FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200308500

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
35030 Narrative	Narrative
35030 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation
35030 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Evaluate potential to enhance spawning of summer/fall chinook salmon in the tailrace of Chief Joseph Dam, Columbia River
Proposal ID	200308500
Organization	Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Colville Confederated Tribes (PNNL/CCT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	David Geist
Mailing address	P.O. Box 999, MS K6-85 Richland, Washington 99352
Phone / email	5093720590 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	David Geist
Review cycle	Mainstem/Systemwide
Province / Subbasin	Mainstem/Systemwide /
Short description	Evaluate the potential to increase mainstem spawning habitat for summer/fall chinook salmon in the Upper Columbia
Target species	Upper Columbia summer/fall chinook salmon

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
47.9967	-119.6267	Tailrace of Chief Joseph Dam downstream to Okanogan River
48.05	-119.68	between Chief Joseph Dam downstream to Okanogan River

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
155
156

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
	This is a new project

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
199406900	Production potential of fall chinook salmon in Columbia River	Sharing of technique development, as well as life history information
199900300	Evaluate spawning below mainstem dams	Sharing of technique development, as well as life history information
199801003	Monitor and evaluate spawning distribution of Snake River fall chinook	Sharing of technique development, as well as life history information
199102900	Life history requirements of fall chinook in Columbia River Basin	Sharing of technique development, as well as life history information

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
Objective 1 – Determine the number of summer/fall chinook salmon redds in the tailrace of Chief Joseph Dam.	Task A. Project planning and survey area selection.	FY03 to FY04	$10,985
1	Task B. Conduct redd searches.	FY04 to FY05	$0
1	Task C. Prepare annual report.	FY03 to FY05	$13,362
Objective 2 – Quantify the quality and availability of summer/fall chinook salmon spawning habitat in the tailrace of Chief Joseph Dam.	Task A. Assess available spawning habitat under existing operations.	FY03 to FY04	$77,505
2	Task B. Predict depths and velocities within the Chief Joseph tailrace over a range of river velocities and tailrace elevations.	FY04	$0
2	Task C. Predict suitable habitat over a range of river discharges.	FY04 to FY05	$0
2	Task D. Estimate redd capacity of summer/fall chinook salmon in the Chief Joseph tailrace.	FY05	$0
2	Task E. Prepare report on habitat available under current and revised operations.	FY03 to FY05	$32,368

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
Objective 1 – Determine the number of summer/fall chinook salmon redds in the tailrace of Chief Joseph Dam.	2003	2005	$205,676
Objective 2 – Quantify the quality and availability of summer/fall chinook salmon spawning habitat in the tailrace of Chief Joseph Dam.	2003	2005	$200,088

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005
$207,684	$198,080

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: 0.53	$31,660
Fringe		$11,182
Supplies		$16,703
Travel		$9,659
Indirect		$60,256
Capital		$0
NEPA		$0
PIT tags		$0
Subcontractor		$4,760
Other		$0
		$134,220

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 cost	$134,220
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2003 budget request	$134,220
FY 2003 forecast from 2002	$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.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2002-13)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Aug 2, 2002

Comment:

A response is needed; generally fundable, but important background elements are missing from the proposal. These elements would demonstrate that the proposers are aware of the complexities of the water management system that forms the context of the potential for increased spawning. A response is needed.

The proposal is to explore the potential to enhance spawning of chinook in the tailrace at Chief Joseph Dam, but it needs to describe limitations to potential that are in place for other reasons. Operations at Chief Joseph Dam are already bound by the "Vernita Bar Agreement" for protection of fall chinook spawning, incubation, emergence, and now fry emigration in the Hanford Reach. The Agreement calls for stabilized flows out of Priest Rapids during those times. Since Chief Joseph and the other mid-Columbia dams below Grand Coulee are "run-of-the-river" projects, operations of all are affected. (See for example ISG "Return to the River 2000", NWPPC Doc 2000-12, p. 451-2 for a description of effects of the Vernita Bar Agreement). In what way does the Agreement affect chinook in the Chief Joseph tailrace? The proposal should also review the work of Chapman et al. 1983 that led up to the recommendations included in the Vernita Bar Agreement. That review would provide an appropriate context for the work proposed here. (Chapman, D.C., D.E. Wietkamp, T.L. Welch, and T.H. Schadt. 1983. Effects of minimum flow regimes on fall chinook spawning at Vernita Bar 1978-82. Don Chapman Consultants, inc. Report to Grant County P.U.D. No.2, Ephrata, WA. Boise ID, 123 p.)

Description of these and other factors affecting operations and/or habitat conditions at Chief Joseph Dam should be provided in the proposal in order to establish boundaries within which potential enhancement of spawning of chinook in the tailrace at Chief Joseph Dam might be accomplished.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Urgent

Date:
Oct 24, 2002

Comment:

The urgent need for this project is to assess the current use of the tailrace for spawning and available habitat that would have the potential for spawning. The project sponsor will submit a revised budget to address these specific concerns.

REVIEW:
CBFWA FY03 Budget Review Comments

Recommendation:
Urgent

Date:
Oct 24, 2002

Comment:

The budget has been revised to include only the redd surveys (Objective 1) during FY 2003-2005.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-14)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Nov 5, 2002

Comment:

Fundable as revised for redd counts only. We agree with CBFWA that the project is fundable, but the ISRP questioned CBFWA's urgent ranking of this project especially given that proposal #35007 received a lower ranking although it targeted an endangered stock. The response to ISRP comments marginally addressed the concerns. These concerns had to do with limitations to the potential enhancement of spawning that are created by existing requirements on the hydropower system for flood control, hydropower production (especially with respect to the mid-Columbia Coordination Agreement), and the existing Vernita Bar Agreement to protect fall chinook in the Hanford Reach, all of which may produce benefits or disadvantages that are currently experienced by salmon in the Chief Joseph tailrace. While the proponents discussed some of the existing limitations on flow manipulations, they dismissed the implications of these rather lightly, as though that is not their problem. While we could agree that status quo ought not to be a restriction on what is undertaken in a scientific investigation, nevertheless, one needs to be aware of the status to understand how it will affect one's observations, (in this case observations on potential habitat) and one's ability to include deliberate manipulations in one's study plan. If any potential habitat lies outside of what is likely to be under water in foreseeable flow conditions then identification of these will not be helpful or relevant. Also, the proponents did not answer the question why this project will require three years rather than one.

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.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jan 21, 2003

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit
Benefits are indirect. The research would evaluate the potential to enhance spawning conditions in the mainstem below Chief Joseph Dam.

Comments
Benefits unlisted fish.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
No

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 2, 2003

Comment:

BPA Phase 3

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund (Tier 2) - Fund if funding becomes available

Date:
Jun 11, 2003

Comment:

Category:
2. Projects that Council staff would recommend if funding becomes available

Comments:
Identified as Bi-op critical