FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28017

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleMonitoring the Selway Falls renovation project for passage of spring chinook salmon and steelhead
Proposal ID28017
OrganizationPacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameDave Geist
Mailing addressMS K6-85, P. O. Box 999 Richland, WA 99352
Phone / email5093720590 / david.geist@pnl.gov
Manager authorizing this projectDavid R. Geist
Review cycleMountain Snake
Province / SubbasinMountain Snake / Clearwater
Short descriptionThe Selway River anadromous fish tunnel is being considered for renovation; To fine tune the fishway and manage it optimally, swimming behavior within the fishway will be monitored using electromyogram (EMG) radiotransmitters.
Target speciesSteelhead trout, chinook salmon
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
46.0513 -115.3038 Selway Falls, ID
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
RM&E RPA Action 193

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
23088 Renovate Selway Falls Anadromous Fish Passage Tunnel Was submitted in the 2001 High Priority call by IDFG; will be submitted again and this proposal will provide M & E for 23088
9107300 Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Program Our data will contribute to their efforts to identify limiting factors and methods to improve survival
198909800 Idaho Supplementation Studies Will support suppementation strategies to rebuild naturally spawning populations

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
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 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
1. Monitor the success of fish passage and the energy use of fish before and after the improvement of the Selway Falls Fish Tunnel a. Implant spring chinook salmon and steelhead with conventional and electromyogram (EMG) transmitters. Calibrate EMG tag output to swimming speed in a Blazka respirometer at streamside. FY 02-04 $71,295
b. Log output from EMG transmitter implanted fish as they ascend fish ladders and waterfalls. Track fish tagged with conventional tranmsitters to determine the success of passage. FY 02-04 $24,072
2. Prepare annual report a. Analyze data and produce report/ paper. FY 02-04 $38,983
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Monitor the success of fish passage and the energy use of fish before and after the improvement of the Selway Falls Fish Tunnel 2002 2004 $292,009
2. Prepare annual report 2002 2004 $121,982
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2003FY 2004
$138,165$141,477

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel FTE: .75 $21,000
Fringe $5,481
Supplies $27,780
Travel $12,804
Indirect $43,157
Capital $0
NEPA $0
PIT tags $0
Other 2 post-graduate research interns $24,128
$134,350
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$134,350
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$134,350
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:
Sep 28, 2001

Comment:

Response needed. Provide clear evidence that this site is an impassable obstruction. Radio-tagging of steelhead may help determine if the falls are a problem. Perhaps tagging should be done with tunnel shut on and off. This project might provide objective (apolitical) data to analyze the situation. On the other hand, agencies may view this study as unnecessary because one suggests there is a problem and the other suggests there isn't. We request that PNNL solicit letters of support from the managing agencies.

Radio tagging work may provide some information, but will be confounded by the effect of tagging, where fish may drop downstream afterwards. Knowledge of where in the tunnel problems may be occurring may be improved with tagging work, but perhaps a visual inspection inside the tunnel (or by camera) can provide adequate information. Details of the tunnel design and current condition were lacking in this and the previous proposal. Other options for fish passage may be possible.

Are these kind of efforts going to lead to behavioral models that can apply to different situations? EMG work elsewhere (Klickitat and several others, including Fraser R.) should now provide sufficient information to assess the degree of difficulty in obstructions without repeating the tagging process every time. Provide a summary of the EMG work in relation to the physical characteristics of this site (e.g., gradient, velocity, height of barrier, flow during passage timing). Also, please clarify why this work would take three years when the field studies should only require one season.


Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Not fundable. This proposed investigation does not appear to offer a quick and reasonably priced answer to the question of fish passage at this site, if passage is indeed a problem (see recommendation for 28013). Details of the tunnel design and current condition were lacking in this and the previous proposal. Other options for fish passage may be possible.
Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits are indirect. Project intends to quantify fishway passage bioenergetic costs for adult salmonids. Evaluate improvements to Selway Falls fish tunnel on passage and energy consumption rates of spring chinook and steelhead using electromyogram radio transmitters.

Comments
No demonstrated importance of study objective (energetics of fish passage) on limiting population productivity. Methodologically flawed. This project may have some relevance to RPA Action Item 193 but is unclear.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No


Recommendation:
D
Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
--


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment:


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

land acquisition. 02 geared to planning, 03 & 04 was geared to acquisition. Split 02 planning funds 50% in 2004 and 50% in 2005. CAPITAL PROJECT. Consider combining with Salmon project (other land project). Issue 12 from rec. Issue paper
Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment: