FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200303800
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 |
|---|---|
| 35007 Narrative | Narrative |
| 35007 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| FY 2005 Powerpoint Presentation Update for Project 200303800 | Powerpoint Presentation |
| FY 2005 Powerpoint Presentation Update for Project 200303800 | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate Restoration Potential of Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon Spawning Habitat |
| Proposal ID | 200303800 |
| Organization | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Timothy P. Hanrahan |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 999, MS K6-85 Richland, WA 99352 |
| Phone / email | 5093760972 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | Mainstem/Systemwide |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / |
| Short description | The research to be conducted under this proposal will evaluate the restoration potential of mainstem habitats for fall chinook salmon, especially spawning habitat in the lower Snake River. |
| Target species | fall chinook salmon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.61 | -117.87 | Mainstem Snake River from mouth upstream to Clearwater River confluence |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| 155 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS/BPA | Action 155 | NMFS | BPA, working with BOR, the Corps, EPA, and USGS, shall develop a program to 1) identify mainstem habitat sampling reaches, survey conditions, describe cause-and- effect relationships, and identify research needs; 2) develop improvement plans for all mainstem reaches; and 3) initiate improvements in three mainstem reaches. Results shall be reported annually. |
| NMFS | Action 155 | NMFS | BPA, working with BOR, the Corps, EPA, and USGS, shall develop a program to 1) identify mainstem habitat sampling reaches, survey conditions, describe cause-and- effect relationships, and identify research needs; 2) develop improvement plans for all mainstem reaches; and 3) initiate improvements in three mainstem reaches. Results shall be reported annually. |
| NMFS/BPA | Action 180 | NMFS | The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within regional prioritization and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the level of FCRPS funding to develop and implement a basinwide hierarchical monitoring program. This program shall be developed collaboratively with appropriate regional agencies and shall determine population and environmental status (including assessment of performance measures and standards) and allow ground-truthing of regional databases. A draft program including protocols for specific data to be collected, frequency of samples, and sampling sites shall be developed by September 2001. Implementation should begin no later than the spring of 2002 and will be fully implemented no later than 2003. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199406900 | A Spawning Habitat Model to Aid Recovery Plans for Snake River Fall Chinook | share physical habitat data and expertise; share data on flow relationships and model development |
| 199900300 | Evaluate spawning of salmon below the four lowermost Columbia River Dams | share data on flow relationships and model development |
| 199801003 | Monitor and Evaluate the Spawning Distribution of Snake River Fall Chinook | share data for Snake and Columbia river fall chinook salmon habitat use |
| 199102900 | Life history requirements of fall chinook in the Columbia River Basin | share data on flow relationships and model development |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Quantify the physical characteristics that define suitable fall chinook spawning habitat at the upper reservoir and tailwater reference sites. | Task 1.1. Map spawning areas at the reference sites. | 1 | $16,000 | |
| Task 1.2. Collect data on the physical characteristics of the spawning areas and throughout the reference sites. | 1 | $10,000 | ||
| Summarize the physical characteristics defining fall chinook spawning habitat. | 2 | $78,000 | ||
| Objective 2. Using the physical characteristics identified at the reference sites in objective (1), quantify the physical characteristics at each of the study sites. | Task 2.1. Refine the study site locations. | 1 | $49,000 | |
| Task 2.2. Collect data on the physical characteristics of the study sites | 3 | $98,000 | ||
| Task 2.3. Summarize and compare the physical characteristics of the reference sites and study sites. | 3 | $64,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Quantify the physical characteristics that define suitable fall chinook spawning habitat at the upper reservoir and tailwater reference sites. | 2004 | 2005 | $280,000 |
| Objective 2. Using the physical characteristics identified at the reference sites in objective (1), quantify the physical characteristics at each of the study sites. | 2004 | 2005 | $326,000 |
| Objective 3. Quantify the physical characteristics at the study sites under a range of hydrosystem operational scenarios. | 2004 | 2005 | $114,000 |
| Objective 4. Determine if changes in hydrosystem operations cause physical characteristics at study sites to resemble those at reference sites. | 2004 | 2005 | $50,000 |
| Objective 5. Complete a report providing recommendations to the region for adjusting hydrosystem operations, including alternative flow scenarios by water-year type. | 2004 | 2005 | $60,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| $406,700 | $423,300 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 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 2003 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 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1.4 | $85,000 |
| Fringe | $30,000 | |
| Supplies | $25,000 | |
| Travel | $1,100 | |
| Indirect | $145,000 | |
| Subcontractor | post-graduate research intern | $28,900 |
| $315,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $315,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $315,000 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District | collaboration by fisheries biologists and hydrologists on habitat and hydrodynamic modeling; provide updated bathymetry and other data in electronic format (GIS) | $100,000 | 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
Aug 2, 2002
Comment:
Fundable. This is a proposal to identify operational alternatives for the hydrosystem that would allow enhanced spawning of endangered Snake River fall chinook salmon in tailwater and reservoir-headwater zones. This goal would be accomplished by more thoroughly characterizing the physical attributes of such zones now used successfully for spawning and contrasting these same characteristics in other such zones that are suspected of having spawning potential. Operational changes for making the potential spawning areas more suitable (by inducing more appropriate riverine processes in the zones) would be recommended. Existing spawning areas to be used to clarify habitat criteria for spawning include the Wanapum Dam tailrace and the Hanford Reach above the influence of McNary pool; the potentially enhanced spawning areas are the lower Hanford Reach at the McNary reservoir interface, the Ice Harbor Dam tailrace, and the Lower Granite Dam tailrace.The proposal was well written and meets the ISRP review criteria. The background is concise and germane to the proposal, and demonstrates sound science principles. The rationale is well stated and significance to regional programs is described by explicit reference to the BiOp's RPA, the Council's FWP, the Mainstem/Systemwide solicitation and program summary, and relevant ISG and ISRP publications. The progression of the previous PNNL studies of spawning habitats in both the Snake and Columbia rivers to the point of developing this proposal is well presented. Previous ISRP concerns that the project would not identify management applications for restoring habitat have been alleviated by objectives specifically oriented to identifying potential operational changes. The work has general application but the focus would be on restoring spawning for fall chinook salmon in the Snake River. The proposal seems likely to produce useable results. There is a potential for increased production of fall chinook that could be substantial. The fact that the COE is a party to the proposal and that the proposal suggests consideration of changes in reservoir elevations and other power operations indicates that it may be taken seriously. The proponents give clear hypotheses followed by good objectives, tasks, and scientifically appropriate methods to test the hypotheses. The proposal provides that there would be monitoring and evaluation of affected spawning habitats should any operational changes be implemented. There is an excellent reference list and resumes for a well-qualified staff. Facilities and equipment are available based on past work by the investigators.
The ISRP had several questions that do not require a response but which might usefully guide the research. There are legitimate questions about coordination with other PNNL proposals for related work, such as the hyporheic flow project and other proposals for habitat suitability studies (such as for below Chief Joseph Dam). Although there are differences in location and in the primary emphasis of each of the proposals/projects, the proponents should be aware of the need for coordination. Is the Priest Rapids flow agreement for the mid-Columbia a potentially good model for the lower Snake River for fall chinook spawning? The reviewers wondered if there are habitat improvement alternatives other than flow rate and water elevation that might be considered. Can the recent knowledge about complex physical characteristics beyond the usual depth, velocity, substrate, slope, etc. (such as hyporheic flow and embeddedness) be integrated into effective physical habitat modifications? Can the prior attempts to build artificial spawning channels be used as a guide (or alternatively, can proponents of spawning channels learn from this study)?
In summary, this is a good proposal that warrants funding based on the ISRP review criteria.
Comment:
This project meets RPA 155 of the 2000 NMFS BiOp.Comment:
Fundable. Disagree with CBFWA, the priority of this project should be higher than a recommended action. This is a proposal to identify operational alternatives for the hydrosystem that would allow enhanced spawning of endangered Snake River fall chinook salmon in tailwater and reservoir-headwater zones. This goal would be accomplished by more thoroughly characterizing the physical attributes of such zones now used successfully for spawning and contrasting these same characteristics in other such zones that are suspected of having spawning potential. Operational changes for making the potential spawning areas more suitable (by inducing more appropriate riverine processes in the zones) would be recommended. The proposal provides for monitoring and evaluation of affected spawning habitats should any operational changes be implemented. Existing spawning areas to be used to clarify habitat criteria for spawning include the Wanapum Dam tailrace and the Hanford Reach above the influence of McNary pool; the potentially enhanced spawning areas are the lower Hanford Reach at the McNary reservoir interface, the Ice Harbor Dam tailrace, and the Lower Granite Dam tailrace.The proposal was well written and meets the ISRP review criteria. The background is concise and germane to the proposal, and demonstrates sound science principles. The rationale is well stated and significance to regional programs is described by explicit reference to the BiOp's RPA, the Council's FWP, the Mainstem/Systemwide solicitation and program summary, and relevant ISG and ISRP publications. The progression of the previous PNNL studies of spawning habitats in both the Snake and Columbia rivers to the point of developing this proposal is well presented. Previous ISRP concerns that the project would not identify management applications for restoring habitat have been alleviated by objectives specifically oriented to identifying potential operational changes. The work has general application but the focus would be on restoring spawning for fall chinook salmon in the Snake River. The proposal seems likely to produce useable results. There is a potential for increased production of fall chinook that could be substantial. The fact that the COE is a party to the proposal is encouraging. There is an excellent reference list and resumes for a well-qualified staff. Facilities and equipment are available based on past work by the investigators.
If funded, this project should be coordinated with other monitoring projects to ensure compatibility of objectives, common methods, and protocols. This coordination could be accomplished under the favorably reviewed CBFWA proposal #35033.
Additional Suggestions:
The ISRP had several suggestions that did not require a response but which might be of assistance. Questions arose about coordination with other PNNL proposals for related work, such as the hyporheic flow project and other proposals for habitat suitability studies (such as for below Chief Joseph Dam). Although there are differences in location and in the primary emphasis of each of the proposals/projects, the proponents should be aware of the need for coordination. The reviewers wondered if there are habitat improvement alternatives other than flow rate and water elevation that might be considered. Can the recent knowledge about complex physical characteristics beyond the usual depth, velocity, substrate, slope, etc. (such as hyporheic flow and embeddedness) be integrated into effective physical habitat modifications? Can the prior attempts to build artificial spawning channels be used as a guide (or alternatively, can proponents of spawning channels learn from this study)?
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological BenefitIf research objectives are met there is potential to increase survival by restoring and expanding available spawning areas for SR FCH in the mainstem.
Comments
Well considered research proposal that specifically addresses objectives of Action 155.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
Yes
NWPPC Funding Recommendation
Fund (Tier 2) - Fund if funding becomes available
Jun 11, 2003
Comment:
Category:2. Projects that Council staff would recommend if funding becomes available
Comments:
Correct budgets are needed. Potential management actions as a result of this project?
Comment:
This is the only project that responds directly to mainstem habitat attributes for listed fall chinook (RPA Action 155). Project has been modified to a phase approach.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: |
| $360,000 | $0 | $0 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website