FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200308700

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

Other budget explanation

Project is collaborative between USGS and ODFW, with roughly equal contribution (see Section 8 for breakdown). Each agency would have a separate contract with BPA to minimize overhead costs. Outyear budgets reflect annual inflation of approximately 3.5%.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Synopsis of the Proposal. The proposal intends to build upon current methods of harvest to control predators. The basic concept is that by changing depths and velocities of the river via hydro operations, spawning, rearing or other critical life history requirements of predators will be disrupted. In the presentation, the authors acknowledged that physical habitat modifications might also be possible. This concept presented is a generalized idea, but needs specific hypotheses. The study might take a decade or more and result in much data that can't be well coordinated. Evidence needs to be given that specific actions have realistic management applications. The predators discussed all have different life histories. The study doesn't show that it is in the realm of hydraulic possibility. There are two major concerns and a host of minor issues that need to be addressed.

First, the hydropower system management actions that are foreseen are not clearly presented. This leaves the question whether all this work might lead to some options that are infeasible or otherwise undesirable (such as artificially low springtime flows).

Second, there is insufficient evidence concerning the exact mechanisms of life history disruption. The proposal seems to ask for funding to discover such possibilities. Such efforts could take a very long time. We know that hydropower operations such as reservoir pool fluctuation and peaking flows can disrupt fisheries and aquatic life. This is primarily by dewatering redds/eggs after spawning, changes in velocities or depths thus altering physical habitat or changing water quality such as temperature, DO, TDG etc. The emphasis on early life stages may ignore some other potential management actions other than hydropower changes such as shoreline habitat restoration. As an example, adult smallmouth bass do well in rip-rapped shorelines as habitat. Rip-rap is generally harmful to salmonids. Elimination of rip-rap may be more effective than trying to change depth and velocity. The latter hydraulic changes may not get the desired outcome and even if it does, changes that have a negative affect on predators, may also negatively affect salmonids. More specifics such as this would be helpful.

Some other specific concerns are:

A key target area of the proposal is downstream of Bonneville Dam. The ability of the system to control depth and velocity in this area will be limited. Demonstration with hydraulic data that hydro operational changes could possibly have the desired effect would be helpful. Is it possible to define the desired effect? For example, northern pike minnow spawn as deep as 5 m (p. 17). Can the tailwaters of Bonneville Dam sustain 5 m fluctuations for periods needed to create a desired effect? Is there any specific evidence for depth, location and density of northern pike minnow habitat at the intended location? If so, the proposal could offer more specific approaches such as: draw tailwater down 2.5 m for 24 hours to desiccate 50% of known target eggs (or strand juveniles) in specific areas between June 15 and 30. Then, hydraulic models could be examined to see if this were feasible. Bonneville tailwaters are subject to tidal influence, further complicating the system. To dewater the tailwater area would require significant retention of storage and complicate water levels, flows and upstream operations that would likely have unidentified significant impacts on fish, wildlife and human uses upstream, not to mention constraining the power system normal operations. Discussion of the ramifications of such operations seem to be a vital component of the research to know that it could be feasible because of the possible negative consequences of changing system operations.

In addition to depth changes, the authors suggest velocity changes might also disrupt target predators. What mechanism or hydraulic targets cold provide the desired outcome? Key questions include: (1) what is the range of existing fluctuations of depth and velocity in the Bonneville tailwaters from both natural and man-made operations? (2) What evidence is there that it will be possible to superimpose a more drastic set of fluctuations? And (3) are these likely to have the desired effect on the target species but not cause impacts to salmon?

Years have been spent fine-tuning the operations of the spillways, turbines and ladders to maximize adult salmon passage and to direct juveniles to areas of highest passage survival. These and other possible conflicts should be addressed in the proposal.

Likewise this holds for system operation impacts. What potential consequences to power generation might emerge? Changes in flows of the magnitudes needed might have repercussions for storage in Grand Coulee and even Canada. These concerns need to be addressed.

In summary, the ideas in this proposal are intriguing but not sufficiently developed. As presented, the goals seem unattainable in any reasonable time frame. Direct impacts to salmonids and the hydropower system seem as likely if not more probable than the intended goal of predator elimination and thus diminish the potential of finding workable solutions to the idea.

Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:

HYDRO SUBGROUP -- From comments on 199007700 -- A new proposal is referenced, titled Assess the Feasibility of Reducing Predation on Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River through Operation of the Hydropower System" (Proposal No. 35032) that attempts to address the second component of RPA 100. Specifically, the proposal entails review of existing data and evaluation of components of the riverine habitat that might be manipulated through operations to reduce the number of predators and associated predation losses. Sponsors propose to initially focus on areas downstream of Bonneville Dam, with some work in the lower Columbia and eventually in the lower Snake rivers. We note several areas of concern that may reduce the immediate priority of this proposal. Based on the proposal, there is too limited information on the location and timing of spawning of smallmouth bass and walleye for determining the feasibility of operational management alternatives; substantial resources may need to be devoted to obtain this information before any direct evaluation of operations to reduce predation might be feasible. This may be true, but we question if general information on spawning of smallmouth bass and walleye (e.g., timing, conditions, etc.) may not provide sufficient basis for developing an operation scenario for evaluation. Also, the proposal is for the river reach below Bonneville Dam where water elevation is largely a result of river flow (and to a lesser extent tidal influence). Reservoirs in the lower Columbia or Snake rivers upstream of Bonneville Dam afford considerably greater flexibility for operations across a range of flow conditions that would be more conducive for evaluating the feasibility of operational control of these predators. Conditions below Bonneville, on the other hand, are largely subject to river flow and not easily manipulated for such control measures. We also want to note that control of non-native species may be in direct conflict with regional fishery management objectives; this has important policy implications that must be addressed for this approach to be feasible.

ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:

The RME group comments above are in general agreement with those of the ISRP.

Comment:

Comment:

In the oral presentation, the authors acknowledged that physical habitat modifications might also be possible. This concept presented is a generalized idea, but needs specific hypotheses. The study might take a decade or more and result in much data that can't be well coordinated. Evidence needs to be given that specific actions have realistic management applications. The predators discussed all have different life histories. The study doesn't show that it is in the realm of hydraulic possibility. There are two major concerns and a host of minor issues that needed to be addressed but were not in either the proposal or the response.

First major concern: the hydropower system management actions that are foreseen were not clearly presented, which leaves the question whether all this work might lead to recommendations for physically impossible operations. Second, there was insufficient evidence concerning the exact mechanisms of life history disruption sought. The proposal seems to ask for funding to discover such possibilities. Such efforts could take indefinitely long periods.

A key target area of the proposal is downstream of Bonneville Dam. The ability of the hydroelectric system to control depth and velocity in this area will be limited. Demonstration with hydraulic data that hydro operational changes could possibly have the desired effect would have been valuable in making the case for the research. Much is known about the habitat requirements of predatory fishes that might be targeted. A discussion of these in the context of what is known about present operations of the hydroelectric system would have been useful in justifying the proposal. For example to dewater or lower water levels in the tailwater area at Bonneville Dam would require significant retention of storage and complicate water levels, flows and upstream operations that might have undesired or unacceptable impacts on fish, wildlife, human uses upstream, in addition to constraining the normal power system operations. Furthermore, the proposal would need to consider possible negative effects on salmon or other desirable fishes of any proposed manipulation of operations. For example, many years have been spent fine-tuning the operations of the spillways, turbines, and fish ladders to maximize adult salmon passage and to direct juveniles to areas of highest passage survival. These would need to be taken into account.

In summary, the ideas in this proposal are intriguing but were insufficiently developed and possibly targeted to the most difficult location in the FCRPS to implement, the tailwater of the Bonneville system.

Comment:

Comments
The proposal directly addresses Action 105 and is the only proposal to date that would do so. However, application of the results of this work will likely be quite limited due to the concerns raised by the RME and ISRP reviews. A couple of those concerns include the operational feasibility of some of the options and an incomplete consideration of other options that may be more effective at disrupting a predator's life history.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

Comments: