Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Develop Spawning Habitat Model to Aid Recovery Plans for Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon |
| Proposal ID | 199406900 |
| Organization | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | David R Geist |
| Mailing address | MS K6-85, P.O. Box 999 Richland, WA 99352 |
| Phone / email | 5093720590 / david.geist@pnl.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | David R. Geist |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Ongoing |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Mainstem Columbia |
| Short description | Investigate ground-water/surface-water interactions influencing fall chinook salmon spawning site selection in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. Make available this information to fish managers developing recovery plans for ESA salmon species. |
| Target species | |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 1998 |
Geist, D.R., and D.D. Dauble. "Redd site selection and spawning habitat use by fall chinook salmon: the importance of geomorphic features in large rivers." Enviromental Management 22:655-669. |
| 1998 |
Geist, D.R., M.C. Joy, D.R. Lee, and T. Gonser. "A method for installing piezometers in large cobble bed rivers." Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation 18:78-82. |
| 2000 |
Dauble, D.D., and D.R. Geist. "Changes in watershed characteristics that affect production of fall chinook salmon." Regulated Rivers, in press. |
| 2000 |
Geist, D.R., J. Jones, C.J. Murray, and D.D. Dauble. "Suitability criteria analyzed at the spatial scale of redd clusters improved estimates of fall chinook salmon spawning habitat use in the Hanford Reach, Columbia River." Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci., in pr |
| 2000 |
Geist, D.R. "Hyporheic discharge of river water into fall chinook salmon spawning areas in the Hanford Reach, Columbia River." Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci., in press. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Define production potential of fall chinook salmon that spawn in the Hanford Reach. |
a. Conduct limits analysis for depth, substrate, velocity, and lateral slope at representative habitat types/locations. |
01-03 |
$30,000 |
|
|
b. Select and describe appropriate geomorphic features and hyporheic zone characteristics in areas where limits analysis suggest spawning should occur. |
01-03 |
$55,000 |
|
|
c. Estimate potential redd densities at various seeding levels and compare to known values. This will be done using 1 and 2-D hydraulic models, logistic regression analysis, and GIS. |
01-03 |
$58,000 |
|
|
d. Extrapolate range of density values to other areas deemed suitable based on geomorphic features. |
01-03 |
$40,000 |
|
|
e. Prepare annual and final report/paper. |
01-03 |
$42,000 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2002 |
|---|
| $225,000 | $225,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 1.1 (mix of senior scientist, scientists (2), technicians (2)) |
$116,909 |
| Fringe |
26.7% |
$16,021 |
| Supplies |
Includes piezometers, alluvium depth meas. equipment, geoprobe drive system, misc. field equipment |
$21,841 |
| Travel |
1 trip to give scientific presentation at technical meeting, misc. meetings with client |
$2,146 |
| Indirect |
Primarily organizational overheads (e.g., facilities, equipment maintenance, etc) |
$39,186 |
| Subcontractor |
Assoc. Western Universities - student intern |
$26,177 |
| Other |
Vehicle rental, communications, duplicating |
$2,720 |
| $225,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $225,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $225,000 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $340,000 |
| % change from forecast | -33.8% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
FY 2000 proposal included a total of four objectives (3 research objectives and 1 reporting objective). CBFWA recommended that only objective 1 be funded ($150,000). The cost to complete this objective was actually higher because money to complete annual reports (~$15,000) was included in the reporting objective which CBFWA did not recommend for funding. Thus, BPA authorized a total of $165,000 for this project in FY 2000. The proposed budget in FY 2001 is more than the amount awarded in FY 2000. This increase was due to higher than expected costs associated with consturcting a 2-D hydrualic model for the Hanford Reach. The additional money will be used to support a staff member to construct and calibrate the model; make model runs; and complete model validation. The model is critical to the success of the project.
Reason for change in scope
The change in scope from originally proposed in FY 2000 was done to accommodate the reduced budget approved by CBFWA. Therefore, the second and third objectives (i.e., look for steelhead spawning and conduct hyporheic work in Snake River) was not proposed here. For FY 2001, the reporting objective was bundled into the first objective. Thus, there is only one objective proposed for FY 2001.
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Ongoing Funding: yes; New Funding: no
Date:
Jul 14, 2000
Comment:
The FY 2000 proposal included a total of four objectives (three research objectives and one reporting objective). CBFWA recommended that only objective 1 be funded ($150,000). The cost to complete this objective was actually higher because money to complete annual reports (~$15,000) was included in the reporting objective which CBFWA did not recommend for funding. Thus, BPA authorized a total of $165,000 for this project in FY 2000. The proposed budget in FY 2001 is more than the amount awarded in FY 2000. This increase was due to higher than expected costs associated with constructing a 2-D hydraulic model for the Hanford Reach. The additional money will be used to support a staff member to construct and calibrate the model; make model runs; and complete model validation. The model is critical to the success of the project.The change in scope from what was originally proposed in FY 2000 accommodates the reduced budget approved by CBFWA. Therefore, the second and third objectives (i.e., look for steelhead spawning and conduct hyporheic work in Snake River) were not proposed here. For FY 2001, the reporting objective was bundled into the first objective. Thus, there is only one objective proposed for FY 2001.
The WA SRT supports this project in its current state.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 13, 2000
Comment:
CBFWA recommends increase for this stage of research plan.
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $248,739 |
$0 |
$0 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website