FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25038
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 25038 Narrative | Narrative |
| 25038 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 25038 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Effects of Hydropower Operations on Fall Chinook Spawning Activity |
| Proposal ID | 25038 |
| Organization | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Geoffrey A McMichael |
| Mailing address | PO Box 999, K6-85 Richland, WA 99352 |
| Phone / email | 5093720804 / geoffrey.mcmichael@pnl.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | Geoffrey A McMichael |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Mainstem Columbia |
| Short description | Assess the relationship between hydropower project operations and spawning activity of fall chinook salmon in dam tailrace areas. Develop a data set of 24 h/day spawning activity to be regressed against daylight and project discharge data. |
| Target species | Fall chinook salmon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.63 | -119.83 | Adjacent to Vernita Bar downstream of Priest Rapids Dam near Mattawa, Washington |
| 46.87 | -119.97 | Adjacent to the Barge Dock Bar downstream of Wanapum Dam near Beverly, Washington |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| new project |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199406900 | Development of a Conceptual Spawning Habitat Model for Fall Chinook Salmon | Data format coordination, model verification |
| 199701400 | Evaluation of Juvenile Fall Chinook Salmon Stranding on the Hanford Reach | Data collection site selection, ultimate compilation of complete freshwater life-history effects of hydropower project discharge/operations on fall chinook salmon. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Determine relationship between daylight and fall chinook salmon spawning activity | a. Purchase, assemble, and test hydrophone systems | 1 | $25,348 | |
| b. Place hydrophone systems (N=2) at Vernita Bar (below Priest Rapids Dam) and Barge Dock Bar (below Wanapum Dam) | 3 | $25,014 | ||
| c. Operate hydrophones (data downloading, battery maintenance) | 3 | $31,136 | ||
| d. Statistical analyses of sound files to determine spawning activity events | 3 | $40,056 | ||
| e. Analyze data, prepare report, publication(s) | 3 | $17,784 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Determine relationship between daylight and fall chinook salmon spawning activity - continuing data analyses | 2003 | 2004 | $37,000 |
| 2. Determine the effects of hydropwer project operations on fall chinook salmon spawning activity - begins in 2003 | 2003 | 2004 | $328,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $192,880 | $184,212 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 0.64 | $40,135 |
| Fringe | $14,174 | |
| Supplies | $14,705 | |
| Travel | $2,254 | |
| Indirect | $65,710 | |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | $2,360 | |
| Other | $0 | |
| $139,338 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $139,338 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $139,338 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grant County Public Utilities District No. 2 | Financial support ($50,000/yr for 3 years) | $50,000 | cash |
Other budget explanation
Grant County PUD would also provide in-kind support in terms of field assistance and possibly boats/operators. Subcontract would be for a student intern to assist with field work and data entry/editing.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Do not fund unless a response is provided that adequately addresses the ISRP's concerns. The proposal fails to discuss the studies that are already underway funded by Grant County PUD to make redd counts visually (directly) rather than indirectly, with participation by many entities. Furthermore, the basic objective to measure effects of hydropower operations on fall chinook spawning activity are already fully documented, and are taken into account in agreements for flow management during spawning, incubation, emergence, and up to the time of emigration of fry. The need for this proposal is not justified.
If the issue of day versus night time spawning is actually an issue then this approach may assist in resolving it. However, from the proposal and presentation it is not evident that the method could detect the intensity of spawning activity or just a very localized spawning event. How many hydrophones and/or arrays would be used and what is their detection capability? Further, it is likely that spawning activity varies through the spawning season; so that daily activity profiles may change over time. It may also be that discharge and/or rate of change of discharge influences spawning time, how would such effects be accounted for in this design?
The timing of spawning could be an important issue due to daily changes in flow, but this point is not even made strongly in the proposal.
Comment:
Comment:
Fundable technically, but the need for this project is not justified except at a low priority. Benefits to the fish are not adequately demonstrated.See detailed ISRP comments on Hanford Reach projects
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUAssess the relationship between hydropower project operations and spawning activity of fall chinook salmon in dam tailrace areas. Develop a data set of 24 h/day spawning activity to be regressed against daylight and project discharge data.
Comments
The need for this project is not adequately justified. Benefits to the fish are not well demonstrated.
Already ESA Req? NA
Biop? no
Comment:
This project is a funding responsibility of Grant PUD since it addresses operations of its Priest Rapids and Wanapum dams. The proposal focuses on the healthy, Hanford Reach fall chinook population that is not listed and is not as high a priority as tributary fish populations.Comment: