FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 200202700
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 |
---|---|
25049 Narrative | Narrative |
Columbia Plateau: Snake Lower Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Columbia Plateau: Snake Lower Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Numerically Simulating the Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Environment for Migrating Salmon in the Lower Snake River |
Proposal ID | 200202700 |
Organization | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Christopher Cook |
Mailing address | P.O. Box 999 Richland, WA 99352 |
Phone / email | 5093756878 / [email protected] |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Mainstem Snake |
Short description | The objective of this work is to apply state-of-the-art computer models that can describe the complex hydrodynamic and water quality environment in the lower Snake River, and to relate that information to migrating salmon. |
Target species | Migrating salmonids: juveniles and adults |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
46.659 | -117.4304 | Lower Granite Dam |
46.5852 | -118.0272 | Little Goose Dam |
46.5614 | -118.5351 | Lower Monumental Dam |
46.2501 | -118.8783 | Ice Harbor Dam |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|---|---|---|
NMFS | Action 141 | NMFS | The Action Agencies shall evaluate juvenile fish condition due to disease in relation to high temperature impacts during critical migration periods. This evaluation should include monitoring summer migrants at lower Columbia and lower Snake river dams to clarify the possible link between temperature and fish disease and mortality. This information will be used to assess the long-term impacts of water temperature on juvenile fish survival. |
NMFS | Action 143 | NMFS | By June 30, 2001, the Action Agencies shall develop and coordinate with NMFS and EPA on a plan to model the water temperature effects of alternative Snake River operations. The modeling plan shall include a temperature data collection strategy developed in consultation with EPA, NMFS, and state and Tribal water quality agencies. The data collection strategy shall be sufficient to develop and operate the model and to document the effects of project operations. |
NMFS/BPA | Action 143 | NMFS | By June 30, 2001, the Action Agencies shall develop and coordinate with NMFS and EPA on a plan to model the water temperature effects of alternative Snake River operations. The modeling plan shall include a temperature data collection strategy developed in consultation with EPA, NMFS, and state and Tribal water quality agencies. The data collection strategy shall be sufficient to develop and operate the model and to document the effects of project operations. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|---|
2000 | Fish Individual-Based Numerical Simulator (FINS) Model applied in Main Stem Columbia to simulate outmigrating juveniles (Walla Walla District, USACE) |
2000 | 2-D Numerical Model of Lower Snake and Columbia Mainstem for water temperature and dissolved gas abatement (DGAS), (Walla Walla District, USACE) |
1999 | 1-D Long term simulations of Lower Snake River for Current and Unimpounded (without dams) Condidions, (Walla Walla District, USACE) |
1999 | 2-D Numerical Model of the Lower Snake River. Emphasized water velocity, temperature, and sediment transport with and without dams the four lower Snake River dams (Walla Walla District, USACE). |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
9102900 | Life history and survival of fall chinook salmon in the Columbia River Basin | Numerical models applied in this proposal will augment this ongoproject by providing information on the physical river environment, under existing and proposed flow strategies, that is not possible by monitoring alone. |
9302900 | Survival estimates for the passage of juvenile salmonids through Snake and Columbia River dams and reservoirs. | Numerical models applied in this project will examine physical environment experienced by the PIT tagged fish, plus predict river conditions under agumented or reduced flow conditions. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Data Collection and Assembly | a. GIS maps of PIT tags | 1 | $11,770 | |
b. Assemble bathymetry of system | 0.1 | $3,300 | ||
c/d/e Gather ADCP/Temp/Met data | 0.2 | $65,582 | ||
c/d/e Process ADCP/Temp/Met data | 2 | $26,410 | ||
f. Process new TDG, Update MASS2 | 3 | $11,605 | ||
2. Model Development | a. Verify MASS2 to new PIT period | 1 | $9,834 | |
b. Calculate exposure history for new PIT tracks | 1 | $6,138 | ||
c. Adapt EFDC to LGR | 3 | $14,275 | ||
d. Calibrate and verify EFDC | 3 | $27,188 | ||
e. Simulate 3-D exposure history for juveniles | 3 | $6,138 | ||
3. Reporting | a. Prepare and present at conference | 3 | $16,444 | |
b. Prepare and present at BPA meetings | 3 | $8,676 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
2. Model Development | 2003 | 2003 | $110,675 |
3. Reporting | 2003 | 2003 | $72,647 |
2. Model Development | 2004 | 2004 | $50,639 |
3. Reporting | 2004 | 2004 | $57,278 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
---|---|
$183,322 | $107,917 |
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 |
---|
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: 0.77 | $49,342 |
Fringe | $17,426 | |
Supplies | $34,575 | |
Travel | $8,521 | |
Indirect | $86,253 | |
Capital | $0 | |
NEPA | $0 | |
PIT tags | $0 | |
Subcontractor | $11,243 | |
Other | $0 | |
Personnel | FTE: 0.77 | $49,342 |
Fringe | $17,426 | |
Supplies | $34,575 | |
Travel | $8,521 | |
Indirect | $86,253 | |
Capital | $0 | |
NEPA | $0 | |
PIT tags | $0 | |
Subcontractor | $11,243 | |
Other | $0 | |
$414,720 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost | $414,720 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2002 budget request | $414,720 |
FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
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.
Fundable - no response required
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Fundable. This is a technically excellent proposal by a well-qualified staff to conduct physical modeling and associated data collection for estimating the environmental conditions and cumulative exposures experienced by migrating salmon in the lower Snake River. The proposal is well written. Project personnel are highly qualified to conduct the work. The work is responsive to a need for better understanding of conditions, especially thermal, in the Snake River as they influence migratory salmonids. The work should yield potential strategies for management of water during migration and bases for useful hypotheses for improving survival of migrating salmonids.
Some specific comments are provided by the reviewers for the authors (but do not need a formal response). The species affected are not listed by the proposal. Such a listing is needed for automated searches of the proposal database (could be supplied to BPA at the contract stage). Also, because different species have different habitat usage, hydrodynamics may need to be tailored to particular species. This proposal appears to focus on fall chinook. The "objectives" in Part 1 are not objectives but categories of work (objectives should be desired outcomes). Budgets are not categorized correctly (everything is placed in planning rather than most of the work being in implementation). With no monitoring and evaluation identified either in Part 1 or Part 2, it appears that there will be no evaluation of the validity of the models. There is no cost sharing identified, although the abundant use of data from other sources could have been claimed as a valuable in-kind contribution. There is an excellent background that identifies objectives better than the stated objectives. The regional rationale is supported by specific action items from the NMFS BiOp, Subbasin Summary, and 2000 FWP. The two principal fall chinook salmon studies funded by BPA are identified as having relationships to this proposal, but other on-going work (e.g., by the Corps) is not identified but is clearly relevant as shown by the reference list. The objectives in the narrative are better than those in Part 1. The modeling scale should be identified (e.g., whether velocity is scaled to the size of a 10-cm fish or larger). The objective of calculating integrated exposures of fish to temperature, gas, etc. that was highlighted in the background should appear as a separate objective in the narrative (this seems to be one of the main desired outcomes of the work). There are excellent task descriptions. It is not clear, however, whether the models with their input parameters will be publicly available for others to do confirmatory runs. The facilities are fine, based on both the paragraph of the proposal and the past work cited in the excellent reference list. It would have been useful to note where the agency reports cited are available (web or by request of the agency?). The staff is well qualified to do the proposed work. This modeling approach by a well-qualified lab continues to improve and will be useful in the future. There is potential for stronger coordination with several other projects in this reach of river (e.g., juvenile fall chinook salmon tagging #199102900 and #25064). There may also be useful coordination with the infrared imagery proposal for temperature measurement (FLIR; project #25065).
Comment:
Addresses NMFS RPA 141 and 143 and is linked directly to flow augmentation from Snake River reservoirs.Comment:
Fundable. This is a technically excellent proposal by a well-qualified staff to conduct physical modeling and associated data collection for estimating the environmental conditions and cumulative exposures experienced by migrating salmon in the lower Snake River. The proposal is well written. Project personnel are highly qualified to conduct the work. The work is responsive to a need for better understanding of conditions, especially thermal, in the Snake River as they influence migratory salmonids. The work should yield potential strategies for management of water during migration and bases for useful hypotheses for improving survival of migrating salmonids.Some specific comments are provided by the reviewers for the authors (but do not need a formal response). The species affected are not listed by the proposal. Such a listing is needed for automated searches of the proposal database (could be supplied to BPA at the contract stage). Also, because different species have different habitat usage, hydrodynamics may need to be tailored to particular species. This proposal appears to focus on fall chinook. The "objectives" in Part 1 are not objectives but categories of work (objectives should be desired outcomes). Budgets are not categorized correctly (everything is placed in planning rather than most of the work being in implementation). With no monitoring and evaluation identified either in Part 1 or Part 2, it appears that there will be no evaluation of the validity of the models. There is no cost sharing identified, although the abundant use of data from other sources could have been claimed as a valuable in-kind contribution. There is an excellent background that identifies objectives better than the stated objectives. The regional rationale is supported by specific action items from the NMFS BiOp, Subbasin Summary, and 2000 FWP. The two principal fall chinook salmon studies funded by BPA are identified as having relationships to this proposal, but other on-going work (e.g., by the Corps) is not identified but is clearly relevant as shown by the reference list. The objectives in the narrative are better than those in Part 1. The modeling scale should be identified (e.g., whether velocity is scaled to the size of a 10-cm fish or larger). The objective of calculating integrated exposures of fish to temperature, gas, etc. that was highlighted in the background should appear as a separate objective in the narrative (this seems to be one of the main desired outcomes of the work). There are excellent task descriptions. It is not clear, however, whether the models with their input parameters will be publicly available for others to do confirmatory runs. The facilities are fine, based on both the paragraph of the proposal and the past work cited in the excellent reference list. It would have been useful to note where the agency reports cited are available (web or by request of the agency?). The staff is well qualified to do the proposed work. This modeling approach by a well-qualified lab continues to improve and will be useful in the future. There is potential for stronger coordination with several other projects in this reach of river (e.g., juvenile fall chinook salmon tagging #199102900 and #25064). There may also be useful coordination with the infrared imagery proposal for temperature measurement (FLIR; project #25065).
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUPotential to improve reservoir operations for migrating juveniles - Potentially Snake River ESU's
Comments
Understanding the spatial and temporal dynamics of water temp in the LGR pool and the effects of reservoir operations on listed stocks has been a concern in the region and discussed by the WQT. "MULTIPLE" refers to 4 SR ESUs.
Already ESA Req? no
Biop? yes
Comment:
This is a good proposal for addressing Snake River ESA-listed fish, both adult and juvenile fall chinook, and adult steelhead.Comment:
Comment:
BPA intends to fund; this is a good proposal for addressing Snake River ESA-listed fish, both adult and juvenile fall chinook, and adult steelhead. Meets RPA - 141 and 143.Comment:
Project was not recommended, but Bi-op BPA project. Check status later.Comment:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
$200,000 | $200,000 | $200,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website