FY 1999 proposal 198605000

Additional documents

TitleType
198605000 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleWhite Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers
Proposal ID198605000
OrganizationOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameDave Ward/Tom Rien
Mailing address17330 SE Evelyn St. Clackamas, OR 97015
Phone / email5036572000 / davidlward@yahoo.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Mid-Columbia / Lower Mid-Columbia Mainstem
Short descriptionRestore and mitigate for documented lost white sturgeon productivity caused by development and operation of the hydropwer system through intensive fisheries management and modified hydrosystem operation. Assess lost productivity in unstudied areas
Target specieswhite sturgeon
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 1999 cost
Personnel $325,000
Fringe $133,250
Supplies $45,000
Operating $22,000
Capital $3,000
Tag 5500 $15,950
Travel $35,000
Indirect $128,300
Subcontractor Washington Department of Fish and Willdlife; U.S.G.S. Biological Resources Division; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia River Fisheries Program Office; Columbia River Inter Tribal Fish Commission $2,192,500
$2,900,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$2,900,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$2,900,000
FY 1999 forecast from 1998$0
% change from forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fundable
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Presentation: This cooperative project (ODFW, WDFW, USGS BRD, CRITFC) began in 1986 and addresses Council Measure 10.4a. When the project began, there was no information on white sturgeon. Initial findings indicated that the lower three reservoirs had fewer sturgeon than below Bonneville Dam. The hydrosystem severely impacted sturgeon in a number of ways. There is poor recruitment because the reservoirs offer poor rearing conditions and don't provide spawning flows. The sturgeon are trapped between the dams and don't use the fish ladders. The original $2.9 million budget was based on a planning document that was 4-5 years old and the new FY 99 budget should be $2 million. In the future, the budget will be in the $2 million range. This proposal is based on a 5-year Statement of Work reviewed and approved by the Council in 1997. The 1999 budget includes $40,000 to analyze genetics samples and we are coordinating and subcontracting with Mat Powell's group. In addition, 1999 work will focus on 4 objectives including non-hydro mitigation activities such as transferring 8,000 fish from the lower river to the pools.

Questions/Answers:

What is the current range of the project? Answer: Bonneville to Lake Roosevelt.

What was the FY 98 budget? Answer: $2.028 million. The outyear budgets are about $2 million and may decrease slightly.

Who are the subcontractors? Answer: 1) WDFW - $450,000 to assess recruitment in 3-4 reservoirs and do creel surveys and management activities; 2) USGS BRD - $500,000 to monitor young-of- the-year and look at more efficient technology; FWS - $100,000 to profile the Hanford Reach; and CRITFC - $350,000 to work on hatchery technology and less invasive surgery for broodstock.

Explain “non-hydro mitigation”. Answer: It is supplementation and harvest monitoring. Sturgeon are transplanted from below Bonneville Dam to The Dalles and John Day reservoirs.

How realistic is Objective 2 (changes to the hydro system)? Answer: We are continuing to document the effects of flow on white sturgeon. High flows are good for sturgeon.

Is overhead taken out twice when you subcontract? Answer: No.

What about dissolved gas? Answer: Some studies show that recruitment occurs when gas levels are high.

Objective 1 is 40% of the budget. What percent of the 40% is used on the ground? Answer: About ½ .

Are funds from this project going to Lake Roosevelt? Answer: Yes in 1998 but no in 1999. The $2 million does not include work in Washington.

Council Measure 10.4A.5 calls for consultation with tribe. What activity is going on? Has the project looked in the Hells Canyon area? Answer: There is no on-the-ground activity but we do have ongoing communication.

The Council wanted this to be broken up into parts. How will all this be coordinated? It appears that to be a duplicated effort. Why aren't the parts separated so we can look at the parts? Answer: We are not aware that the Council said to split this up. We do a lot of coordination, including workshops for all parties to work together on methodologies. The overlap may be in geography and time. This is a broad area.

Objective 2 defines the relationship between river discharge between McNary and Priest Rapids and spawning. Isn't this free-flowing ? Answer: Yes, this is the best area to look because it is a more natural system.

Have you looked at the pools downstream already? Is there consistent pattern - more flow equals better spawning? You should be able to show a trend without looking at every pool. Answer: Yes, there appears to be a trend, but the 1997 data show that there may be an upper limit to the benefits. The morphologies below dam are very different. The trend is there but we don't have enough data for “proof. "Are the management agencies contributing money to harvest objective? Answer: Yes.

Will steelhead flows help sturgeon in the Hanford Reach? Answer: No.

When will the project be finished? Answer: Objective 1 is ongoing. The mitigative action will never be done.

Screening Criteria: Yes

Technical Criteria: Yes

Programmatic Criteria: Yes

General Comment: The project should move into the mitigation management arena instead of the research arena. Coordinate with Lake Roosevelt sturgeon (9502700) and the K-Pool sturgeon project (9603201) to avoid duplication. The proposal should be written to highlight component parts to make future reviews easier.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Transfer genetics tasks to 9084, defer hatchery supplementation, use indexing instead of extensive stock assessments, budget no longer includes NPT sturgeon work
Recommendation:
Inadequate proposal, adequate purpose
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This proposal is inadequate technically, ranking in the lower third of the set. The project could stand scrutiny after more than 10 years of work, although it has been productive in getting papers out. The proposed objectives are primarily administrative and the technical merits are not conveyed. BPA should look at the very high cost in relation to the products. There are broad-brush statements with little detail on actual merits. The proposal does not justify this large expense for sturgeon in relation to the needs for salmon restoration. Is this project cost/effective? The work is evaluated here (as a systemwide proposal) because of other sturgeon work in the basin with which this work should be coordinated. The ISRP recommends a programmatic review of the sturgeon work, including this project.
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$1,431,916 $1,251,853 $1,251,853

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website