FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28017
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 |
|---|---|
| 28017 Narrative | Narrative |
| 28017 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 28017 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Mountain Snake: Clearwater Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Mountain Snake: Clearwater Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Monitoring the Selway Falls renovation project for passage of spring chinook salmon and steelhead |
| Proposal ID | 28017 |
| Organization | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Dave Geist |
| Mailing address | MS K6-85, P. O. Box 999 Richland, WA 99352 |
| Phone / email | 5093720590 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | David R. Geist |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | The Selway River anadromous fish tunnel is being considered for renovation; To fine tune the fishway and manage it optimally, swimming behavior within the fishway will be monitored using electromyogram (EMG) radiotransmitters. |
| Target species | Steelhead trout, chinook salmon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.0513 | -115.3038 | Selway Falls, ID |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| RM&E RPA Action 193 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 23088 | Renovate Selway Falls Anadromous Fish Passage Tunnel | Was submitted in the 2001 High Priority call by IDFG; will be submitted again and this proposal will provide M & E for 23088 |
| 9107300 | Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Program | Our data will contribute to their efforts to identify limiting factors and methods to improve survival |
| 198909800 | Idaho Supplementation Studies | Will support suppementation strategies to rebuild naturally spawning populations |
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 |
|---|
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Monitor the success of fish passage and the energy use of fish before and after the improvement of the Selway Falls Fish Tunnel | a. Implant spring chinook salmon and steelhead with conventional and electromyogram (EMG) transmitters. Calibrate EMG tag output to swimming speed in a Blazka respirometer at streamside. | FY 02-04 | $71,295 | |
| b. Log output from EMG transmitter implanted fish as they ascend fish ladders and waterfalls. Track fish tagged with conventional tranmsitters to determine the success of passage. | FY 02-04 | $24,072 | ||
| 2. Prepare annual report | a. Analyze data and produce report/ paper. | FY 02-04 | $38,983 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Monitor the success of fish passage and the energy use of fish before and after the improvement of the Selway Falls Fish Tunnel | 2002 | 2004 | $292,009 |
| 2. Prepare annual report | 2002 | 2004 | $121,982 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $138,165 | $141,477 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: .75 | $21,000 |
| Fringe | $5,481 | |
| Supplies | $27,780 | |
| Travel | $12,804 | |
| Indirect | $43,157 | |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Other | 2 post-graduate research interns | $24,128 |
| $134,350 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $134,350 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $134,350 |
| 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 only if response is adequate
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
Response needed. Provide clear evidence that this site is an impassable obstruction. Radio-tagging of steelhead may help determine if the falls are a problem. Perhaps tagging should be done with tunnel shut on and off. This project might provide objective (apolitical) data to analyze the situation. On the other hand, agencies may view this study as unnecessary because one suggests there is a problem and the other suggests there isn't. We request that PNNL solicit letters of support from the managing agencies.Radio tagging work may provide some information, but will be confounded by the effect of tagging, where fish may drop downstream afterwards. Knowledge of where in the tunnel problems may be occurring may be improved with tagging work, but perhaps a visual inspection inside the tunnel (or by camera) can provide adequate information. Details of the tunnel design and current condition were lacking in this and the previous proposal. Other options for fish passage may be possible.
Are these kind of efforts going to lead to behavioral models that can apply to different situations? EMG work elsewhere (Klickitat and several others, including Fraser R.) should now provide sufficient information to assess the degree of difficulty in obstructions without repeating the tagging process every time. Provide a summary of the EMG work in relation to the physical characteristics of this site (e.g., gradient, velocity, height of barrier, flow during passage timing). Also, please clarify why this work would take three years when the field studies should only require one season.
Comment:
Comment:
Not fundable. This proposed investigation does not appear to offer a quick and reasonably priced answer to the question of fish passage at this site, if passage is indeed a problem (see recommendation for 28013). Details of the tunnel design and current condition were lacking in this and the previous proposal. Other options for fish passage may be possible.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUBenefits are indirect. Project intends to quantify fishway passage bioenergetic costs for adult salmonids. Evaluate improvements to Selway Falls fish tunnel on passage and energy consumption rates of spring chinook and steelhead using electromyogram radio transmitters.
Comments
No demonstrated importance of study objective (energetics of fish passage) on limiting population productivity. Methodologically flawed. This project may have some relevance to RPA Action Item 193 but is unclear.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No
Comment:
Do not recommend. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
--
Comment:
Comment:
land acquisition. 02 geared to planning, 03 & 04 was geared to acquisition. Split 02 planning funds 50% in 2004 and 50% in 2005. CAPITAL PROJECT. Consider combining with Salmon project (other land project). Issue 12 from rec. Issue paperComment: