FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25045

Additional documents

TitleType
25045 Narrative Narrative
25045 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response
25045 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation
25045 Powerpoint Presentation Embedded Movie File Powerpoint Presentation Embedded File

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleDetermine effects of water level-induced changes in rearing habitat on the survival of juvenile fall chinook salmon.
Proposal ID25045
OrganizationU.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameKenneth F. Tiffan
Mailing address5501A Cook-Underwood Rd. Cook, WA 98605
Phone / email5095382299 / ken_tiffan@usgs.gov
Manager authorizing this projectDr. James Seelye
Review cycleColumbia Plateau
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Mainstem Columbia
Short descriptionDescribe the response of premigrant fall chinook salmon to water level-induced changes in their rearing habitat in terms of their habitat use, movement behavior, and survival.
Target speciesFall chinook salmon
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
46.437888 -119.33538 Hanford Reach of Columbia River at Coyote Rapids
46.302284 -119.157283 Hanford Reach of Columbia River at Ringold
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
199102900 Life history and survival of fall chinook salmon in the Columbia River basin. Habitat and survival activities complement those proposed for Hells Canyon Reach
199701400 Hanford Reach stranding evaluation Provide information useful to stranding susceptibility model being developed by this project

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 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 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Determine the effects of power peaking-induced water level fluctuations on juvenile fall chinook habitat and habitat use in the Hanford Reach. a. Quantify the rate, direction, and magnitude of fish movement in near-shore habitat in response to fluctuating and stable water levels. 3 $63,114
1. b. Determine the residence time of juvenile fall chinook salmon in local rearing habitats. 3 $11,000
1. c. Quantify the changes in local, physical rearing habitats that occur in response to water level fluctuations. 3 $15,000
2. Estimate the survival of wild juvenile fall chinook salmon in rearing areas of the Hanford Reach and McNary Reservoir. a. Determine the feasibility of recapturing PIT-tagged fish at multiple locations in near-shore rearing habitats. 3 $91,713
2. b. Determine if survival is related to habitat quality. 3 $12,150
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Determine the effects of power peaking-induced water level fluctuations on juvenile fall chinook habitat and habitat use in the Hanford Reach. 2002 2004 $178,228
2. Estimate the survival of wild juvenile fall chinook salmon in rearing areas of the Hanford Reach and McNary Reservoir. 2002 2004 $177,726
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2003FY 2004
$192,977$162,977

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 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 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel FTE: 1.5 $63,091
Fringe $16,328
Supplies $38,000
Travel $12,240
Indirect Overhead $47,252
PIT tags # of tags: 3000 $6,750
Other Boat operation and vehicles $9,316
$192,977
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$192,977
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$192,977
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Jun 15, 2001

Comment:

Do not fund unless an adequate response is provided that addresses the ISRP's concerns. The goal of this project is to describe the response of pre-migrant fall chinook salmon in the Hanford Reach to water level-induced changes in their rearing habitat in terms of their habitat use, movement behavior, and survival. The proposal apparently differs from other studies of fry stranding by examining the behavior mechanisms involved and studying responses at a much finer or "local" level than in the past. The study might provide insight into a problem found in many locations throughout the hydrosystem. It could provide better information on how quickly fry can adjust to habitat changes and help define preferred habitats, etc.

However, reviewers were not convinced this project would add anything useful to the stranding study (#199701400) that has been underway for several years and is reviewed above. One of the tasks identified (1.1) is to "Quantify the rate, direction, and magnitude of fish movement in near-shore habitat in response to fluctuating and stable water flows." While this might be appropriate in the Snake River, where the investigators say they have a similar study underway (or will have), it does not comport with our expectations in the Hanford Reach where there is an operational agreement in place that is supposed to stabilize the flows when significant numbers of chinook fry are present. The proposal states that the investigators will request periods of stable flows from Priest Rapids Dam to compare the results under stable and varying flows. The proposal reveals a lack of understanding of the complexity of this issue. The operating agreement is a multiparty agreement that must be honored by Grant County PUD, operators of Priest Rapids Dam. In any case, Grant County's ability to regulate flows to any significant degree is inhibited by flows originating from Grand Coulee Dam. In the absence of fluctuations in water level, the study is not likely to reveal anything about responses of juvenile fall chinook in terms of movement or survival. Even if flows were to fluctuate in an unanticipated manner, as in 2001, the method proposed seems to have only a remote chance of recapturing sufficient numbers of fish to make possible a credible estimate of survival. The response needs to justify this type of localized study, justify its value, and demonstrate a familiarity with the multiparty agreement.

Data on effects of power peaking water level fluctuations on fall chinook habitat use should be useful, but the direct survival estimates using PIT tagged fish would be even more valuable if they can be obtained. The latter assessment would use untested methodology - fykenet detector rings in proposal, but that seemed to change to flatplate detectors with fins in the presentation. A response is needed that more carefully assesses the feasibility of being able to gather such mortality data.

The proposal leaves many questions unanswered that should be addressed in the response:

  1. what is the value of knowing fine scale habitat use compared to what is known from past work?
  2. what is known about preferred habitat use based on size of the fry and is there a concern about the current rates of discharge change?
  3. is it feasible that stable flows will be established in order to determine a comparative basis?
  4. what is the link or value in marking fry <60 mm and then PIT tagging fry >60 mm ... how would these results be combined or are they simply separate issues?
  5. what is the source of these fish and how were the sample sizes determined, they seem very small given the size of the habitat, changes in water volumes, etc.?
  6. how would the SURPH model be applied if we do not know what habitats were utilized?
  7. what is the source of the second digital camera and the PIT tag detectors, are they actually in the budget?

This proposal is another of several proposals in the Hanford Reach that indicate little to no integration between studies and agencies.


Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 10, 2001

Comment:

Fundable. The response addresses the ISRP comments. This project is innovative, but somewhat risky with the use of untested technology. This proposal might be justifiable just on methodological grounds to test whether the use of PIT tags can be expanded to collect additional important monitoring information. This is a major potential benefit from this project. At the Hanford Reach level, this project complements the ongoing stranding study, but the immediate management application of project 25045 is likely of lower priority. The primary goal of this project is to describe the response of pre-migrant fall chinook salmon in the Hanford Reach to water level-induced changes in their rearing habitat in terms of their habitat use, movement behavior, and survival. The proposal apparently differs from other studies of fry stranding by examining the behavior mechanisms involved and studying responses at a much finer or "local" level than in the past. The study might provide insight into a problem found in many locations throughout the hydrosystem. It could provide better information on how quickly fry can adjust to habitat changes and help define preferred habitats, etc.
See detailed ISRP comments on Hanford Reach projects
Recommendation:
Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
The ultimate goal of this project is to increase the understanding of juvenile fall chinook salmon use of near shore habitats.

Comments
This project studies unlisted fish with intent to extrapolate to listed stocks. The project is innovative, but is based on untested technology.

Already ESA Req? NA

Biop? no


Recommendation:
Rank D
Date:
Oct 16, 2001

Comment:

This project addresses the Hanford Reach fall chinook and should be funded by Grant PUD. The proposal appears to duplicate project no. 1997-014-00. It addresses a healthy, unlisted fish stock. The habitat needs of these chinook should also be enhanced by implementation of proposal no. 25060 – Burbank Sloughs.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment: