FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25091

Additional documents

25091 Narrative Narrative
25091 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response
25091 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleMainstem habitats and aquatic communities: assessment and management options
Proposal ID25091
OrganizationU.S. Geological Survey, Columbia River Research Laboratory (USGS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJames H. Petersen, Ph. D.
Mailing address5501A Cook-Underwood Road Cook, WA 98605
Phone / email5095382299 / jim_petersen@usgs.gov
Manager authorizing this projectJim Seelye, Laboratory Director
Review cycleColumbia Plateau
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Mainstem Columbia
Short descriptionWe propose to characterize the nearshore habitat and community structure in the mainstem reservoirs of the Columbia Plateau Province, and develop experiments to test management options in the mainstem river.
Target speciesJuvenile salmonids, fall chinook salmon, several ESU stocks including Snake River chinook and steelhead
Project location
Columbia River, upper section of John Day Reservoir
45.73 -120.67 John Day Reservoir
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)



Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

New project proposal

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
199007000 The Northern Pikeminnow Management Program Assists in evaluating predator removal effects; indirect effects
199007800 Evaluate predator removal: large-scale patterns Followup to this project, investigating additional mechanisms
198605000 Status and habitat requirement of white sturgeon Provides specific habitat data that might assist sturgeon studies
199406900 Development of a conceptual spawning habitat model Provides a rearing habitat model that complements spawning model results
199702900 Understanding the effects of summer flow augmentation on migratory behavior and survival of fall chinook salmon This project will develop protective measures for threatened fall chinook salmon originating in the Hells Canyon Reach.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
3. Develop plans for field experiments Task 3.1 Planning meetings / workshops 2 $25,000
Task 3.1 Modeling 2 $38,000
Task 3.2 Field experiments (to begin FY04; costs undetermined) $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
3. Develop plans for field experiments 2003 2004 $20,000
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 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 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
1. Assess mainstem habitat Task 1.1 Collect exisitng datasets 1 $25,000
Task 1.2 Conduct habitat surveys 2 $55,000
Task 1.3 Describe water velocities 2 $45,000
Task 1.4 Characterize water temperature 2 $25,000
2. Community structure Task 2.1 Characterize community structure 2 $50,000
Task 2.2 Characterize past community structure 2 $35,000
Tasj 2.3 Conduct paleoecological pilot study 2 $36,200
Task 2.4 Begin monitoring juvenile fishes 4 $60,000
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Assess mainstem habitat 2003 2006 $400,000
2. Community structure 2003 2006 $650,000
3. Develop field experiments 2003 2005 $150,000
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel FTE: 4 $175,000
Fringe 30% $52,500
Supplies Field supplies, instruments, thermographs, $15,000
Travel per diem, vehicles, meetings $25,000
Indirect 38% $101,700
Subcontractor Isotope analysis, sediment analyses $25,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$394,200
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$394,200
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Reason for change in estimated budget

New project proposal

Reason for change in scope

None - new project proposal

Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
U.S. Geological Survey Administrative support, equipment, misc. $40,000 in-kind
Other budget explanation

Portions of some tasks will be subcontracted (isotope analysis, sediment analysis, LIDAR, etc.), but some portion of the task will be performed inhouse, so we've not checked the "subcontractor" box. Outyear budgets are undetermined if field experiments are conducted in FY 2004 and beyond.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Fundable only if response is adequate
Jun 15, 2001


Do not fund unless a substantially improved proposal is submitted. Responses are requested to the following:

  1. With all the work on reservoirs do we need another major expenditure on shoreline habitat at an even higher level of resolution? How is" near shore habitat" to be defined. Shoreline work seems to include on-shore and shallow water habitats. If more mapping and habitat utilization work is necessary to assess the productive capacity for salmonids, then we should proceed; but it will mean a major expenditure if this is done for each reservoir. In other words, data already exists for characterizing mainstem rivers. It is not clear that these habitat surveys are necessary for this objective or necessary to support the other objectives.
  2. The investigation of community structure using Carbon/Nitrogen isotope ratios is somewhat promising but reviewers were uncertain that the use of stable isotopes would provide useful historical data. Reviewers strongly recommend that the current situation and interactions be the focus of this research, not what occurred in the past.
  3. Justification for developing a new bioenergetics model is necessary. Do the authors propose to develop ecosystem models or utilize available models such as EcoPath and EcoSim?
  4. If a revised proposal is prepared, there should be more information provided on how components of the ecosystem work would be integrated. For example, Justification for conducting a monitoring program for larval and juvenile fish and how this monitoring relates to the other parts of this objective is necessary? Moreover, how would the population sizes of the older-age classes be determined? Further, if both the near shore habitat and community work proceeded, how would these components be integrated or do the authors see these as separate studies?
  5. Non-specific field experiments are proposed. As a result of this lack of details it is not clear how models and hypotheses will be tested. The proposal lacks critical hypotheses and specific experiments to test these hypotheses. Consequently, the proposal should only address the expected tasks and not allocate any funds for undefined experiments. Once experiments are defined and designed, then we can evaluate a proposal and determine funding (i.e., possibly fund a revised proposal for 2 years only and determine other funding after new submissions).

The authors of this proposal have a good record of study and productivity in the Basin, but this proposal lacks the detail to understand the tasks or possible benefits of this work.

Recommended Action
Aug 3, 2001


Do Not Fund
Aug 10, 2001


Not fundable. The response proposes an extensive revision of the project. Although the response addressed the ISRP's concerns the revision is not a complete proposal. Rather it is a series of hypotheses to be tested concerning interaction between American shad juveniles and salmonids. Sponsors may want to consider submitting a complete proposal in the upcoming Mainstem and Systemwide Province solicitation.
Oct 1, 2001


Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
The proposal is to do the following: 1) conduct assessments of habitat and trophic structure 2) establish baseline datasets against which habitat or community changes can be measured 3) Design and conduct field experiments. Actual field experiments would not be started until 2004, following assessments, meetings or workshops with managers and other researchers, and a series of modeling studies that should guide experiment selection and design. The study sites for the first year would be in the upper portion of John Day Reservoir. This reach is known to be important for rearing of juvenile fall chinook salmon and water level management could affect fairly large areas of habitat in this area. Other sites would be considered for study sites.

Somewhat related to 155, but not close enough. The significance of the investigation to the cited RPA's is not discussed. "MULTIPLE" refers potentially to Snake and Upper Col. ESU's. ISRP recommends not to fund stating that the proposal is not a complete proposal but a series of hypotheses to be tested.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? no

Rank C
Oct 16, 2001


The work proposed here is a high priority in various plans. However, the proposal addresses ecological interactions focused mainly on the Hanford Reach fall chinook. The region could probably benefit from this kind of work if it were redirected to Snake River fall chinook and other 0-age migrants, such as summer chinook. The proposal also addresses the likely adverse interactions of the invasive species, American shad, on native salmonids. But it is a series of hypotheses to be tested, not a complete proposal. BPA believes that the proposal should be reworked and submitted in the upcoming Mainstem and System-wide Province solicitation.
Do Not Fund
Jan 3, 2002