together in
    whirl pack bags with a liberal amount of
    10% formalin solution
   Dissected in the laboratory
   Stomach contents were analyzed
   Any fish remains were digested with
    enzymes, stained and identified by
    diagnostic bones
Predation Study Methods Cont’
   2001 coho residence time was estimated based
    on catch at the trap (release date to capture)
   2003 coho residence time was estimated
    through PIT tag recovery at the trap
   Estimated the incidence of predation using the
    following formula:
                             I = n/N
       I = the incidence of predation
       n = number of coho samples containing chinook (sockeye)
          remains
       N = the total number of coho samples collected
Predation Study Methods Cont’
   Gastric evacuation rates were estimated using a
    exponential model developed by He and
    Wurtsbaugh 1993
   Empirically derived from data from 22 fish
    species, species generic model.
   Predator size did not significantly affect the
    model.
Predation Study Methods Cont’
   Estimated the total number of chinook (sockeye) consumed using
    the following formula:       NP=(I*COHO*R)/(E)
        NP = total number of prey consumed
        I = incidence of predation
        COHO = number of coho present in the river during the study
        R = the coho weighted mean residence time
        E= the mean gastric evacuation
Results: 2001 Spring Chinook
Predation Study
  70%           63.57%
  60%                                       n=1142
  50%
  40%
                         29.60%
  30%
  20%                                        14.48%
                                  10.33%
  10%
        0.18%
  0%
        Fish    Insect   Plant    Unknown    Empty
Results: 2001 Spring Chinook
Predation Study
   Incidence of predation: 0.0018
   Mean residence time: 15.8 days
   Gastric evacuation rate: 40.5 hours
       Mean river temp. during the study: 5.5°C
   Estimated total number of spring chinook
    consumed:
       2436
   Estimated % of spring chinook fry population:
       0.96% (100 redds, 4200 eggs/female, 60% egg-fry)
Conclusions: 2001 Spring
Chinook Predation Study
   Inability to measure actual residence time was a
    limitation.
   Spring chinook fry were found throughout the
    duration of the study.
   Given limitations of the study, predation rates
    are still below 1% of the fry population
   The trap did not appear to select for non-feeding
    migrants (86% had food in stomach).
2003 Predation Studies:
Incidence of predation*
   Lake Wenatchee
       Hatchery coho: 91 samples
             0 contained sockeye fry
            Incidence of predation = 0
   Nason Creek
       Hatchery coho: 1105 samples
            3 contained chinook fry (4 additional suspect)
            Incidence of predation = .0029 to .0069
       Naturally reared coho: 100 samples
            1 contain chinook fry
            Incidence of predation = .010


* Preliminary results: samples not yet digested and identified
Microhabitat Use: Competition
     For Space and Food
                  Purpose

   To evaluate the potential for naturally
    produced coho salmon to negatively
    impact spring chinook and steelhead
    through competition for space and food
                           Methods

   Nason Creek was divided into 4 study reaches
       Treatment Reaches
            Reach 1: Mouth to Kahler Ck Bdg (rkm 0.0-6.3)
            Reach 2: Kahler Ck Bdg to Butcher Creek Acclimation Site
             (rkm 6.3-13.3)
       Control Reaches
           Reach 3: Butcher Creek Acclimation Site to Rayrock (rkm
            13.3-17.9)
           Reach 4: Rayrock to Whitepine Creek (rkm 17.9-24.8

       Note: due to small sample sizes of steelhead, control and
        treatment reaches were pooled for analysis purposes.
                  Methods

   Scatter planted coho fry as a surrogate for
    naturally produced coho
   Approx. 33,000 coho fry were scatter
    planted into treatment reaches
   Scatter planting was conducted in such a
    manner as to provide and even distribution
    within the treatment reaches
Methods: Coho Scatter Planting
Densities
   Est. spring chinook carrying capacity (Memo
    from T.Tynan, NMFS-SFD, and L. Weitkamp,
    NMFS-NWSFC, June 29, 2001): 917 Spawners
   NMFS recommended temp. coho escapement
    limit in 2001 & 2002 (same memo): No greater
    than ½ the estimated spring chinook carrying
    capacity, or no greater than the total number of
    spring chinook adults to have escaped Nason
    Creek – whichever the smaller figure.
       Max. 459 adult coho spawners
Methods: Coho Scatter Planting
Densities
   Max. 459 coho spawners
   Est. 2.2 fish/redd = 209 coho redds
   Max. coho egg seeding = 564,300 (fecundity =
    2700)
   Est. egg to late summer parr survival = 10.6%
       No data available for coho; figure is taken from the
        mean egg to late summer parr survival average
        between ’91 and ‘99 for spring chinook in the
        Chiwawa River (Hillman and Miller 2000)
   Egg seeding level of 564,300 = approx 59,816
    late summer coho parr.
         Methods: Coho Planting
         Densities
   Available Habitat : 336,102 m3
       RK 0.0 – 24.8, mean depth = 0.975m, mean
        width = 13.9m. Data provided by USFS
   59,816 coho parr results in a mean density
    of 0.178 fish/m3
   Applying the above density to treatment
    reaches (RK 0.0 to 13.3) requires scatter
    planting 32,084 coho parr
    Methods: Species Distribution

   Stratified random sample
   Each reach was divided into 500 m
    sections
   Randomly selected a 100 m unit from
    each 500 m section (20% sample rate)
   Three underwater observers snorkeled
    downstream within each selected unit
   All salmonids observed were enumerated
    by species and size class
       Methods: Macrohabitat
       Availability and Selection
   Each unit was classified as either pool (p), riffle
    (r), or glide (g).
   The available macrohabitat (proportion of p, r, &
    g) in the treatment and control reaches was
    compared with a Chi-Square Goodness of Fit
    test
   Macrohabitat used by chinook, coho, and
    steelhead (proportion of p, r, & g) was compared
    to available macrohabitat (proportion of p, r, & g)
    with Chi-Square Goodness of Fit test to evaluate
    macrohabitat selection
     Methods: Microhabitat Use

   Followed the same sampling design as the
    distribution analysis
   Every other randomly selected unit was
    used for microhabitat measurements (10%
    sample rate)
   For each observed sub-yearling chinook,
    sub-yearling coho, or yearling steelhead, a
    large colored washer was placed in the
    location the fish was first observed
        Methods: Microhabitat Use

   Microhabitat measurements taken
       Water velocity (ft/s)
       Depth (ft)
       Dominant and subdominant substrate
        (estimated)
       Presence of cover or no cover
       Cover type
Underwater Observation: Species
Distribution and Habitat Use
Methods: Growth and Condition
Factor
   Growth and condition factors were used to
    indirectly assess competition for food resources
    and/or habitat displacement
               Kfactor = (w/fl3)*105
   If competition for food exists, and food resources
    are limited, than we expect the condition factors
    and/or growth be depressed in areas where all
    three species occur (treatment) vs. areas where
    coho are not present (control)
   Condition factors may also decline if a species is
    using less suitable habitat where all three
    species coexist as compared to areas where
    coho are not present (i.e. habitat displacement
    in treatment reaches)
Methods: Growth and Condition
Factor
    A temperature probe was placed in the
    treatment reach and the control reach.
       Allowed us to evaluate if growth or K factor
        differences are due to temperature
   Fish were collected with a backpack electro-
    fisher
   Attempted to collect 25 fish of each species in
    each reach during each sample period
   3 sample periods
       Baseline prior to coho scatter planting
       2 after coho scatter planting ( 1 month apart)
  Electrofishing for Growth
And Condition Factor Samples
        Results: Wenatchee River
        Flows
       8000
       7000
       6000
       5000
 CFS




       4000
       3000
       2000
       1000
         0
       19 g

       26 g
            ug




       23 p

       30 p
             ep
       12 g




              p

       16 p
             ul

             ul

             ul
               l

        15 l
            Ju

            Ju




             e

             e
           Se

           Se
            u

            u
           Au
           -J

           -J

           -J




         -S

         -S

         -S
         -A

         -A

         -A
         1-

         8-



        22

        29




        2-

        9-
        5-




Growth Surveys
Scatter Planting
                      Wenatchee River Flow measured at Plain, WA.
Habitat Use Surveys   Data provided by USGS
                    Fish Distribution: Nason Creek
                   0.18
                                 2002
                   0.16
                   0.14
               2
Fish per meter




                   0.12                                Reach 1
                                                       Reach 2
                    0.1
                                                       Reach 3
                   0.08                                Reach 4
                   0.06
                   0.04
                   0.02
                     0
                          Coho   Chinook   Steelhead
 Results: Available Macrohabitat
HO: the proportion of pools, riffles, and glides were
the same in the treatment and control reaches.
Ha: the proportion of pools, riffles, and glides was
not the same in treatment and control reaches
Statistic   Critical Value   p         Ho       Ha

2=4680 2>5.991             P=0.000   Reject   Do not
                                                Reject
Conclude: That the proportion of pools, riffles, and
glides in the treatment reach was not the same as
the control reach. There were more riffles and less
glides and pools in the treatment reach than in the
control reach.
Results: Macrohabitat Selection
HO: the frequency of chinook,coho, and steelhead found in
pools, riffles, and glides was the same as the frequency in
which pools, riffles, and glides were sampled.
Ha: the frequency of chinook and steelhead found in pools,
riffles, and glides was not the same in which pools, riffles,
and glides were sampled
Statistic   Critical Value   p           Ho        Ha

2=293.6 2>5.991            P<0.001     Reject    Do not
                                                   Reject
Conclude: That chinook, coho and steelhead were not
found in habitat types in the proportions in which they were
sampled. Chinook and coho were found less frequently in
riffles and were selecting pools and glides. Steelhead were
found less frequently in pools and glides were selecting for
riffles.
               Results: Microhabitat Use
               and Overlap
      MANOVA to examine microhabitat use
       where chinook, steelhead and coho were
       sympatric
          Treatment reaches, surveys 2 & 3 only
          Dependant variables: flow velocity (ft/sec),
           depth (ft), dominant substrate type, cover use
          Independent variables: species & survey

•Sample sizes of steelhead too small to
make steelhead analysis valid
                 Results of MANOVA
Ho: Spring chinook and coho use the same micro-habitat when all
three species occur together
Ha: Spring chinook and coho do not use the same micro-habitat
when all three species occur together
Effect          test   value       F      df           p
                                          effect/error
Intercept        Wilks 0.0008    306294   4 / 1065     0.000
Survey           Wilks 0.9572    11.9     4 / 1065     0.000
Species          Wilks 0.8744    18.5     8 / 2130     0.000
Survey*Species   Wilks 0.9632    5.0      8 / 2130     0.0003
                 Ho: Reject      Ha: Do not reject
Conclude: Spring chinook and coho do not use the same micro
habitat when they occur together
Fisher’s LSD test for significant
differences
   Coho used significantly slower velocities
    than chinook (all surveys)
   No significant difference in depths used by
    chinook and coho (survey 2)
   Coho used significantly shallower depths
    than chinook (survey 3)
   Coho were found under cover statistically
    more often than chinook
Flow Velocities used by Chinook
and Coho
                     Wilks lambda=.96318, F(8, 2130)=5.0411, p=.00000
                       Vertical bars denote 0.95 conf idence interv als
                     1.6
                     1.4
 Velocity (ft/sec)




                     1.2
                                                             0.89
                     1.0
                     0.8
                             0.59
                     0.6                                       0.57
                     0.4
                     0.2 0.26
                                                                          Species
                     0.0                                                  Coho
                                     2                         3          Species
                                                                          Chinook
                                             Survey
Depths used by chinook and
coho
              Wilks lambda=.96318, F(8, 2130)=5.0411, p=.00000
                Vertical bars denote 0.95 conf idence interv als
             3.0
             2.8
                              2.38
             2.6
Depth (Ft)




                                                                2.48
             2.4
                   2.35
             2.2
             2.0
             1.8                                         1.94
             1.6
             1.4
             1.2
                             2                            3            Species
                                                                       Coho
                                                                       Species
                                      Survey                           Chinook
   Cover use by chinook and coho

100%                          100%

80%                           80%

60%                           60%

40%                                  80.0                  No Cover
                              40%
                                                           Cover
       52.1
20%                   34.2    20%
                                                 31.1
 0%                            0%
       Coho         Chinook          Coho        Chinook



              Survey 2                      Survey 3
             Results: Microhabitat
             Displacement
   MANOVA to compare microhabitat use by
    chinook in the control and treatment
    reaches
       Survey 1 – before coho introduction
       Survey 2 – 1 week after coho introduction
       Survey 3 – 3-4 weeks after coho introduction
       Variables considered in the model
           Flow velocity, depth, cover use, dominant
           substrate (Dependant)
          Survey and Treatment (Independent)
               Results of MANOVA
Ho: Spring chinook used the same microhabitat in treatment
and control reaches
Ha: Spring chinook did not use the same microhabitat in
treatment and control reaches.
Effect         test value       F      df            p
                                       effect/error
Intercept      Wilks 0.00254 126133 4 / 1282         0.0000
Reach (T,C)    Wilks 0.99253   2.4    4 / 1282       0.0474
Surveys        Wilks 0.80675   36.3   8 / 2564       0.0000
Reach*Survey   Wilks 0.87593   21.9   8 2564         0.0000
               Ho: Reject        Ha: Do not reject
Conclude: Spring chinook did not use the same microhabitat
in the control and treatment reaches.
Fisher’s LSD Test for significant
differences
   Chinook used significantly faster flows in the
    treatment reach both before and after the
    introduction of coho
   There was no statistical difference in flow
    velocities used by chinook in the treatment
    reach before and after introducing coho
   Before the introduction of coho, depths where
    chinook were found were significantly shallower
    in the treatment than control reach
Fisher’s LSD Test for Significant
Differences Cont’
   After coho were introduced the depths in
    which chinook were found were not
    statistically different in the treatment and
    control reaches
   Within surveys, cover use by chinook was
    the same in treatment and control reaches
Flow velocities used by chinook
in control and treatment reaches
                            Wilks lambda=.87593, F(8, 2564)=21.947, p=0.0000
                              Vertical bars denote 0.95 conf idence interv als
                      1.8

                      1.6

                      1.4
  Velocity (Ft/Sec)




                      1.2

                      1.0
                                           0.89
                               0.95                                      0.88
                      0.8

                      0.6         0.59
                      0.4
                                                            0.56
                                                                                 0.31   Survey
                      0.2
                                                                                        1
                                                                                        Survey
                      0.0                                                               2
                                      Treatment                     Control             Survey
                                                                                        3
                                                  Treatm ent
Depths used by chinook in
treatment and control reaches
               Wilks lambda=.87593, F(8, 2564)=21.947, p=0.0000
                    Vertical bars denote 0.95 conf idence interv als
              4.5

              4.0                                      3.47
              3.5

              3.0
                                   2.48
 Depth (Ft)




              2.5                                                  2.62
                          2.38
              2.0                                              2.08
              1.5     1.71

              1.0                                                         Survey
                                                                          1
              0.5                                                         Survey
                                                                          2
              0.0
                             Treatment                   Control          Survey
                                                                          3
                                          T reatment
     Cover Use By Chinook in
  Treatment and Control Reaches
100%
                                        100%

80%
                                        80%

60%
                                        60%

40%
                                        40%
        80.9
20%                                             67.7
                    34.2                20%
                              31.1                         33.3

 0%                                                                  32.3
                                         0%
       Suvey 1    Survey 2   Survey 3
                                               Suvey 1   Survey 2   Survey 3


