FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28041
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 |
|---|---|
| 28041 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Dworshak Zooplankton Entrainment |
| Proposal ID | 28041 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | David P. Statler |
| Mailing address | 3404 Highway 12 Orofino, ID 83544 |
| Phone / email | 2084767417 / daves@nezperce.orgt |
| Manager authorizing this project | Jaime Pinkham |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Apply hydroacoustic technology to monitor zoopankton density and depth distribution at the Dworshak Dam forebay and apply this information to outlet selector gate operation to minimize or avoid zooplankton entrainment. |
| Target species | bull trout, kokanee |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.5149 | -116.2939 | Dworshak Dam |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Hydro RPA Action 34 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. (Phase I) Determine the efficacy of high frequency hydroacoustics for determining the vertical distribution of zooplankton in the forebay of Dworshak Dam. | a. Acquire and install a state-of-the-art digital hydroacoustic system on the tribal fisheries research vessel. | 1 | $131,446 | Yes |
| b. Develop and test a monitoring/transecting plan involving bi-monthly hydroacoustic and standard surveys of the zooplankton population in the forebay of Dworshak Dam. | 1 | $182,232 | Yes | |
| c. Process and analyze the hydroacoustic and zooplankton sample data. | 1 | $78,616 | Yes | |
| d. Prepare a report evaluating the efficacy of using hydroacoustics for estimating zooplankton densities and distribution in the forebay of Dworshak Dam, and recommend a preferred technique for future sampling. | 1 | $42,169 | Yes |
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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. (Phase II) Establishing hypotheses and perform tests to establish the effect of selector gate operation on the abundance and distribution of zooplankton | a. Based on the results of Phase I, establish the best type of monitoring information to pursue for the final monitoring product (mobile hydroacoustics conducted on a bi-monthly basis or fixed-location monitoring on an on-going basis). | 1 | $0 | Yes |
| b. Develop hypotheses to test the effect of selector gate operations on the distribution and entrainment of zooplankton in the forebay of Dworshak Dam. | 1 | $0 | Yes | |
| c. Conduct bi-monthly surveys of zooplankton in the forebay (and possibly tailrace) for 1 year to test the hypotheses developed under Task b if the mobile survey approach is chosen. Otherwise, install and initiate continuous fixed site monitoring. | 1 | $0 | Yes | |
| d. Disseminate information developed during Phase II within the regional water management forums. | 1 | $0 | Yes | |
| e. Begin development of an open web-based information system for disseminating zooplankton abundance and distribution information to the region. | 1 | $0 | Yes | |
| f. Develop a final report describing the data methods and results of the Phase II study with recommendations for full scale implementation at Dworshak Dam | 1 | $0 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. (Phase II) Establishing hypotheses and perform tests to establish the effect of selector gate operation on the abundance and distribution of zooplankton | 2003 | 2003 | $496,463 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 |
|---|
| $496,463 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $0 | ||||
| $0 | ||||
| $0 | ||||
| $0 |
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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. (Phase III) Full implementation of the zooplankton monitoring program with a web-based link to the regional water management forums. | a. Collect and analyze hydroacoustically derived zooplankton biomass and distribution data. | ongoing | $0 | Yes |
| b. Continue input to and management of an open web-based information system for general dissemination of Dworshak zooplankton abundance and distribution data to the region. | ongoing | $0 | Yes | |
| c. Continue application of these data to the NMFS’s Regional Forum for in-season operations of the FCRPS to minimize the loss of zooplankton from Dworshak Reservoir. | ongoing | $0 | Yes | |
| ongoing | $0 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. (Phase III) Full implementation of the zooplankton monitoring program with a web-based link to the regional water management forums. | 2004 | 2006 | $778,907 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|
| $252,000 | $259,560 | $267,347 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 2 | $63,000 |
| Fringe | $17,640 | |
| Supplies | $4,500 | |
| Travel | $5,200 | |
| Indirect | $19,269 | |
| Subcontractor | $320,000 | |
| Other | operations | $4,854 |
| $434,463 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $434,463 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $434,463 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $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.
Do not fund - no response required
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
Do not fund; a response is not warranted. This endeavor needs much more pre-proposal background research of literature and better interaction with those doing other related Dworshak work. That research might well indicate futility of trying to regulate Dworshak Reservoir withdrawals to significantly reduce entrainment of zooplankton. The proposal fails to indicate any review of basic scientific studies about diel vertical migration of zooplankton; much review of such literature, which is extensive, would be warranted. Several local reports concerning studies on Dworshak reservoir itself were referenced in the proposal text, but none of them was listed in the proposal's reference section (which was empty). More basic literature might reveal that diel zooplankton migration is commonly so rapid and extends so far vertically as to require hourly or more frequent change in draw-off level to avoid their entrainment. This might be difficult even if the dam's outlet structures had been built for draw-off at many elevational increments over the depth of water that zooplankton traverse—and even if dominant competing requirements for water of special temperature (necessitating draw at certain levels) did not exist. The Dworshak rule curve is already extremely complex. Questioning of the presenters indicated that structural and prior-need constraints would likely prevent the draw-off-level flexibility needed to cope with diel migration of zooplankton. If the prospects for managing the draw-off for the intended purpose are not good, studying the zooplankton as outlined would have no value. Sponsor should more thoroughly research zooplankton ecology, and if reasonable prospect of successful management is then seen, submit a revised proposal in a future year.Comment:
Entrainment of zooplankton through Dworshak Dam has not been identified as a limiting factor on kokanee populations in the reservoir. There is some information available that shows entrainment is occurring, but it is not clear how that is affecting the fish populations. The impact of strobe lights on the zooplankton populations should be investigated under project 28024.This project uses hydroacoustic technology to monitor zooplankton movements in the forebay above Dworshak Dam, and then proposes to apply the information to manage dam operations to curtail zooplankton entrainment. The proposal further links zooplankton loss to problems with kokanee management, and ultimately suggests this as an impediment to bull trout recovery. The problem (zooplankton loss), is referenced as a "potential" negative impact, and was "suggested" as a "possible" explanation for poor kokanee growth in '91 and '92 in the proposal. The RFC suggests that the proposal fails to discuss the excellent kokanee growth rates observed in Dworshak in the past 5 years. As a result, the acceptance of zooplankton loss as a management issue is not compelling. There are questions as to whether the proposed methods will be able to differentiate Cladocerans from other zooplankters, suspended detritus, small fish, or Chaoborus spp.
The RFC believes that the proposal reads as a concept paper rather than a project proposal and suggest that the proposal be rewritten so that more detail is provided and a stronger argument is presented as for why entrainment is a limiting factor to the system.
The RFC suggests that a more acceptable approach to this issue may be to first conduct a problem assessment using conventional methods by sampling zooplankton drift in the tailrace. Loss could be quantified and related to gatewell selectors, and diel movement patterns could be inferred (see Novotny and Faler, 1982). An approach such as this could be done for less than ¼ of the existing project's cost as proposed, and then analyzed to see if corrective measures are needed or feasible.
Novotny, J. and M. P. Faler. 1982. Diurnal Characteristics of Zooplankton and Macroinvertebrates in the Tailwater Below a Kentucky Flood Control Reservoir.
Journal of Freshwater Ecology, Vol. 1, No. 4, April, 1982.
Comment:
Not fundable. A response was not requested for this project. This endeavor needs much more pre-proposal background research of literature and better interaction with those doing other related Dworshak work. That research might well indicate futility of trying to regulate Dworshak Reservoir withdrawals to significantly reduce entrainment of zooplankton. The proposal fails to indicate review of the extensive basic literature on diel vertical migration of zooplankton. Several local reports concerning studies on Dworshak reservoir itself were referenced in the proposal text, none of them listed in the proposal's reference section (it was empty). The basic literature might reveal that diel zooplankton migration is commonly so rapid and extends so far vertically as to require changing draw-off level hourly or oftener to avoid their entrainment. This might be difficult even if the dam's outlet structures had been built for draw-off at many elevational increments over the depth of water that zooplankton traverse—and even if dominant competing requirements for water of special temperature (necessitating draw at certain levels) did not exist. The Dworshak rule curve is already extremely complex. Questioning of the presenters indicated that structural and prior-need constraints would likely prevent the draw-off-level flexibility needed to cope with diel migration of zooplankton. If the prospects for managing the draw-off for the intended purpose are not good, studying the zooplankton as outlined would have no value. Sponsor should more thoroughly research zooplankton ecology, and if reasonable prospect of successful management is then seen, submit a revised proposal in a future year.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUComments
Already ESA Req?
Biop?
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUComments
Already ESA Req?
Biop?
Comment:
Do not recommend. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
--
Comment: