FY 2001 Intermountain proposal 199404300

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

Reason for change in estimated budget

Although the 2001 budget request is greater than the budget forecasted in 1999, this 2001 budget request does reflect a significant reduction from that contracted in 2000. The 2000 budget was 1.5 million and the current 2001 budget is 1.1 million resulting in a 26% reduction from the 2000 budget. We have made an honest effort to meet our originally forecasted target however, due to the fact that the model and data collection effort are behind schedule, the budget is greater than expected. We are unwilling to abandon our data collection effort prior to having the model up and running. We believe it is foolish to stop data collect activities prior to knowing whether the model can answer questions in place of empirical data. Furthermore, an additional year of intensive data collection will refine model variables and our understanding of trophic relationships, ultimately providing for stronger models and understanding of the biological systems in which we are working.

Reason for change in scope

No change is scope of work.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

This project conducts the overall monitoring and evaluation of Lake Roosevelt limnology, aquatic ecosystem, fish, and fisheries, which is used as a basis for measuring success of several other projects, especially hatcheries. It is a core project of the subbasin with high regional significance.

The technical and scientific background is adequate but could benefit from more explicit use of the scientific literature on reservoirs as unique aquatic environments. Although the PI said in oral presentation that there is little conceptual literature on reservoirs, there actually is quite a lot (for example papers by Kimmell, Thornton and others, and management experiences with other storage reservoirs with deep drawdowns such as in the TVA system, as well as many papers in the journal Regulated Rivers). The project could benefit from additional outside assistance from reservoir managers who have dealt with large reservoirs with deep drawdowns. Synthesis of information through use of a model for reservoir hydraulics and water quality is a good idea as a conceptual foundation, but its use could be improved with outside consultation. A description of the model would have been helpful. The relationship to other projects is clear, but might have been described in more detail. The project history is informative but lacks specific project results (as requested last year by the ISRP). The project has developed over the years, embodies a comprehensive and appropriately basic approach, and has resulted in improved management. The project personnel obviously continue to work toward improving the work plan. The objectives are clear, and the tasks and methods are appropriate and related to objectives (a problem noted last year). We appreciate the difficulty of focusing on specific tasks in a system so large and hydraulically complex.

The objective of affecting hydro operations because of fishery objectives in the reservoir is probably unrealistic when taken in a regional perspective. Lower river managers expect Lake Roosevelt to provide water when needed. The project would be more realistically scoped in the context of managing fisheries in an unstable and non-natural environment. Having more modest expectations for the usefulness of the model for obtaining specific results is essential, although the model is a useful conceptual guide and synthesis tool. The establishment of an ecosystem model for Lake Roosevelt is a laudable goal, but will it be able to capture the unique features of this system and truly be useful as a fisheries management tool?

Facilities and personnel are adequately described but may not be adequate for the goal of managing fisheries in such a large and complex system. Collaborative use of personnel from other projects is important for mounting large field operations. Additional use of outside consultants, including a senior biometrician, could bolster the professional capabilities.

The project is represented as adequately transferring its information to other projects for their M&E needs, but no data were presented in the proposal and little data appeared in the other proposals to illustrate or substantiate this. The project should have a large and important benefit for fish and fisheries of Lake Roosevelt. There are likely benefits to non-target species and habitats from increasing general understanding of the system. All consistency criteria are met.

The proposal is informative but contains parts that lead to concern. One example: on narrative p. 6, paragraph 2, is it really meant that "all kokanee with an adipose fin clip" (i.e., those from the hatchery) are to be excluded from harvest, or should it be that all unclipped kokanee are to be excluded from harvest?

The project has budgeted $40K per year for "writing studies for the public in professional journals." We applaud publication, but wonder if the expectation of $40k/year worth is a realistic target. There is no publication yet from the project but one has been submitted. A major concern is that the project is behind schedule for both modeling and data collection (p11) but there is no indication of how extra money will allow catch-up. Both the proposal and the oral presentations caused us to wonder if staff is adequate to handle the statistical analysis and modeling aspects of the project. Outside consultation by a senior statistician and a trained modeler could be helpful.

Another project is proposing evaluation of strobe lights as an entrainment deterrent at Grand Coulee Dam. There was no mention of whether this monitoring project is gearing up to be able to detect differences in kokanee population dynamics in the reservoir when (if?) strobe lights are successful at reducing entrainment. If that technology works, it could mean a big change in the way several hatchery and net pen projects are operated. Monitoring the reservoir for effects of reduced entrainment should be a major objective of this project.

Comment:

Comment:

However, the Panel remains concerned that the project does not seem to focus on monitoring specific effects from other projects (other projects list this project as the M&E for their work), but rather just conduct a general fish population monitoring in the reservoir. For example, reviewers raised the question of seeking effects on fish populations from reduced entrainment through the dam (a big effort by another project). Their response was that they didn't do monitoring for specific project effects, only general fish sampling from which one might see effects over several years. We do not find this answer satisfying when a more explicit study design and more focused sampling could better establish the effects (if any) of other projects and lead to better adaptive management.

Also, reviewers' recommendation for having a consultant was misinterpreted as obtaining consultants to do the work, when the Panel really meant having a senior advisor available to them for guidance, research planning and analysis of results. It is clear that project personnel do not have a clear concept for how to proceed with the overall project and could use such seasoned advice. Such a senior advisor could be of value to the STOI for selecting and evaluating the hired consultants. However, the sponsors accepted the Panel's request for a statistical consultant.

One important item was not clear to the Panel until reading this response. The issue is kokanee stocking. The Panel asked several times during the tour how hatchery kokanee were contributing to the fishery. We got the feeling that they were performing poorly but to an unknown extent. However, it is evident from the response that kokanee released as fry showed virtually no return to the creel. Moreover, more recent stockings of larger kokanee performed even worse in Lake Roosevelt. Therefore, besides providing some possible benefit downstream of Lake Roosevelt, this expensive hatchery and netpen rearing operation may be simply feeding walleyes. The Panel believes this likely is a major problem and the author of the response appears to feel likewise, but in a low profile manner. Had reviewers been afforded a better understanding of this problem during the tour and presentations, they would have had a different perspective when reviewing the kokanee hatchery projects and could have initiated discussion of the issue in relation to hatchery and netpen operations. This project should demonstrate a clear focus on providing information to other projects such that their future program modifications will be likely to solve this problem (i.e., modifying netpen release patterns of kokanee to obtain some sort of dispersal, elimination of netpen operations, etc.). All-in-all, the Panel believes that this project can be funded.

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website