                 Treatment                               Control
    Results: Growth and Condition
    Factor
   Low numbers of steelhead yearlings collected in
    the both the control and treatment reaches
    made comparisons difficult
   MANOVA
       Compare fork length and Kfactors of chinook and
        coho where they co-existed
   MANOVA
       Compare fork length and Kfactors of chinook in
        control and treatment reaches, before and after
        planting coho
             Results of MANOVA
Ho: Spring chinook and coho were the same size and condition in July,
August, and September
Ha: Spring chinook and coho were not the same size and condition during
July, August, and September
Effect           test    value       F         df              p
                                               effect/error
Intercept        Wilks 0.01128       16874.4   2 / 385         0.000
Species          Wilks 0.19712       160.7 6 / 770             0.000
Survey           Wilks 0.96565       6.85      2 / 385         0.001
Species*survey Wilks 0.85606         10.37 6 / 770             0.000
                 Ho: Reject              Ha: Do not reject
Conclude: Spring chinook and coho were not the same size
or condition during July, August, and September
Results: Fisher’s LSD test for significant
differences in Fork length

   Within surveys, the mean fork length of chinook
    was smaller than the mean fork length of coho
   Chinook and coho grew significantly longer
    between surveys
   Within surveys, there was no significant
    difference in Kfactors for chinook and coho
   Between surveys, chinook Kfactor increased
    significantly
   There was no significant increase in coho
    Kfactors between surveys
Fork Length of Chinook and
Coho in the Treatment Reach
                   Wilks lambda=.85606, F(6, 770)=10.371, p=.00000
                     Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
                   120
 ForkLength (mm)



                   110
                   100                                                80.7
                                    75.6
                    90
                    80
                    70                                          76.1
                             71.4
                    60
                    50
                    40
                    30
                            2 (August)                3 (September)
                                                                             Chinook
                                              Survey                         Coho
Kfactor of Chinook and Coho in the
         Treatment Reach
       Wilks lambda=.82320, F(6, 438)=7.4582, p=.00000
         Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
              1.3
                                        1.16
              1.2
                    1.05
    Kfactor




              1.1
                                            1.13
              1.0
                           1.06
              0.9

              0.8                                         Chinook
                           2                   3
                                                          Coho
                                  Survey
               Results of MANOVA
Ho: Spring chinook were the same size and kfactor in control and
treatment reaches during each survey
Ha: Spring chinook were not the same size and kfactor in control and
treatment reaches during each survey
Effect           test    value        F         df              p
                                                effect/error
Intercept        Wilks 0.00939        17301.5   2 / 327         0.000
Reach (T,C)      Wilks 0.98530        2.44      2 / 327         0.089
Survey           Wilks 0.26197        155.9 4 / 654             0.000
Reach*survey     Wilks 0.99104        0.74      4 / 654         0.566
Conclude: Length and Kfactor of spring chinook were the
same in the treatment and control reaches. Length and
kfactor of spring chinook were not the same between surveys
Fisher’s LSD Test for Differences
in Chinook Length and Kfactor
   Within each survey, there was no statistical
    difference in fork length of chinook in the
    treatment and control reaches
   Chinook grew significantly longer between
    surveys in both reaches
   Within each survey, there was no statistical
    difference in chinook Kfactor in the treatment
    and control reaches
   Within the treatment reach, chinook Kfactor
    increased significantly during the last survey
   Within the control reach there was no significant
    difference in Kfactor between surveys
     Spring Chinook Fork Length
    Wilks lambda=.99104, F(4, 654)=.73758, p=.56653
     Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
        85
             80                              76.3
             75               71.6
ForkLength




             70                                   74.3
                                     71.1
             65
             60
             55   50.5
             50
             45      48.5
             40
                    1 July      2 August      3     Sept
                                                           Treatment
                             Survey                        Control
                 Spring Chinook Kfactor
   Wilks lambda=.99104, F(4, 654)=.73758, p=.56653
      Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
          1.25

          1.20
                                                     1.16
          1.15
Kfactor




          1.10
                            1.06   1.05                         1.08
          1.05   1.05
                                              1.04
          1.00

          0.95
                        1                 2                 3          Treatment
                                                                        Control
                                   Survey
Conclusions: Microhabitat Use
and Growth
   At the sub-yearling coho parr densities
    that may result from the temporary
    maximum recommended coho spawning
    escapement numbers (memo from NMFS,
    6/29/01)
       Coho, chinook, and steelhead yearlings select
        different macro & microhabitats when they
        coexist
       Coho did not appear to displace chinook from
        preferred microhabitats
       Growth and Kfactor of spring chinook in
        Nason Creek was unaffected by the presence
Conclusions: Microhabitat Use
and Growth Cont’
   Chinook present in Nason Creek were the
    progeny of a record number of spawners. It is
    likely that interactions would be further
    reduced if the number of spawners, chinook
    and coho were lower than during the study
   Due to the more aggressive behaviors and
    larger sizes of hatchery fish, any competitive
    interactions with coho and spring chinook
    would likely decrease with naturally produced
    coho rather than hatchery scatter plants.
Microhabitat Use and Growth:
2003
   Evaluation for competition for space and food
    continued in 2003
   Changes to study design
       Habitat based approach
       Microhabitat measurements from 20% of available
        habitat
       Habitat evaluation in reaches one (treatment) and
        three (control) only
   Results pending analysis
    Lake Wenatchee
Sockeye/Coho Interaction
       Evaluation
Lake Wenatchee Sockeye/Coho
Interaction Evaluation: Objectives
   2001& 2002
   To evaluate the distribution of sockeye fry in
    Lake Wenatchee at the time hatchery coho
    smolts would be migrating through the lake
   To evaluate the migratory patterns of hatchery
    coho smolts through Lake Wenatchee
   To determine if the opportunity for direct
    predation by hatchery coho smolts on sockeye
    fry exists
   To determine the best way to evaluate the risks
    of potential coho smolt predation on sockeye fry
    in Lake Wenatchee in 2003
Lake Wenatchee Sockeye/Coho
Interaction Evaluation: Methods
   Hatchery coho smolt migratory patterns
       Radio-telemetry
   Sockeye fry distribution
       Tow netting in pelagic areas
       Snorkeling in littoral areas
       Hydroacoustic surveys of Lake Wenatchee
          2002
          2003
Radio-tag surgical implantation
Live boxes for recovery at the tagging site
   Lake Wenatchee Fixed Monitoring Stations




                                 Westvista
                                 Fixed Station

Little Wenatchee
                                                 University Beach
Fixed Station    Camp Zanika                     Fixed Station
                 Fixed Station



                                 Larco
                                 Fixed Station           Wenatchee River
    0             2000                                   (Outlet) Fixed
         meters                                          Station
Fixed Station: Larco
Coho Telemetry Results
Migratory Patterns
   Presumed Dead (never entered)
   Entered and Disappeared
   Migrate Center of Lake
   Migrate South Shore
   Migrate North Shore
   West End of Lake
   Ping-Pong Entire Lake
   Stayed at Little Wenatchee
                        W




                                              0
                                             10
                                             20
                                             30
                                             40
                                             50
                                             60
                                             70
                             es
                               tE
                                    nd
                        Pi
                             ng
                    Ne            Po
                      ve             n   g
                 De     r
                    te
En         St         ct
   te                    ed
              ay
     re          ed
       d
         an          at
            d           LW
              Ne
                 ve
                    rS
                        ee
            So            n
               ut
                  h
                    Sh
                        or
             No            e
                rth
                    Sh
                        or
                           e
                              Ce
                                nt
                                     er
                                                  Migratory Behavior Patterns




Number
% of Exiting Fish
Sockeye Fry Distribution
Methods
   Emergence timing
   Tow nets – pelagic areas
   Snorkeling – littoral areas
   Hydroacoustics – pelagic and offshore
    areas (2002 & 2003)
Pelagic and Littoral Zones Sampled




      Upper


                Middle


                         Lower
                                      Cod end bucket was added
                                      but not shown in diagram.
    Diagram of tow net used in 2002




Steel pipe spreader bar

                                               .33 cm.
                                               sq.mesh
Photo of tow net
Tow Netting Data Analysis

   Each transect took approximately 10-15
    minutes
   CPUE was calculated by the number of fry
    captured per minute on each transect
   CPUE was compared between pelagic
    zones and survey week with ANOVA
Littoral Zone Sampling
Sockeye Fry Distribution
Littoral Zone Sampling Methods
   Densities of sockeye fry (m2) were
    calculated from observational data
   Sockeye fry densities between the
    identified lake zones (upper, middle, lower)
    and shores (north and south) were
    compared using a two-way ANOVA
   All species observed were recorded
Sockeye Fry Distribution:
Hydroacoustic Survey
Sockeye Fry Distribution
Hydroacoustic Methods
   Hydroacoustic sampling along 10 pre-
    determined transects
   Sampled between 9PM and 1AM
   Some data was collected during daylight
    hours (2-3PM) for comparison with night
    time sampling (2002)
   During 2003 three night and three dawn
    and dusk surveys were completed
        T10


                 T9                                    Transects for population estimate
                          T8                           Dusk & nearshore transects
          Dusk                         T7
                               T7.5          T6


        Dusk       T8.5                               T5
                                              T5.5
                                                            T4

                                      T6.5                               T3
                                                                 T3.5
                                                                               T2
   0   500 1000 1500 2000                                                              T1
                                                     T4.5
          meters                                                                T1.5


                                                                        T2.5




Hydroacoustic Transects
Results
Emergence Timing
   Peak emergence occurred in mid-May
   Emergence likely occurred from mid-April
    through mid-June
Sockeye Distribution: Tow-
Netting and Littoral Zone
Snorkeling
   Sockeye fry were captured on all transects
   Total of 144 sockeye fry were captured while
    tow-netting
   No significant difference in CPUE in each
    pelagic zone sampled
   Sockeye fry were observed in 7 of 18 littoral
    zone snorkel transects
   No significant difference in observed densities
    between littoral areas
Sockeye Fry Distribution:
Hydroacoustics
   Two size modes
       25mm
       75mm
   Largest proportion of fish were in the small
    size group (likely sockeye fry)
Sockeye Fry Distribution:
Hydroacoustics
   Daylight:
       Most fish observed off shore and below 45 m
   Night
       Fish were abundant both nearshore and
        offshore throughout the lake
       Most fish occurred in the upper 40 m of the
        water column
       Highest densities in the upper 15 m of the
        water column
                                      Fish per
    Fry (TS<-50 dB)                   square meter
                                            0.1

                                            0.2

                                            0.4

                                            0.8

                                             1.6




    0    500 1000 1500 2000
             meters

Densities of Sockeye Fry in Lake
Wenatchee along acoustic transects,
May 16 & 17, 21:00-01:00
Sockeye/Coho Interaction
Evaluation Conclusions
   Based on hydroacoustics, tow netting, and
    snorkeling
       Sockeye fry are primarily pelagic during May
        (limited numbers can be found in the littoral
        areas)
       Fry can be found distributed throughout the
        lake during May
       Sockeye fry are higher in the water column at
        night
Sockeye/Coho Interaction
Evaluation Conclusions
   Most radio-tagged coho did not migrate quickly
    through Lake Wenatchee (mean travel time: 9.9
    days)
   Radio-tagged coho smolts will use the entire
    lake while migrating through Lake Wenatchee
   Radio-tagged coho were more commonly
    detected at the west end of the lake, than the
    east end
   Radio-tagged coho smolts were more common
    along the south shore than the north shore
Sockeye/Coho Interaction
Evaluation Conclusions
   While we do not know how deep the radio-
    tagged coho travel, due to the commonly
    observed ‘ping pong ball’ behavior of migrating
    coho smolts, and the distribution of sockeye fry
    throughout the lake, it is probable that coho
    smolts migrating through Lake Wenatchee will
    have the opportunity to encounter and prey
    upon sockeye fry. However, the diel migration
    patters of the sockeye fry which likely evolved as
    a mechanism to reduce predation, may
    significantly reduce the number of sockeye fry
    coho will encounter.
              M&E Timeline
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
       2002           2003                                    2004                         2005                    2006                       2007             2008             2009
  1   2    3  4   1  2    3                    4       1     2    3       4       1       2    3      4     1     2    3        4       1    2    3   4   1   2    3   4   1   2    3   4

                                                                                       Smolt to smolt survival to McNary Dam

                                                                    Smolt to adult performance - hatchery releases using differential tags

                                                                                  Smolt production - natural and hatchery origin

                                                                              Smolt to adult survival - hatchery and natural recruits

                                                                               Smolt to adult survival - hatchery releases, relative

                                            Rearing/release strategies to improve adult survival

                                                                                         Spaw ning and rearing distribution

                                         Reproductive success of natural spaw ners*

                          Out of basin harvest rates
                                                                                              PERFORMANCE INDICATORS EVALUATION


   Rates of residualism

                                  Natural coho predation on CHS fry

    Hatchery coho predation
                                                                                        SPECIES INTERACTIONS
       Hatchery coho predation (L. Wen.) on SOC

                                    Natural coho interaction w / Sthd, CHS, space and food

                                               Coho and CHS spaw ning habitat and redd superimposition

                                                                                      Divergence of hatchery and natural coho

                                            Stray rates to low er river rearing sites                                                       ADAPTABILITY TO LOCAL CONDITIONS
               Construction Timeline
FACILITY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
         2002           2003                              2004                     2005                       2006                   2007                    2008                 2009
   1    2    3  4   1  2    3  4                  1      2    3       4     1     2    3       4       1     2    3       4     1   2    3     4     1      2    3   4     1     2    3   4

                                             Improvements to existing facilities (Dam 5, Entiat, Butcher, new sites)

            Wenatchee temporary rearing

  Beaver

   Entiat
                                                             FEASABILITY PHASE PRODUCTION FACILITIES
      Leavenw orth NFH SFL Acclimation Ponds

                       Tw o Rivers Channel

               Coulter Acc.

                              Mahar Acc.

                                                                Whitepine Acc.

                                                                   Other Wenatchee Acc. Sites.

                    Methow 1 (WNFH)

                                                                                        Methow 2

                                                                                                                   Methow 3

                                                                                         Entiat 1

                                                                                                                    Entiat 2

                                                                                                    Pre. design and cost est.                Final design

                                                                                                                                                                     Hatchery
              REINTRODUCTION PROGRAM FACILITIES
                                                                                                                                                                      Acclimation Sites
CRP - DRAFT PROJECT SCHEDULE
         2002           2003                              2004                         2005                     2006                   2007                        2008                    2009
   1    2    3 4   1   2    3               4     1      2    3       4     1         2    3      4     1      2    3      4      1   2    3      4      1        2    3      4     1     2    3    4

                                                                                               Long-term M&E

            Program feasibility studies (species interaction and performance indicators M&E)

                                                                      POLICY DECISION

               Site data collection and conceptual design

                                                                                                  NEPA/EIS

                                                                                      Site environmental studies

                                                                                                                   BA and BO/HGMP
  PROGRAM LEVEL PROCESS
                                                                                                      Pre. design and cost est.

                                                                                                                                      S2

                                                                                                                                             S 3 & final design

                                                                                                                                                        FUNDING DECISION

                                                                                       Water rights

  SITE SPECIFIC PERMITTING PROCESS                                                                                                NPDES

                                                                                                                                  JARPA

                                                                                                                                  Local Permits

                     Feasibility phase, facility construction and operation permits

                                            Feasibility phase, facility construction

                                                                                                                                      Land options                         Land

  FACILITY CONSTRUCTION                                                                                                                                                           Construction

                                                                                                                                                                                        OPERATION



  Notes:
  S 2 is Step 2 of the NW Power Planning Council Three Step Review Process
  S 3 is Step 3 of the NWPPC Three Step Review Process

				
DOCUMENT INFO