FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200309000

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

Other budget explanation

The projected $50,000 for FY06 is for preparation of peer-review journal articles summarizing the results of the project.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

The proposal focuses on "mechanisms" that might be involved in stranding of juvenile chinook in the Hanford Reach, and puts an emphasis on behavioral mechanisms of the fish that might affect rates of stranding. It appears that the proposal is in response to previous studies that have focused on features of the habitat that might lead to stranding. If this is so, then the proposal should provide more detail on shortcomings of previous studies, and more specifically identify the expected outcomes of this proposed project that might lead to improved management of flows or other measures. It appears that the previous studies, which might be termed habitat studies, may have provided a more direct approach to identifying what might be the same solution or set of solutions to the stranding problem. One of the solutions that has already been identified and adopted is provision of stabilized flows during the time of emigration of fry from the Hanford Reach. While the proposal implies that this provision has not been adequate and the proposal provides some estimates of numbers of juveniles estimated to have been stranded in the previous three-year period in support of the claim, no information is provided on corresponding patterns of flow at the time of stranding other than to state that "This [previous study] has been used by hydropower operators to liberalize fish protection programs since 1999."

The Council and NMFS's ISAB has a particular interest in this stranding issue (ISAB 99-5) and made a recommendation to the Council that a revision of the Vernita Bar Agreement be adopted to extend protection to emigrating fry. We understand that Grant County P.U.D. led in the development of a revised agreement among all of the (numerous) affected parties in 1999. In addition to studies under the Council's program, funded by BPA, Grant County P.U.D. continues to monitor fall chinook at Vernita Bar during spawning, incubation, fry emergence, and now fry emigration. Before recommending this study for funding, the reviewers will need to be assured that the principal investigators are familiar with provisions of the Vernita Bar Agreement and its revision, including the monitoring and evaluation provisions that are ongoing.

There is a need to more fully describe the measures that are in place to stabilize flows in the Hanford Reach as a result of the "Vernita Bar Agreement", which calls for stabilized flows during spawning, incubation, fry emergence, and emigration in the Vernita Bar portion of the Hanford Reach. (See ISG 2000 "Return to the River 2000", NWPPC Doc 2000-12, p. 451-2).

The proposal does not present a convincing argument for the need to deliberately manipulate flows in order to study their effects on stranding, particularly since they are planned for times when fry are expected to be present (Task 1.a, p. 7). If on-the-ground studies are necessary, it should be possible to observe the effects on chinook fry of ramping rates and duration of flow reductions of various magnitudes during periods not encompassed by the Vernita Bar Agreement (as modified in 1999). The Agreement is not designed to protect down to the last fish. And the power operators are certain to undertake load following as soon as restrictions on operations are relaxed.

Further to this point, the proposal raised questions about the potential for extraction of further important information from existing data. This should be discussed in the proposal. From the discussion on page 2 and the oral presentation it appears that estimates of entrapment area and estimates of stranded fry were pursued somewhat independently, with the result that knowledge of the effects of hydropower operations is not sufficient to be able to predict numbers of stranded fry to be expected under various operating scenarios. The possibility of using existing data to arrive at such a capability should be discussed in the proposal. It ought to be possible to relate estimates of stranded numbers and estimates of entrapment area, each that relates to the same operating conditions, i.e. develop a table that shows a set of conditions of ramping rate, duration, and relative volume of reduction (%), and corresponding estimates of numbers of fry stranded during each such episode, and estimated area of potential entrapment. Such a table could be used to develop a regression equation to estimate numbers of fry expected to be stranded under those scenarios. If this effort should prove to be successful, the pursuit of behavioral studies to identify mechanisms involved in stranding would not be necessary.

With information already available from previous studies, it ought to be possible to identify certain areas responsible for major strandings. Has thought been given to the possibility of opening these up with a dozer or other mechanical means, deepening a downstream outlet end of the pool to facilitate emigration of fry?

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

The ISRP raised questions primarily whether sufficient information already exists on the stranding and entrapment of juvenile fall chinook in the Hanford Reach. The response identified important shortcomings in existing information. This proposal is planned to fill the gaps.

The Council and NMFS's ISAB has a particular interest in this stranding issue (ISAB 99-5) and made a recommendation to the Council that a revision of the Vernita Bar Agreement be adopted to extend protection to emigrating fry. We understand that Grant County P.U.D. led in the development of a revised agreement among all of the (numerous) affected parties in 1999. In addition to studies under the Council's program, funded by BPA, Grant County P.U.D. continues to monitor fall chinook at Vernita Bar during spawning, incubation, fry emergence, and now fry emigration. The response assured the ISRP that the principal investigators are familiar with provisions of the Vernita Bar Agreement and its revision, including the monitoring and evaluation provisions that are ongoing. Specifically, we had questions whether the amended Vernita Bar Agreement might adequately address the problem. The sponsor provided a copy of the amended Vernita Bar Agreement and discussed the problems it fails to address.

The amended Vernita Bar Agreement of February 25th 2002, while it is well intended and represents a step forward to protect recently emerged fall chinook that have not yet moved out of the area, contains loopholes that lead to less than desirable protection. The loss of an estimated 2 million juvenile fall chinook during the spring of 2001 is an illustration of this point.

There are at least two problems that can be seen in the new agreement that are pointed out in the response. The agreement specifies permissible fluctuations in flow under various river flow scenarios, but the frequency, duration, and rapidity of fluctuations are not specified. The provisions do not spring directly from field observations that indicate whether they would prevent mortality of fish or not. In practice the major changes in flow brought about by load following occur at night between 11 PM and 5 AM. By the time field crews arrive on the river in the morning, flows have increased and any dead fish have been washed down the river. The Vernita Bar Agreement should be modified to correct the problems with flow specifications, and the field monitoring should be modified to include nighttime observations.

The response agreed with the ISRP comment that there is a need to exercise caution when deliberately manipulating flows in order to study their effects on stranding, particularly since they are planned for times when fry are expected to be present (Task 1.a, p. 7).

The response adequately addressed questions about the potential for extraction of further important information from existing data. The ISRP suggested that information already available from previous studies might be used to identify certain areas responsible for major strandings. The sponsors agreed it might be useful to open these up with a dozer or other mechanical means, deepening a downstream outlet end of the pool to facilitate emigration of fry, but the current status of the Reach as a National Monument could make it infeasible.

Comment:

Comments
Benefits unlisted fish

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
No

Comment:

Comment:

Comments:
Addresses impacts to Hanford fall chinook. Identified by CBFWA as highest priority new projects.

Comment: