Comment on proposed FY 2006 budget

The proposed FY 2006 budget is not consistent with the budget recommended by BPA or NPPC. The project sponsor has indicated to NPPC and BPA that the project is behind pace on some elements of the original scope of work. Briefly, poor subcontractor performance, high data volume and complexity, and unavailability of bathymetry data have delayed completion of project. In response, the NPPC inserted a budget placeholder for FY 2006 ($248,739; see project-detail web site). This project addressed RPA Action 155 under the NOAA Fisheries 2000 FCRPS BiOp and would continue to contribute to the ESA commitments made by BPA and the FCRPS Action Agencies under NOAA Fisheries’ revised 2004 BiOp. The objectives of this project are consistent with the near-term RM&E hydrosystem targets included in the FCRPS Action Agencies’ 2005-2007 Implementation Plan (IP). The project is specifically listed for continued implementation in Table 22 of the IP and would help reduce hydrosystem uncertainties and provide status monitoring for restoring Snake River fall Chinook salmon spawning habitat. Although behind pace, the project continues to meet the scope and the goals of the original proposal submitted during the rolling review. The ISRP specifically noted that this project is a major study of the Hanford Reach and recommended “applying their methods in other spawning areas of the basin”. This is occurring. The information from this project is being used in other parts of the Columbia River Basin, both as a source of technical information on the biology of ESA listed salmon (e.g., Ives Island, Grays River, Snake River) but also as a conduit of information-exchange in project implementation. Continued investment in this major project is worthwhile given the importance of the Hanford Reach as a production area for fall Chinook salmon and the lessons we are currently learning and already applying to other parts of the basin including listed populations within the Snake River.

Accomplishments since the last review

2001-2005 data collection: bathymetric and hydraulic data from 20 mi; water quality (temp, oxygen), hydr grad, and permeability from 111 piezometers; surf- and subsurface substrate samples (>40 cores) at 9 sites; 2 yrs of photos of fall Chinook redds; 4 yrs of temperature and water level data from hyporheic zone and river at 9 sites. 2001-2005 data analysis: availability and use of fall Chinook spawning habitat (based on depth, substrate, and velocity) at 9 sites throughout 20 mi; creation of riverbed geomorphologic index of spawning site use; eval of substrate quality based on grainsize dist, gradient between hyporheic zone and river, permeability, specific discharge, and water quality (oxy and temp) at 9 sites; statistical and graphical summaries of 4 yrs of data logger information on water temp and water level from hyporheic zone and river at 9 sites. 2001-2003 reporting: progress report on 2001-2003 activities was submitted to BPA in September, 2003. Since the inception of the project in 1994, over 13 peer-reviewed articles have been published by PNNL staff using data collected as part of this project, including 5 since the last rolling review: Visser et al. 2002. Use of aerial photography to monitor fall Chinook salmon spawning in the Columbia River. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 131: 1173-1179. Hanrahan et al. 2005. Substrate quality of historic fall Chinook salmon spawning habitat in the Snake River, Idaho, USA. Riv. Res. Appl. Hanrahan et al. 2004. An estimate of Chinook salmon spawning habitat and redd capacity upstream of a migration barrier in the upper Columbia River. Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci. 61(1): 23-33. Moser et al. 2003. Biogeochemical processes and microbial characteristics across groundwater - surface water boundaries of the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. Env. Sci. Tech. 37:5127-5134. Dauble et al. 2003. Impacts of hydroelectric development on mainstem habitats of fall Chinook salmon. N. Am. J. Fish. Mgt. 23(3): 641-659.

FY 2006 goals and anticipated accomplishments

The goals of the project remain as they were in the original review, i.e., the information learned in this project will be used to determine whether the Hanford Reach fall Chinook salmon are healthy enough to be used as a core population to re-seed other ancillary satellite areas. There are two specific goals for FY 2006. Goal 1 is to complete data analysis, interpretation, and reporting (in the form of manuscripts) for the data collected since the Council review. This is a priority goal and will be completed in 2006 by finishing data analysis, finalizing data interpretation, writing, and submitting to peer-reviewed journals several manuscripts. Goal 2 is to acquire bathymetry data and begin revising our existing spawning habitat model for the upper and lower sections of the Hanford Reach; this data currently resides with the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and/or the US Geological Survey. As described in a letter to Patty O’Toole (May 13, 2004 letter to Patty O’Toole from David Geist), the development of the spawning habitat model for the entire Reach was approved in the original proposal but subject to availability of bathymetric data. Through a separate contract, this information is now available and if it can be acquired from the previously mentioned agencies, will be used to construct a revised spawning habitat model.

Subbasin planning

How is this project consistent with subbasin plans?

While there is a general strategy in the Lower Columbia River Mainstem Subbasin Plan to rebuild and maintain healthy fall Chinook populations including ESA population of Snake River fall Chinook salmon, specific strategies, objectives, or priority action items for the Hanford Reach are excluded from the Lower Columbia River Mainstem Subbasin Plan. Consequently, there does not exist a management plan that describes critical uncertainties and research needs upon which to prioritize this project. Continued implementation of this project will provide information that can be used to rectify this serious deficiency in the sub-basin plan. The proposed project is consistent with the Council’s 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program and the 2003 Mainstem Amendments to the Program. The Program (as amended) recommends protection and restoration of mainstem habitat conditions (e.g., as those found in the Hanford Reach) be implemented to protect and restore healthy alluvial river reaches (p. 25 of the Program, and p. 11-12 of the Amendment). Specifically, research should identify, protect, enhance, and restore the functions of alluvial rivers like those found in the Hanford Reach. This continues to be the primary goal of this project.

How do goals match subbasin plan priorities?

In conclusion, continuation of this project is a high priority consistent with the recommendations set forth in the Councils Fish and Wildlife Program (as amended) and also within the Action Agencies ESA commitments documented in the 2005-2007 Implementation Plan.

Other comments