FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25033

Additional documents

TitleType
25033 Narrative Narrative
25033 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response
25033 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleEvaluate Restoration Potential of Mainstem Habitat for Anadromous Salmonids in the Columbia and Snake Rivers
Proposal ID25033
OrganizationPacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameTimothy P. Hanrahan
Mailing addressP.O. Box 999, MS K6-85 Richland, WA 99352
Phone / email5093760972 / tim.hanrahan@pnl.gov
Manager authorizing this projectTimothy P. Hanrahan (PNNL)
Review cycleColumbia Plateau
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Mainstem Snake
Short descriptionIdentify mainstem habitat sampling reaches, collect baseline data on physical habitat conditions, identify opportunities for mimicking the range and diversity of historic habitat conditions, develop improvement recommendations for mainstem reaches.
Target speciesfall chinook salmon
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Mainstem Columbia from McNary Dam upstream to Hanford Reach; mouth of Snake River upstream to Clearwater River confluence
46.23 -119.17 Columbia River between McNary Dam and Hanford Reach
46.57 -118.08 Snake River to Clearwater confluence
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
NMFS Action 155 NMFS BPA, working with BOR, the Corps, EPA, and USGS, shall develop a program to 1) identify mainstem habitat sampling reaches, survey conditions, describe cause-and- effect relationships, and identify research needs; 2) develop improvement plans for all mainstem reaches; and 3) initiate improvements in three mainstem reaches. Results shall be reported annually.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9406900 A Spawning Habitat Model to Aid Recovery Plans for Snake River Fall Chinook share physical habitat data and expertise; share data on flow relationships and model development
9900300 Evaluate spawning of salmon below the four lowermost Columbia River Dams share data on flow relationships and model development
9801003 Monitor and Evaluate the Spawning Distribution of Snake River Fall Chinook share data for Snake and Columbia river fall chinook salmon habitat use
9102900 Life history requirements of fall chinook in the Columbia River Basin share data on flow relationships and model development
9701400 Evaluation of juvenile fall chinook stranding on the Hanford Reach share data on flow relationships and model development

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
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 2002 costSubcontractor
Objective 1. Quantify the physical characteristics that define suitable fall chinook spawning habitat at the upper reservoir and tailwater reference sites. Task 1.1. Map spawning areas at the reference sites. 1 $15,964
Task 1.2. Collect data on the physical characteristics of the spawning areas and throughout the reference sites. 1 $9,778
Task 1.3. Summarize the physical characteristics defining fall chinook spawning habitat. 2 $78,409
Objective 2. Using the physical characteristics identified at the reference sites in objective (1), quantify the physical characteristics at each of the study sites. Task 2.1. Refine the study site locations. 1 $48,875
Task 2.2. Collect data on the physical characteristics of the study sites. 3 $97,409
Task 2.3. Summarize and compare the physical characteristics of the reference sites and study sites. 3 $63,957
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Objective 1. Quantify the physical characteristics that define suitable fall chinook spawning habitat at the upper reservoir and tailwater reference sites. 2003 2004 $271,804
Objective 2. Using the physical characteristics identified at the reference sites in objective (1), quantify the physical characteristics at each of the study sites. 2003 2004 $316,841
Objective 3. Quantify the physical characteristics at the study sites under a range of hydrosystem operational scenarios. 2003 2004 $110,345
Objective 4. Determine if changes in hydrosystem operations cause physical characteristics at study sites to resemble those at reference sites. 2003 2004 $48,852
Objective 5. Complete a report providing recommendations to the region for adjusting hydrosystem operations, including alternative flow scenarios by water-year type. 2003 2004 $58,168
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2003FY 2004
$398,911$407,099

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel FTE: 5.11 $85,340
Fringe $30,141
Supplies $24,933
Travel $1,016
Indirect $144,739
Capital $0
NEPA $0
PIT tags $0
Subcontractor post-graduate research intern $28,223
Other $0
$314,392
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$314,392
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$314,392
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$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:
Jun 15, 2001

Comment:

Do not fund unless an adequate response is provided that justifies the potential management application of the project. It is not clear that this study would provide information useful in restoring mainstem habitat. At best, it would be a long shot. The focus would be on three areas, including the Hanford Reach, where we seem to have a multiplicity of proposals that aim to enlarge upon the available habitat for spawning. Certainly, at the least, the three or four proposals with that objective in common ought to write a joint proposal that identifies the position of each of them in a logical array of projects with that objective.

This may be a worthwhile extension of other studies being conducted by PNNL. But why is it not better integrated with those researchers? There is a problem with the budget as presented. Section 8 refers to 5.11 FTE and salary costs of $85,340. These values do not seem consistent and the Key Personnel section only refers to 1.0 FTE?


Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:

This project is not management priority at this time.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 10, 2001

Comment:

Fundable. The project, originally grouped with the Hanford Reach projects, actually focuses on the Lower Snake River. The response adequately addressed the ISRP concerns.
Recommendation:
Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Indirect effect since project would identify mainstem habitat sampling reaches, collect baseline data on habitat conditions, identify opportunities for mimicking the range and diversity of historic habitat conditions, develop improvement recommendations for mainstem reaches.

Comments
Largely RM&E comparing mainstem habitat characteristics of reference sites with sample sites.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes


Recommendation:
Rank C
Date:
Oct 16, 2001

Comment:

This is a project that addresses the operational effects of COE dams. If funded, the proposal should be directed only to the COE Snake River projects (habitat for ESA-listed fish) and not the Hanford Reach, habitat for the healthy fall chinook population. This habitat already has been studied extensively. The proposal makes no mention of any radio tagging studies indicating fall chinook spawning in dam tailraces. The proposal specifies 5.11 FTE for $85,000. This appears wrong.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment: