FY 2000 proposal 199701400

Additional documents

TitleType
199701400 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleEvaluation of Juvenile Fall Chinook Stranding on the Hanford Reach
Proposal ID199701400
OrganizationWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NamePaul Wagner
Mailing address500 N Morain, Suite 1300 Kennewick WA 99336
Phone / email5097347101 / pwagner@televar.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Columbia Lower Middle
Short descriptionEvaluate effect of diel water fluctuations resulting from power peaking activities at Priest Rapids Dam on: 1) rearing juvenile fall chinook, 2) resident fish, and 3) the benthic community inhabiting the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. Assess direct
Target speciesWild Juvenile Upriver Bright Fall Chinook
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
1997 Pilot assessment of juvenile chinook stranding in Hanford Reach
1998 First of two year field assessment of juvenile fall chinook stranding in Hanford Reach
1998 First of two year field assessment of resident fish stranding in Hanford Reach
1998 First of two year field assessment of flow fluctuation effect on benthic macroinvertebrate community
1998 First of two year laboratory assessment of temperature tolerance of juvenile fall chinook
1998 Susceptibility Modeling Work

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9102900 Life History of Fall Chinook in Columbia River Basin Shared personnel, equipment, and cost sharing for modeling work.
8605000 White Sturgeon Restoration and Enhancement in Columbia and Snake Rivers Ups Sharing of Hanford Reach Flow Modeling Information
Predicting The Effects of Reservoir Drawdown on Juvenile Salmonids and Thei Shared personnel, equipment, resident fish data.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel Wages $67,000
Fringe Employee Benefits $22,000
Supplies $2,000
Travel $4,000
Indirect Administrative Overhead $19,000
Subcontractor Pacific Northwest National Laboratories $30,000
Subcontractor USGS/BRD $23,000
Subcontractor US Army Corps of Engineers SHOALS Survey $50,000
$217,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$217,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$217,000
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Grant County PUD Overall Project Cost Share $50,000 unknown
USGS/BRD 50% Cost Share for SHOALS Survey $50,000 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Research project scheduled to be completed in FY2000. Schedule change could result from Fish/Tribal agency consensus to conduct additional field studies.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fund (high priority)
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Fund (high priority). Fund for one year to complete the analysis and write the final report.

Comments: This study is significant as a source of information on effects of hydropower operations on survival of juvenile salmon that might be applied to other locations in the region. However, the proposal was surprisingly vague. A question arose whether some of the investigators may be over-committed, considering other projects in which they are involved. We note that in response to this study, the hydrosystem has proposed an operating strategy in spring 1999 that is intended to minimize stranding of juveniles. Finalization of the report should provide further guidance for measures that might be taken.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Criteria all: Met? yes -
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

This has been a productive study. Results have directly affected river operations. We recommend continued funding, however, this should be the final year of significant levels of funding.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]