FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 199602100

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

Reason for change in estimated budget

The number of GBT monitoring sites was reduced and the number of training sessions were reduced.

Reason for change in scope

The Oregon and Washington water quality agencies reduced their requirments for granting the water quality waiver to allow voluntary spill.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments from ISRP were mixed reflecting the historic value of the program but the declining needs due to mitigation being put in place and evidence that TDG levels up to 120% are not showing signs of GBD in salmonids. Also, there were and remain questions about the design of the sampling.

The FY00 ISRP recommendation was to fund for one year: "Subsequent funding would be contingent on programmatic review. Assuming the monitoring continues, this would be a candidate for a multi-year review cycle. This entire set of smolt monitoring projects needs to receive a programmatic review with one of the goals to develop and justify a program-wide design that really is capable of delivering enough data, of high enough precision, to answer specific management questions." It appears that after ten years of GBD R&D the question of how much M&E is needed in the future needs complete examination. If the Council calls for an independent review, here are some of the topics and questions that it could address regarding GBD monitoring and associated TDG causes:

1. A status report on the USACE on construction of TDG mitigation on all federal dams primarily in the form of flip lips. How have those functioned and what is the TDG duration curve at each dam under various flow scenarios?
2. FCRPS models indicate that spill can be controlled in most years through storage operations and spill in recent years is largely voluntary. There are models that predict the amount of TDG expected for various flow/spill scenarios and flood conditions. If those analyses show that TDG is highly unlikely to be violated, then this might be evidence to eliminate or modify the GBD program. Do the models have good calibration so we can depend on them?
3. GBD risk to the population of juvenile migrants is primarily contingent upon the various passage strategies employed -- transportation, spill, bypass, etc. The GBD program should be keyed into regional plans of the use of transportation and in-river paths.
4. TDG levels of up to 120% appear to be an acceptable level of risk to salmonids given potential benefits of spillway passage across dams. Thus, the need to maintain 110%, the previous standard should be re-examined for Columbia and Snake river dams.
5. During floods and emergency outages, TDG may rise unexpectedly and cause high levels of GBD even with flip lips in place. It would be interesting to hear whether a GBD SWAT team could be developed for limited but specific duty. For example in years when high flows are anticipated, uncontrolled spill and TDG's are expected to rise above 130%. This can be modeled ahead of the event. Although the Corps could maximize transportation, current JBS capture efficiency will decline on the rising limb of the hydrograph exposing higher numbers of migrants to high TDG. During emergencies, or future anticipated flood conditions, the agencies should maintain a capability to sample for GBD on short notice by having the expertise available that can mobilize to a specific site for a specific problem.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comments
The ISRP posed five questions for a possible independent review team. One deals with the rationale for continuation of the 110% in the light of apparent acceptable risk of exposure to 120%. The ISRP should understand that the continuation of the monitoring program reflects the requirement placed on the NMFS spill program by the state water quality agencies. Further, discussions with the states regarding changing the standard have led to proposal 35013. This project would provide the information the states believe necessary to establish site specific standards The program requires state waivers by WA and OR.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

Comments:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website