FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25045

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Do not fund unless an adequate response is provided that addresses the ISRP's concerns. The goal of this project is to describe the response of pre-migrant fall chinook salmon in the Hanford Reach to water level-induced changes in their rearing habitat in terms of their habitat use, movement behavior, and survival. The proposal apparently differs from other studies of fry stranding by examining the behavior mechanisms involved and studying responses at a much finer or "local" level than in the past. The study might provide insight into a problem found in many locations throughout the hydrosystem. It could provide better information on how quickly fry can adjust to habitat changes and help define preferred habitats, etc.

However, reviewers were not convinced this project would add anything useful to the stranding study (#199701400) that has been underway for several years and is reviewed above. One of the tasks identified (1.1) is to "Quantify the rate, direction, and magnitude of fish movement in near-shore habitat in response to fluctuating and stable water flows." While this might be appropriate in the Snake River, where the investigators say they have a similar study underway (or will have), it does not comport with our expectations in the Hanford Reach where there is an operational agreement in place that is supposed to stabilize the flows when significant numbers of chinook fry are present. The proposal states that the investigators will request periods of stable flows from Priest Rapids Dam to compare the results under stable and varying flows. The proposal reveals a lack of understanding of the complexity of this issue. The operating agreement is a multiparty agreement that must be honored by Grant County PUD, operators of Priest Rapids Dam. In any case, Grant County's ability to regulate flows to any significant degree is inhibited by flows originating from Grand Coulee Dam. In the absence of fluctuations in water level, the study is not likely to reveal anything about responses of juvenile fall chinook in terms of movement or survival. Even if flows were to fluctuate in an unanticipated manner, as in 2001, the method proposed seems to have only a remote chance of recapturing sufficient numbers of fish to make possible a credible estimate of survival. The response needs to justify this type of localized study, justify its value, and demonstrate a familiarity with the multiparty agreement.

Data on effects of power peaking water level fluctuations on fall chinook habitat use should be useful, but the direct survival estimates using PIT tagged fish would be even more valuable if they can be obtained. The latter assessment would use untested methodology - fykenet detector rings in proposal, but that seemed to change to flatplate detectors with fins in the presentation. A response is needed that more carefully assesses the feasibility of being able to gather such mortality data.

The proposal leaves many questions unanswered that should be addressed in the response:

1. what is the value of knowing fine scale habitat use compared to what is known from past work?
2. what is known about preferred habitat use based on size of the fry and is there a concern about the current rates of discharge change?
3. is it feasible that stable flows will be established in order to determine a comparative basis?
4. what is the link or value in marking fry <60 mm and then PIT tagging fry >60 mm ... how would these results be combined or are they simply separate issues?
5. what is the source of these fish and how were the sample sizes determined, they seem very small given the size of the habitat, changes in water volumes, etc.?
6. how would the SURPH model be applied if we do not know what habitats were utilized?
7. what is the source of the second digital camera and the PIT tag detectors, are they actually in the budget?

This proposal is another of several proposals in the Hanford Reach that indicate little to no integration between studies and agencies.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comments
This project studies unlisted fish with intent to extrapolate to listed stocks. The project is innovative, but is based on untested technology.

Already ESA Req? NA

Biop? no

Comment:

Comment: