Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 20101

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

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 Type File Size File Date


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Connectivity and Productivity of Mainstem Alluvial Reaches
BPA Project Proposal Number 20101
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Business acronym (if appropriate) PNNL
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Dennis D. Dauble
Mailing Address P.O. Box 999, MSIN: K6-85
City, State, Zip Richland, WA 99352
Phone 5093763631
Fax 5093723515
E-mail dd.dauble@pnl.gov
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Mainstem/Systemwide
Subbasin Systemwide
 
Short Description Evaluate the relative importance of remaining mainstem alluvial habitats by linking physcial habitat variables, such as managed flow, to measurable biotic parameters and ecosystem processes.
Target Species Fall chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)


Project Location

[No information]


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal


NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: 2.2A, 5.2A.7, 5.3B.13, 5.4A.4, 5.4D.2, 6.1C, 7.1A.1, 7.1C.3, 7.1F, 7.3
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: 1998 Supplement to 1995 RPA Measure 10 (drawdown)
Other Planning Document References • Snake River Recovery Plan (Section 1.4 and 2.11; Measure 4.1.d and 4.7) • Wy Kan Ush Me Wa Kush Wi (Artificial Production Actions for the Snake River Maintstem Action 8) • Return to the River (ISG 1996) emphasized the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River as a model of metapopulation dynamics and study area for "normative" river reaches. They also discussed the importance of alluvial mainstem reaches and the importance of core populations to system production, including the possibility of revitalizing drowned alluvial reaches. • The ISRP FY99 review of the Fish and Wildlife Program also emphasized the Hanford Reach (Recommendation V-B.2.b.2) and also noted that "in the event that operations are modified or dams are removed…the greatest benefit may be expanded spawning and rearing habitat for stocks lower in the river" (p. 27)


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous


Section 2. Past Accomplishments

n/a or no information


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
9102900 Life history and survival of fall chinook salmon in Columbia River basin share data on flow relationships and model development No
9406900 A spawning habitat model to aid recovery plans for Snake River fall chinook share physical habitat data No
9701400 Evaluation of juvenile fall chinook stranding on the Hanford Reach share data on flow relationships and model development No
99003 Evaluate spawning of salmon below the four lowermost Columbia River dams No
Assessment of the impacts of development and operation of the Columbia Riv… share data on flow management and riverine processes No


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Describe physical habitat features influencing fall chinook salmon production a. Conduct hydrographic analysis
1. b. Assemble physical habitat features
1. c. Describe hyporheic flow pathways
1. d. Physcial modeling integration
2. Describe principle abiotic variables influencing primary and secondary production a. Characterize primary production
2. b. Characterize secondary production
3. Data analysis/integration .

Objective Schedules and Costs

n/a or no information

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel $ 76,792
Fringe $ 14,090
Supplies $ 328
Travel $ 8,728
Indirect $ 25,389
Subcontractor $ 41,578
Total Itemized Budget $166,905


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $166,905
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $166,905
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%


Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable


Reason for change in scope

Not applicable


Cost Sharing

Not applicable
 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002
All Phases $278,764 $207,324
Total Outyear Budgets $278,764 $207,324
 

Other Budget Explanation

Not applicable


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Dauble DD, and DG Watson. 1997. Status of fall chinook salmon populations in the mid-Columbia River, 1948-1992. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:283-300. No
Fulton LA. 1968. Spawning areas and abundance of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Columbia River basin--past and present. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. No. 571. No
Geist DR, and DD Dauble. 1998. Redd site selection and spawning habitat use by fall chinook salmon: the importance of geomorphic features in large rivers. Environmental Management 22:655-669. No
Horner N, and TC Bjornn. 1979. Status of upper Columbia River fall chinook salmon (excluding Snake River populations). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Moscow, Idaho. No
Hymer J. 1997. Results of Studies on Chinook Spawning in the Main Stem Columbia River below Bonneville Dam. WDFW Progress Report #97-9. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Battle Ground, Washington. No
Huntington C, W Nehlsen, and J Bowers. 1996. A survey of healthy native stocks of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest and California. Fisheries 21(3):6-14. No
Independent Scientific Groups (ISG). 1996. Return to the river, restoration of salmonid fishes in the Columbia Riber ecosystem. Pre-publication copy dated September 10, 1996. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon. No
Independent Science Review Panel (ISRP). 1998. Review of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program for fiscal year 1999 as directed by the 1996 ammendment to the NW Power Act. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon. No
Van Hyning JM. 1969. Factors affecting the abundance of fall chinook salmon in the Columbia River. Fish. Bull. 4:1-83. No
Neitzel, D.A., T.L. Page, and R.W. Hanf, Jr. 1982. Mid-Columbia River zooplankton. Northwest Science. 57:112-118. No
Neitzel, D.A., T.L. Page, and R.W. Hanf, Jr. 1982. Mid-Columbia River microflora. Journal of Freshwater Ecology. 1:495-505. No
Neitzel, D.A., T.L. Page, and R.W. Hanf, Jr. 1981. Mid-Columbia River benthic macrofauna. Report to Northwest Energy Services. Kirkland, Washington. No
Becker, B.D. 1990. Aquatic bioenvironmental studies: the Hanford Experience 1944-1984. Elsevier Science Publishers. New York. No
Cushing, C.E. 1963. Plankton-water chemistry cycles in the Columbia River. HW-7600. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, Washinton. No
Ebel WJ, CD Becker, JW Mullan, and HL Raymond. 1989. The Columbia River: toward a holistic understanding. Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium (LARS). DP Dodge. Special Publication of the Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci. 106: 205-219. No
Gray, R.H. and T.L. Page. 1977-1979. Aquatic ecological studies conducted near WNP 1,2, and 4. WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vols. 3-6. Prepared by Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories for Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, Was No
Hynes, H.B. 1970. The ecology of running waters. University of Toronto Press. Canada. No
Imhof, J.G., J. Fitzgibbon, and W.K. Annable. 1996. A hierarchical evaluation system for characterizing watershed ecosystems for fish habitat. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53(Suppl.1):312-326. No
Jacobi, G.G. 1971. A quantitative artificial substrate sampler for benthic macroinvertebrates. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 100:136-138. No
Reeves GH, LE Benda, KM Burnett, PA Bisson, and JR Sedell. 1995. A disturbance-based ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of evolutionary significant units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. AFS Symp. 17:334- No
Southwood, T.E. 1977. Habitat, the template for ecological strategies? Journal Animal Ecology 46:337-365. No
Stanford, J.A., and six coauthors. 1996. A general protocol for restoration of regulated rivers. Regulated Rivers Research and Management 12:391-413. No
Stanford, J.A. and J.V. Ward. 1993. An ecosystem perspective of alluvial rivers: connectivity and the hyporheic corridor. Journal North American Benthological Society 12:48-60. No
Poff, N.L. and seven coauthors. 1997. The natural flow regime. Bioscience 47:769-784. No
Vannote, R.L. G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing. 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:130-137. No
Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological Applications 1:66-84. No


Section 7. Abstract

Abstract

We propose to investigate the current status of the Hanford Reach as a functional ecosystem to asses the relative importance of remaining mainstem alluvial habitats to fall chinook salmon. This proposal links the effects of physical habitat variables, such as managed flows, to measurable biotic parameters and ecosystem processes. We will describe the principle abiotic variables that influence primary and secondary production in the Hanford Reach. This information will be used to quantify relationships between regulated flows and ecological processes. The results of this project will provide benefits for other research projects that focus on restoration and enhancement of fall chinook salmon in the Columbia River basin and is to future recovery planning that involves manipulation of mainstem habitats and anadromous fish populations.


Reviews and Recommendations

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

This project has not yet been reviewed

Return to top of page