FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200308500
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 |
|---|---|
| 35030 Narrative | Narrative |
| 35030 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| 35030 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate potential to enhance spawning of summer/fall chinook salmon in the tailrace of Chief Joseph Dam, Columbia River |
| Proposal ID | 200308500 |
| Organization | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Colville Confederated Tribes (PNNL/CCT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | David Geist |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 999, MS K6-85 Richland, Washington 99352 |
| Phone / email | 5093720590 / david.geist@pnl.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | David Geist |
| Review cycle | Mainstem/Systemwide |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / |
| Short description | Evaluate the potential to increase mainstem spawning habitat for summer/fall chinook salmon in the Upper Columbia |
| Target species | Upper Columbia summer/fall chinook salmon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 47.9967 | -119.6267 | Tailrace of Chief Joseph Dam downstream to Okanogan River |
| 48.05 | -119.68 | between Chief Joseph Dam downstream to Okanogan River |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| 155 |
| 156 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| This is a new project |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199406900 | Production potential of fall chinook salmon in Columbia River | Sharing of technique development, as well as life history information |
| 199900300 | Evaluate spawning below mainstem dams | Sharing of technique development, as well as life history information |
| 199801003 | Monitor and evaluate spawning distribution of Snake River fall chinook | Sharing of technique development, as well as life history information |
| 199102900 | Life history requirements of fall chinook in Columbia River Basin | Sharing of technique development, as well as life history information |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1 – Determine the number of summer/fall chinook salmon redds in the tailrace of Chief Joseph Dam. | Task A. Project planning and survey area selection. | FY03 to FY04 | $10,985 | |
| 1 | Task B. Conduct redd searches. | FY04 to FY05 | $0 | |
| 1 | Task C. Prepare annual report. | FY03 to FY05 | $13,362 | |
| Objective 2 – Quantify the quality and availability of summer/fall chinook salmon spawning habitat in the tailrace of Chief Joseph Dam. | Task A. Assess available spawning habitat under existing operations. | FY03 to FY04 | $77,505 | |
| 2 | Task B. Predict depths and velocities within the Chief Joseph tailrace over a range of river velocities and tailrace elevations. | FY04 | $0 | |
| 2 | Task C. Predict suitable habitat over a range of river discharges. | FY04 to FY05 | $0 | |
| 2 | Task D. Estimate redd capacity of summer/fall chinook salmon in the Chief Joseph tailrace. | FY05 | $0 | |
| 2 | Task E. Prepare report on habitat available under current and revised operations. | FY03 to FY05 | $32,368 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1 – Determine the number of summer/fall chinook salmon redds in the tailrace of Chief Joseph Dam. | 2003 | 2005 | $205,676 |
| Objective 2 – Quantify the quality and availability of summer/fall chinook salmon spawning habitat in the tailrace of Chief Joseph Dam. | 2003 | 2005 | $200,088 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| $207,684 | $198,080 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 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 2003 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 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 0.53 | $31,660 |
| Fringe | $11,182 | |
| Supplies | $16,703 | |
| Travel | $9,659 | |
| Indirect | $60,256 | |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | $4,760 | |
| Other | $0 | |
| $134,220 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $134,220 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $134,220 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
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
Aug 2, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed; generally fundable, but important background elements are missing from the proposal. These elements would demonstrate that the proposers are aware of the complexities of the water management system that forms the context of the potential for increased spawning. A response is needed.The proposal is to explore the potential to enhance spawning of chinook in the tailrace at Chief Joseph Dam, but it needs to describe limitations to potential that are in place for other reasons. Operations at Chief Joseph Dam are already bound by the "Vernita Bar Agreement" for protection of fall chinook spawning, incubation, emergence, and now fry emigration in the Hanford Reach. The Agreement calls for stabilized flows out of Priest Rapids during those times. Since Chief Joseph and the other mid-Columbia dams below Grand Coulee are "run-of-the-river" projects, operations of all are affected. (See for example ISG "Return to the River 2000", NWPPC Doc 2000-12, p. 451-2 for a description of effects of the Vernita Bar Agreement). In what way does the Agreement affect chinook in the Chief Joseph tailrace? The proposal should also review the work of Chapman et al. 1983 that led up to the recommendations included in the Vernita Bar Agreement. That review would provide an appropriate context for the work proposed here. (Chapman, D.C., D.E. Wietkamp, T.L. Welch, and T.H. Schadt. 1983. Effects of minimum flow regimes on fall chinook spawning at Vernita Bar 1978-82. Don Chapman Consultants, inc. Report to Grant County P.U.D. No.2, Ephrata, WA. Boise ID, 123 p.)
Description of these and other factors affecting operations and/or habitat conditions at Chief Joseph Dam should be provided in the proposal in order to establish boundaries within which potential enhancement of spawning of chinook in the tailrace at Chief Joseph Dam might be accomplished.
Comment:
The urgent need for this project is to assess the current use of the tailrace for spawning and available habitat that would have the potential for spawning. The project sponsor will submit a revised budget to address these specific concerns.Comment:
The budget has been revised to include only the redd surveys (Objective 1) during FY 2003-2005.Comment:
Fundable as revised for redd counts only. We agree with CBFWA that the project is fundable, but the ISRP questioned CBFWA's urgent ranking of this project especially given that proposal #35007 received a lower ranking although it targeted an endangered stock. The response to ISRP comments marginally addressed the concerns. These concerns had to do with limitations to the potential enhancement of spawning that are created by existing requirements on the hydropower system for flood control, hydropower production (especially with respect to the mid-Columbia Coordination Agreement), and the existing Vernita Bar Agreement to protect fall chinook in the Hanford Reach, all of which may produce benefits or disadvantages that are currently experienced by salmon in the Chief Joseph tailrace. While the proponents discussed some of the existing limitations on flow manipulations, they dismissed the implications of these rather lightly, as though that is not their problem. While we could agree that status quo ought not to be a restriction on what is undertaken in a scientific investigation, nevertheless, one needs to be aware of the status to understand how it will affect one's observations, (in this case observations on potential habitat) and one's ability to include deliberate manipulations in one's study plan. If any potential habitat lies outside of what is likely to be under water in foreseeable flow conditions then identification of these will not be helpful or relevant. Also, the proponents did not answer the question why this project will require three years rather than one.If funded, this project should be coordinated with other monitoring projects to ensure compatibility of objectives, common methods, and protocols. This coordination could be accomplished under the favorably reviewed CBFWA proposal #35033.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological BenefitBenefits are indirect. The research would evaluate the potential to enhance spawning conditions in the mainstem below Chief Joseph Dam.
Comments
Benefits unlisted fish.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
No
Comment:
BPA Phase 3NWPPC Funding Recommendation
Fund (Tier 2) - Fund if funding becomes available
Jun 11, 2003
Comment:
Category:2. Projects that Council staff would recommend if funding becomes available
Comments:
Identified as Bi-op critical