FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25037
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 |
|---|---|
| 25037 Narrative | Narrative |
| 25037 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 25037 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluation of the effects of American shad on upstream migration of anadromous fishes at Priest Rapids Dam |
| Proposal ID | 25037 |
| Organization | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Geoffrey A McMichael |
| Mailing address | PO Box 999, K6-85 Richland, WA 99352 |
| Phone / email | 5093720804 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Geoffrey A McMichael |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Mainstem Columbia |
| Short description | The primary goal of this study is to determine whether the non-indigenous American shad attempting to pass Priest Rapids Dam negatively impact upstream passage of adult anadroumous fishes. Methods to reduce possible impacts will also be explored. |
| Target species | American shad, sockeye and summer chinook salmon, steelhead, and Pacific lamprey |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.644 | -119.9099 | Priest Rapids Dam |
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 |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Priest Rapids Fall Chinook Salmon Fall Back Study - proposed | The radiotelemetry system in the proposed fall back study could be used to monitor the behavior of American shad and other anadromous fishes in the Priest Rapids Dam fishways. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design 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 Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Analyze existing salmonid passage data to evaluate shad interaction effects on delay and fallback at specific areas in the adult fish ladder system. | a. Obtain existing fish passage data from DART and Grant County PUD | 1 | $1,040 | |
| b. Perform statistical analyses on existing passge data | 1 | $2,085 | ||
| 2. Determine whether American shad aundance and/or behavior in the PRD fishways appears to impede passage of native anadromous fishes. | a. Conduct visual assessment of shad/other anadromous fish behavioral interactions in the PRD ladder system. | 3 | $9,231 | |
| b. Use underwater videography in and around fishway entrance to record behavioral data on American shad and native anadromous salmonids | 3 | $13,185 | ||
| c. Data analyses/report writing | 3 | $17,923 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3. Evaluate passage behavior of adult American shad to identify potential obstacles to passage and potential negative impacts on salmonid passage in the ladder system - using radio telemetry. | 2003 | 2004 | $178,000 |
| 4. Examine the effects of ultrasonic sound on adult American shad and anadromous salmonids. | 2004 | 2004 | $70,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $115,030 | $139,416 |
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 |
|---|
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 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 0.21 | $10,827 |
| Fringe | $3,824 | |
| Supplies | $3,985 | |
| Travel | $1,528 | |
| Indirect | $20,742 | |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | $2,558 | |
| Other | $0 | |
| $43,464 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $43,464 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $43,464 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grant County Pubilic Utilities District No. 2 | Financial support | $50,000 | cash |
Other budget explanation
Grant County PUD may also provide in-kind cost sharing in terms of field assistance and loan of sampling equipment (e.g., radio telemetry receivers/antennas). Subcontract would be for a student intern to assist in field work and data entry/editing. Costs increase in 2003 and 2004 due to addition of radio telemetry and use of high frequency sound to test the efficacy of deterring shad from entering the ladder system.
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
Comment:
Do not fund unless a response justifies the potential value to the Fish and Wildlife Program and addresses the ISRP's comments. How is this project integrated with other Priest Rapids and Hanford proposals? The proposal is limited in detail and needs to provide more justification.
The proposal has four tasks. The first task listed boils down to a determination of whether there is a problem. The second looks for details about how shad operate to create the problem, if any. The third is a basic study of shad behavior in the ladder at Priest Rapids Dam. The fourth attempts to solve the problem - if any - by application of sound, to which it is hoped, shad will respond by behaving more acceptably toward chinook and steelhead in the ladders - if that proves to be necessary. .
What facts are now available? What is the timing of shad arrival and concentrations versus the fall Brights? Based on past radio-tagging of chinook what is the "usual" time in the fishway versus time with shad present? Shad do not readily pass the east bank ladder at Priest Rapids Dam, which is the one principally used by anadromous fishes. They do enter the ladder. One ought to ask "Why do shad clog the ladder at Priest Rapids Dam?" The answer is rather obvious to one familiar with literature on American shad beyond Washington and Oregon. Shad are blocked at the upper end of the ladder by the need to pass under a concrete baffle that stretches across the ladder. Shad have been observed to be reluctant to pass even under bridges. They are delicate creatures. That the ladder at Priest Rapids is a barrier to shad is apparent from the fact that few, if any, have been counted in the ladders upstream. The idea of repelling them with sound is not compelling. A number of years ago, the agencies requested that Grant PUD improve passage for shad at Priest Rapids Dam, but Grant PUD demurred, arguing that to do so might simply add to the problem by opening up more spawning and rearing area upstream for shad, resulting in even more shad to clog the ladder. Grant requested that the agencies prepare an EIS, which ended the issue.
The proposal notes that Bjornn has data over a number of years that could be used to correlate success of chinook passage with shad counts at the dam. Using these data, which Bjornn would likely make available, an undergraduate student could provide an analysis in less than a week that could be used to answer questions addressed by tasks one, two and three.
As for task four, even if the sound were found to repel shad, would not the problem still exist at the point where sound might be detected by shad? Thinking along those lines, how about simply installing an overhead barrier at the entrances to the ladder like the one now present at the upper end of the ladder. This also may simply move the problem somewhere else.
There is a clear shad management/policy issue involved here. Should shad be allowed to continue to colonize up-river portions of the mainstem? How the fishway problem is dealt with will depend on such policy decisions. On the positive side though, if shad passage is controlled by various methods, could a means to control shad numbers in the mainstem above Bonneville be implemented?
Comment:
Not fundable. Although the topic of shad interactions with salmon is potentially a key issue in salmon recovery, a response was not received that attempted to address the ISRP concerns.The ISRP concerns included:
How is this project integrated with other Priest Rapids and Hanford proposals? The proposal is limited in detail and needs to provide more justification.
The proposal has four tasks. The first task listed boils down to a determination of whether there is a problem. The second looks for details about how shad operate to create the problem, if any. The third is a basic study of shad behavior in the ladder at Priest Rapids Dam. The fourth attempts to solve the problem - if any - by application of sound, to which it is hoped, shad will respond by behaving more acceptably toward chinook and steelhead in the ladders - if that proves to be necessary. .
What facts are now available? What is the timing of shad arrival and concentrations versus the fall Brights? Based on past radio-tagging of chinook what is the "usual" time in the fishway versus time with shad present? Shad do not readily pass the east bank ladder at Priest Rapids Dam, which is the one principally used by anadromous fishes. They do enter the ladder. One ought to ask "Why do shad clog the ladder at Priest Rapids Dam?" The answer is rather obvious to one familiar with literature on American shad beyond Washington and Oregon. Shad are blocked at the upper end of the ladder by the need to pass under a concrete baffle that stretches across the ladder. Shad have been observed to be reluctant to pass even under bridges. They are delicate creatures. That the ladder at Priest Rapids is a barrier to shad is apparent from the fact that few, if any, have been counted in the ladders upstream. The idea of repelling them with sound is not compelling. A number of years ago, the agencies requested that Grant PUD improve passage for shad at Priest Rapids Dam, but Grant PUD demurred, arguing that to do so might simply add to the problem by opening up more spawning and rearing area upstream for shad, resulting in even more shad to clog the ladder. Grant requested that the agencies prepare an EIS, which ended the issue.
The proposal notes that Bjornn has data over a number of years that could be used to correlate success of chinook passage with shad counts at the dam. These data should be analyzed for the information they might provide on the questions posed in this proposal, before investing in more data collection.
As for task four, even if the sound were found to repel shad, would not the problem still exist at the point where sound might be detected by shad? Thinking along those lines, how about simply installing an overhead barrier at the entrances to the ladder like the one now present at the upper end of the ladder. This also may simply move the problem somewhere else.
There is a clear shad management/policy issue involved here. Should shad be allowed to continue to colonize up-river portions of the mainstem? How the fishway problem is dealt with will depend on such policy decisions. On the positive side though, if shad passage is controlled by various methods, could a means to control shad numbers in the mainstem above Bonneville be implemented?
See detailed ISRP comments on Hanford Reach projects
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUThe goal is to determine whether the non-indigenous American shad attempting to pass Priest Rapids Dam negatively impact upstream passage of adult anadromous fishes. Methods to reduce possible impacts will also be explored.
Comments
There was little or no basis provided in the proposal to show that a significant problem exists.
Already ESA Req? NA
Biop? no
Comment:
This project is a funding responsibility of Grant County PUD as it addresses a potential passage problem at Priest Rapids Dam. BPA research on this topic should be undertaken at a COE dam. This is one of several proposals that examine the effects of American shad. If significant, adverse interactions are found to be occurring between the shad and salmonids, the fishery managers should consider a means by which this invasive species could be controlled.Comment: