Proposal Table of Contents
Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract
Reviews and Recommendations
|Title of Project Proposal||White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers|
|BPA Project Proposal Number||198605000|
|Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
|Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife|
|Business acronym (if appropriate)||ODFW|
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
|Name||Dave Ward/Tom Rien|
|Mailing Address||17330 SE Evelyn St.|
|City, State, Zip||Clackamas, OR 97015|
|Manager of program authorizing this project|
|Review Cycle||FY 1999|
|Subbasin||Lower Mid-Columbia Mainstem|
|Short Description||Restore 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 Species||white sturgeon|
Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal
NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal
|NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses:||10.4A.1, 10.4A.3, 10.4A.5|
|FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses:|
|Other Planning Document References|
|Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form:||None|
|Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts):||resident|
|1. Develop and implement mitigation actions that do not involve changes to hydrosystem operation and configuration.||a. To guide restoration, mitigation, and production activities, develop a comprehensive Master Plan. Provide information to BPA for NEPA records of decision prior to specific mitigation or restoration actions.|
|1.||b. Describe the genetic stock structure of white sturgeon in the Columbia River Basin. Determine if unique stocks exist and describe their geographic range.|
|1.||c. Begin releasing transplants in impoundments where disease and genetic risks associated with transplanting fish are low and where recruitment failures due to low flow and hydrosystem operations have reduced sturgeon productivity and harvest opportunies.|
|1.||d. Develop artificial propagation techniques and protocols in preparation for supplementing white sturgeon populations.|
|1.||e. Manage affected sturgeon populations by monitoring and planning for optimal harvest.|
|2. Develop and implement mitigation actions that involve changes to hydrosystem operation and configuration.||a. Describe the relationship between specific daily dam operations and the onset of spawning.|
|2.||b. Determine the relationship between river discharge and the location and quantity of spawning and rearing habitat for sturgeon in the Columbia River between McNary and Priest Rapids dams, and in the Snake River downstream from Lower Granite Dam.|
|3. Monitor and evaluate actions to mitigate for lost white sturgeon production due to development, operation, and configuration of the hydropower system..||a. Monitor the status of populations between Bonneville and Priest Rapids dams in the Columbia River and between the Snake River mouth and Lower Granite Dam through periodic updates of population status|
|3.||b. Describe annual variation in white sturgeon recruitment between Bonneville and Priest Rapids dams on the Columbia River and downstream from Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River through annual indexing of young of the year.|
|4. Assess losses to white sturgeon productivity caused by development and operation of the hydrosystem.||a. Determine the status of white sturgeon populations between Priest Rapids and Grand Coulee dams, and in Lake Roosevelt.|
|Objective||Start Date||End Date||Measurable Biological Objectives||Milestone||FY 2000 Cost %|
|Item||Note||FY 1999 Cost|
|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|
|Total Itemized Budget||$2,900,000|
|Total FY 1999 project 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 forecast||0.0%|
|Total Outyear Budgets||$3,200,000||$3,500,000||$3,500,000||$3,500,000|
n/a or no information
Concern for white sturgeon populations is documented in measures 10.4A.1, 10.4A.2, 10.4A.3, and 10.4A.5 of the 1994 Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Goals of this project are to 1) implement and evaluate measures to protect and enhance white sturgeon populations and mitigate for effects of the hydropower system downstream from McNary Dam, and 2) determine the need and identify potential measures for protecting and enhancing white sturgeon populations and mitigate for effects of the hydropower system upstream from McNary Dam. Objectives are (1) develop and implement mitigation actions that do not involve changes to hydrosystem operation and configuration, (2) develop and implement mitigation actions that involve changes to hydrosystem operation and configuration, (3) monitor and evaluate response of white sturgeon populations to mitigation actions by reassessing stock status in Bonneville Reservoir, and (4) assess losses to white sturgeon productivity caused by development and operation of the hydrosystem in lakes Rufus Woods and Roosevelt. We will undertake a master planning process to guide decisions regarding white sturgeon mitigation, restoration, and production activities above Bonneville Dam. We will continue development of a plan for operating the hydropower system to provide flows that maximize spawning and recruitment in The Dalles and John Day reservoirs, and evaluate effects of these flows on white sturgeon production. We will describe the relationship between daily dam operations and the onset of spawning, develop specific recommendations for in-season water management; determine the location and quantity of spawning and rearing habitat and the timing and duration of spawning upstream from McNary Dam; describe annual variation in white sturgeon recruitment between Bonneville and McNary Dam dams and in the lower Snake River; describe the potential effect of proposed reservoir drawdown on white sturgeon productivity, and update relationships between river flow, available habitat, and recruitment.
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
|CBFWA: Resident Fish Review Comments||Recommendation:
May 13, 1998
|[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]|
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.
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.
|CBFWA Funding Recommendation||Recommendation:
May 13, 1998
Transfer genetics tasks to 9084, defer hatchery supplementation, use indexing instead of extensive stock assessments, budget no longer includes NPT sturgeon work
|ISRP Review , ISRP 1998-1||Recommendation:
Inadequate proposal, adequate purpose
Jun 18, 1998
|[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]|
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.
|NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review||Funding category:
|Sponsor (ODFW) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):
Return to top of page