FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200308100

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

This is a generally well-written proposal from a group with outstanding credentials. There is little doubt that they can achieve what they propose to do. The basic question is whether it is worth investing $12 million to arrive at recommendations that might lead to improvements of 1 to 2% in survival of juvenile salmonids (based on the text and tables at the end of the proposal) that pass through turbines, particularly given the emphasis in the region on measures to divert the juveniles away from the turbine intakes. The question might boil down to an economic one, of how valuable it is to the power operators to be able to diverge from the criterion of operating within 1% of the peak efficiency of turbines? If it is quite valuable, in the millions of dollars, then it ought to be desirable for them to fund this study.

The proposal lacks such estimates of the net benefit to the total population if turbine efficiency were maximized. Turbine survival is currently about 85-95% at most mainstem dams. The installation of improved fish friendly turbines may enhance overall turbine survival rate by maximally 5%, on average. Given that with screen efficiencies as high as 70% or more, spill efficiencies as high as 30% and the use of transportation, it is possible that less than 10% of migrants will ever experience turbine passage in the mainstem FCRPS. Doubling this to 20%, with a turbine mortality improvement of 10% (twice its theoretical potential) provides a net FCRPS system survival increase of about 2%. In reality, we could probably achieve less than 1% with the equipment in place today for Snake River smolts and maybe the same for Columbia River smolts. This would result if we changed out every turbine in the system to a fish friendly design and fine-tuned each operation. The cost of testing the current system at one dam is estimated at $12 million over next 5 years. It appears that as turbines require replacement, there are some energy benefits as well as fish benefits to using more fish friendly turbine designs. It makes great sense to model, test and modify turbines based on previous studies of turbine-induced mortality as new designs are being developed, rather than concentrate on testing existing facilities such as McNary.

The place of this proposal in overall FCRPS planning is not clear. Currently each fish-passage pathway is the focus of intense research that is costing enormous sums. The NMFS Pit Tag data is suggesting that transportation returns more adults from smolts transported high in the system than in river or lower river transports. This database should enable construction of a Decision Support System to establish how many, when and where smolts should be transported, left in river or both depending on river discharge conditions. Turbine passage survival is one component of such a Decision Support System. The question is do we have enough data on hand to build such a model. An independent review panel might evaluate this question from the broader FCRPS perspective.

Aside from economics and FCRPS planning, the proposal does not meet the ISRP review criteria. It is strong on methodology (good science) but short on justification. The technique of balloon tagging has become a staple in hydropower survival studies nationally following patenting of the technique by the proponent. The approach, including the detailed statistical design, is well tested in the Columbia River basin and has been shown to be scientifically sound and fruitful (a useful table of results from many studies in the basin is included at the end). The novelty of this study is the inclusion of more than one turbine (to evaluate consistency of results) and longer-term, in-river survival (a topic for which the balloon tag work is often criticized). The study objectives, tasks and methods are described in adequate detail. However, the justification for this study is brief and incomplete. The study would be very expensive, and thus a more thorough scientific justification is mandatory. The previous studies are not well summarized to demonstrate that this proposal is the next logical step in obtaining more successful fish-passage. How much change in fish survival and electricity generation are we talking about in shifting from the peak efficiency level (large amounts, small amounts)? That is, what level of biological benefit (an ISRP review criterion) is at stake? What evidence is there now that adjacent turbines differ in their performance? What literature suggests that in-river mortality may be higher than indicated by the immediate or short-term effects shown by the balloon tag (and by how much)? The relationships of the proposed work to previous or on-going studies are given briefly and very generally (what are the project numbers listed in Part I?). The RPA's from the NMFS BiOp are listed, but neither named nor discussed as justification for this work. No priorities from the mainstem/systemwide province solicitation or program summary are mentioned. There is no mention of the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program, for which the ISRP must determine if the proposal is consistent. The whole project is considered one of "monitoring and evaluation" but the proposal would have benefited from a short discussion of how any operational changes implemented as a result of this study would be monitored and evaluated short of redoing this whole study.

In summary, the proposal falls short of meeting the ISRP review criteria. This is particularly true for the criterion of demonstrating likely biological benefit. With very high costs, a favorable cost-to-biological-benefit ratio is not evident.

The proposal was not selected by the Action Agency/NMFS RME Work Group for RME review.

Comment:

Comment:

This is a generally well-written proposal from a group with outstanding credentials. There is little doubt that they can achieve what they propose to do. The basic question is whether it is worth investing $12 million to arrive at recommendations that might lead to improvements of 1 to 2% in survival of juvenile salmonids (based on the text and tables at the end of the proposal) that pass through turbines, particularly given the emphasis in the region on measures to divert the juveniles away from the turbine intakes. The question might boil down to an economic one, of how valuable it is to the power operators to be able to diverge from the criterion of operating within 1% of the peak efficiency of turbines? If it is quite valuable, in the millions of dollars, then it ought to be desirable for them to fund this study.

Aside from economics and FCRPS planning, the proposal does not meet the ISRP review criteria. It is strong on methodology (good science) but short on justification. The technique of balloon tagging has become a staple in hydropower survival studies nationally following patenting of the technique by the proponent. The approach, including the detailed statistical design, is well tested in the Columbia River basin and has been shown to be scientifically sound and fruitful (a useful table of results from many studies in the basin is included at the end). The novelty of this study is the inclusion of more than one turbine (to evaluate consistency of results) and longer-term, in-river survival (a topic for which the balloon tag work is often criticized). The study objectives, tasks and methods are described in adequate detail. However, the justification for this study is brief and incomplete. The previous studies are not well summarized to demonstrate that this proposal is the next logical step in obtaining more successful fish-passage. How much change in fish survival and electricity generation are we talking about in shifting from the peak efficiency level (large amounts, small amounts)? That is, what level of biological benefit (an ISRP review criterion) is at stake? What evidence is there now that adjacent turbines differ in their performance? What literature suggests that in-river mortality may be higher than indicated by the immediate or short-term effects shown by the balloon tag (and by how much)? The relationships of the proposed work to previous or on-going studies are given briefly and very generally (what are the project numbers listed in Part I?). The RPA's from the NMFS BiOp are listed, but neither named nor discussed as justification for this work. No priorities from the mainstem/systemwide province solicitation or program summary are mentioned. There is no mention of the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program, for which the ISRP must determine if the proposal is consistent. The whole project is considered one of "monitoring and evaluation" but the proposal would have benefited from a short discussion of how any operational changes implemented as a result of this study would be monitored and evaluated short of redoing this whole study.

In summary, the proposal falls short of meeting the ISRP review criteria. This is particularly true for the criterion of demonstrating likely biological benefit, which is slight. It might be better justified as a hydropower proposal.

Comment:

Comments
This proposal is redundant. The Corps did this last year (2002 field season) and the results should be available soon. The Corps used radio tags instead of acoustics. Using acoustic tags for indirect survival has not been proven and will need to be developed, which could be costly. NOAA Fisheries believes there needs to be an accuracy of plus or minus 2 percent (not a 3 percent allowance that is in the proposal). Increasing the accuracy would also increase the cost of the proposal.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

Comments: