Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199602100

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 Gas Bubble Disease Research and Monitoring of Juvenile Salmonids
BPA Project Proposal Number 199602100
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Columbia River Research Laboratory
Business acronym (if appropriate) USGS

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Dr. Alec G. Maule
Mailing Address 5501A Cook-Underwood Rd.
City, State, Zip Cook, WA 98605
Phone 5095382299 2
Fax 5095382843
Manager of program authorizing this project
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Mainstem/Systemwide
Subbasin Systemwide
Short Description Provide support for the Smolt Monitoring Program monitoring juvenile salmonids for signs of gas bubble disease. Activities include (1) care and maintainence of equipment, (2) training, and (3) QA/QC.
Target Species Pacific salmon, Oncorhynchus spp.

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: 5.6.E.1
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: RPA 16; RPA 17
Other Planning Document References Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon (March 1995): Task 2.2d

CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: BiOp designation from 4/16/03 budget estimates spreadsheet.
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous

Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
1995 Established monitoring protocol
1997 Chart progression of signs of GBD
1997 Develop depth-sensitive radio tag
1999 Describe depth behavior of emigrants

Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
8712700 Smolt monitoring by non-federal agencies Yes
8401400 Smolt monitoring at Federal dams Yes
20552 Smolt monitoring projects Yes

Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Determine significance of GBD in juvenile salmonids migrating in the Snake and Columbia rivers. a. TASKS (a and b) HAVE BEEN COMPLETED OR TRANSFERED TO THE SMOLT MONITORING PROGAM
1. c. Provide support for monitoring for GBD, including care and maintainence of equipment, training, and QA/QC.
2. Determine optimal method for detecting and assessing GBD in juvenile salmonids a. ALL TASKS ASSOCIATED WITH OBJECTIVE 2 HAVE BEEN COMPLETED OR DEEMED UNNECESSARY BY REGIONAL MANAGERS.
3. Determine in-situ vertical distribution of individual juvenile salmonids migrating in water with high total dissolved gas a. ALL TASKS WITHIN THIS OBJECTIVE WILL BE COMPLETED UNDER FY99 FUNDING
4. Determine sublethal effects of exposure to gas supersaturated water on juvenile salmonids a. ALL TASKS UNDER THIS OBJECTIVE HAVE BEEN DEEMED UNNECESSARY BY REGIONAL MANAGERS.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
04/01/99 03/01/04 Insure that equipment is functional; train those monitoring for GBD; provide QA/QC. 100.0%

Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel $ 21,170
Fringe $ 6,351
Supplies $ 1,000
Travel $ 3,154
Indirect (38% of direct costs) $ 12,036
Total Itemized Budget $ 43,711

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $ 43,711
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $ 43,711
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 2003 2004
All Phases $ 45,022 $ 46,373 $ 47,764 $ 49,197
Total Outyear Budgets $ 45,022 $ 46,373 $ 47,764 $ 49,197

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: This project will continue each year that monitoring for signs of GBD is conducted . If monitoring is terminated, the project will end.

Section 6. References

n/a or no information

Section 7. Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

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

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 99-2 Recommendation:
Fund for one year
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Recommendation: Fund for one year. Subsequent funding contingent on programmatic review. 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 the management questions.

Comments: The programmatic need for this quality assurance work in collaboration with other smolt monitoring projects is clear. The objective is clear but the description of the associated tasks is vague. It is not clear how many investigators will be trained or how many times the examiner will visit each site. Will all sites be visited the same number of times or will some investigators need more monitoring than others do? How many fish will be examined and what standard constitutes agreement? The proposal states that the examiner will examine the fish after the on-site biologist. Is there an effect from degradation of the sample? Always using that fixed order of examination may be a source of bias. Varying the order of examination is recommended. This is an ongoing support project that has evolved into almost an O&M activity, and is now being proposed for funding as a monitoring and evaluation project. The P.I. gives expert advice, training, equipment maintenance, and QA/QC oversight to the existing smolt monitoring projects that tally GBT signs in fish (8401400, 8712700). Assuming the monitoring continues, this would be a candidate for a multi-year review cycle.

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999
$ 44,000

CBFWA: Fish Passage Advisory Committee Comments Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Technical Criteria 1: Met? Yes -

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? Yes -

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? Yes -

Resource Criteria 4: Met? No - 0.5 FTE is excessive. Involves hosting 2-day workshop and some sites visits

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Mar 1, 2000
$ 43,711
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund for one year
Mar 1, 2000
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
(b) gas supersaturation monitoring and evaluation - (9602100, 20143(formerly 9300802), 20157 - USGS, CRITFC, IDFG), approx. $202,000.

Issue: The ISRP recommended funding for two projects. A third, proposed by IDFG, was not submitted in time for ISRP review, which has also been the case in previous years. The issue for the Council was whether it would accept the recommendations of the ISRP on the two projects the ISRP recommended without further inquiry, or whether the Council would also require those proposals to be consistent with the gas research plan requested in Fiscal Year 1998 and provided by CBFWA later that year. In addition the Council decided that the project not reviewed by the ISRP should be subjected to independent review prior to making a funding recommendation.

Past Council Treatment: In reviewing projects totaling $2.5 million in FY 98, the ISRP questioned the level of attention and expenditure that was being made on evaluating the effects of dissolved gas when "the physical causes and engineering solutions are known and the general biological detriment of high gas supersaturation were well proven." In response, the Council recommended that funding for these projects be held in reserve pending the development of a coordinated research plan by the Dissolved Gas Team, associated funding recommendations, and review by the ISAB of the Corps' gas program. Ultimately it was agreed that the research plan would be developed through CBFWA. (The plan was developed and released in December 1998).

In Fiscal Year 1999 the Council deferred a funding recommendation on two proposed gas projects, but recommended that Bonneville hold reserve funds sufficient for the two proposed projects. The deferral was made to permit time for CBFWA to review the ISAB report on the Corps' gas program, and develop a research plan in consideration of that review and the Gas Team's proposed research plan. Again, that plan was released in December 1998.

Council Recommendation: 1) Project 9602100 has been substantially reduced from previous years. It is primarily external examination of juvenile migrants for external signs of gas bubble disease. The project is linked to the smolt-monitoring program. This type of juvenile monitoring is required by Oregon and Washington water quality agencies as a condition to granting permits to dam operators to spill water for fish passage that results in exceedances of water quality standards for dissolved gas. The CBFWA research plan states that "biological monitoring [of gas bubble disease] will continue as long as it is a necessary element of the dissolved gas waivers." The Council recommends that this project be funded for one year, and reviewed in conjunction with the smolt monitoring program and other programmatic monitoring and evaluation programs.

2) Project 20143, though possessing a new project number, is the continuation of an ongoing gas project. It is primarily monitoring adult salmonids for signs of gas bubble disease. As of April 1999, neither the state of Washington nor Oregon requires adult monitoring as a condition of granting gas waivers for spill. Letters were received from both Oregon and Washington state water quality agencies, and neither stated that they would require this monitoring as a condition of granting waivers for exceeding standards for gas. The Council did receive and consider letters from CBFWA and EPA supporting the project. The Council has considered comments and presentations provided by the sponsor over the preceding months. The Council staff recommendation has been to not fund this project, principally because the monitoring does not appear to be required for the waivers, and that recommendation remains in place.

The Council is not inclined to recommend that this project be funded because it is no longer required by the state water quality agencies to secure gas waivers, which is the primary link the CBFWA gas plan requires of biological monitoring. Moreover, the data gathered from is a total dissolved gas (TDG) level of approximately 120% that can be viewed as a management trigger. While additional adult monitoring may continue to yield quality data, the sponsors did not indicate how additional data would possibly lead to a different management standard for TDG given the current spill program. The Council has asked the sponsor to provide any information that it may receive that the current spill program would be significantly altered in 2000 calling the continued adequacy of the 120% management trigger into question, and stated that it would revisit its decision in light of any such information. The Council has not received information from NMFS, the Corps, or the sponsor to date indicating substantial changes to the spill program.

The sponsor submitted information in a letter dated January 10, 1999 that identified three proposed studies that may occur in the 2000 migration year that may lead to differences in spill and gas conditions from those extant in recent years. There has been no official notification from NMFS or the Corps that the 2000 spill program per se will be significantly altered this year in a manner that substantially changes migration conditions. The Council understands that one of the studies (Bjornn) referenced in the January 10 letter includes the monitoring of a large number of adult salmonids for GBT. In addition, notwithstanding the fact that the three studies referenced by the sponsor that may occur in 2000, there is no indication that TDG levels will be permitted to exceed the levels approved in the waivers in recent years. The Council is concerned that additional funding for this type of adult monitoring, at this time, will not provide data with significant management relevance. Moreover, it appears that substantial monitoring of adult salmonids for gas bubble trauma (GBT) is already occurring in Corps funded research. Given the negligible incidence of GBT detected in adults in the several years of this and other monitoring efforts, the Council is reluctant to recommend additional direct program funding to this monitoring type of activity at this time. Nonetheless, the Council defers a final recommendation on this project at this time in order to determine if the water quality waiver permitting requirements discussed above will change from what is anticipated, and to allow the sponsor additional time to determine if the spill program for 2000 will be substantially modified.

3) Project 20157 also carries a new number, but the project has existed since 1995. The project was not reviewed by the ISRP due to its untimely submission. The project monitors biological symptoms of gas bubble disease as a condition for a waiver from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for spill at Dworshak dam. This project is scheduled to undergo a five-year evaluation by Idaho DEQ, IDFG, and NMFS, with a report expected in October of this year. The Council had the proposal submitted for ISRP review, and was awaiting the evaluation when the project sponsor withdrew the proposal for Fiscal Year 2000. The proposal should not be funded in Fiscal Year 2000.

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$ 16,885
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$ 16,885
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$ 16,885
Sponsor (Alec Maule) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page