FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25091
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 25091 Narrative | Narrative |
| 25091 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 25091 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Mainstem habitats and aquatic communities: assessment and management options |
| Proposal ID | 25091 |
| Organization | U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia River Research Laboratory (USGS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | James H. Petersen, Ph. D. |
| Mailing address | 5501A Cook-Underwood Road Cook, WA 98605 |
| Phone / email | 5095382299 / jim_petersen@usgs.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | Jim Seelye, Laboratory Director |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Mainstem Columbia |
| Short description | We 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 species | Juvenile salmonids, fall chinook salmon, several ESU stocks including Snake River chinook and steelhead |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Columbia River, upper section of John Day Reservoir | ||
| 45.73 | -120.67 | John Day Reservoir |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| New project proposal |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 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
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3. Develop plans for field experiments | 2003 | 2004 | $20,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $10,000 | $10,000 | $60,000 | $70,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated 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 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $390,000 | $360,000 | $250,000 | $200,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 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 |
| $394,200 | ||
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 forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
New project proposal
Reason for change in scope
None - new project proposal
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash 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.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Jun 15, 2001
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Do not fund unless a substantially improved proposal is submitted. Responses are requested to the following:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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?
- 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.
Comment:
Comment:
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.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUThe 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.
Comments
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
Comment:
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.Comment: