FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200307400

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

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Much work has been done showing the problem is not as great as once supposed for salmonids, but admittedly, persuasive data are not available for the species/groups proposed here. The proponents have built upon their own work and work of others (including regional planning documents) to identify the needed next steps. There are some good objectives and study plans for approaching them. The FWP is not mentioned but should be referenced in the response. The rest of the ISRP review criteria are met. The work is of an M&E nature. An organization question is whether this project should be incorporated in the existing 199602100 (support to GBD monitoring by Smolt Monitoring Program) or vice versa (the existing project has dwindled to very small funding).

Two other factors also suggest the limited potential for new revelations about TDG as the studies are currently designed and located:

1. all three species tend to be bottom oriented and deep water species, and most TDG effects are in the upper two meters of the water surface due to hydrostatic compensation and
2. the levels of TDG are generally not excessive at either The Dalles or Bonneville. The exception might be for conditions requiring passage via ladders where shallow conditions exist in fishways. We share the concern regarding the limited numbers of bull trout at Hood River.

A location where bull trout are having problems with TDG is in Lake Pend Oreille. Annual spill from Cabinet Gorge dam in the Clarkfork River creates high TDG levels in a relatively shallow river, in the Lake and the dam blocks passage. Current efforts by AvistaCorp are aimed at improving TDG there and initiating passage. This area seems to have much greater value in archiving bull trout behavior and physiological data and would be a much more valuable laboratory as bull trout are abundant, but seriously reduced from historic levels. Unless the researchers can demonstrate a significant TDG flow duration curve at the proposed location, efforts there may be unlikely to yield the desired data due to inadequate test conditions. The low numbers of fish there also present a challenge to gathering sufficient data.

Some of the objectives and tasks do not spell out samples sizes or sampling schedules that are intended to be used, e.g. for lamprey the proposal does not specify a sampling protocol that would be used to "Conduct field studies to determine if Pacific lamprey in the wild are impacted by high TDG." Similarly, there is no information on how many adult salmon might be included under objective 4, nor at what TDG levels (page 11).

As for white sturgeon data, the population appears to be in sufficient condition to allow significant harvest. If larvae are exposed to TDG, are the impacts likely to be significant to limiting the population below Bonneville? Recruitment is occurring. What mitigation would be possible over and above what is being done with flip lips, spill control etc?

The lamprey studies seem to have more justification for study given the paucity of data and their differences from teleost fishes. However, TDG levels below BON dam may be insufficient for good data. Have the researchers examined other sites such as Willamette Falls for this study? Lamprey are abundant, easy to collect at the falls and the falls may present high TDG levels at times (this needs to be checked). The lab component of this study seems to have good merits.

The data analysis of TDG exposure to migrating adult salmon and subsequent spawning seems like a good study to complete. Some data suggest adult migrants use the deeper sections of the thalweg of LGR reservoir to migrate. Thus, successful spawning of "exposed" adults may demonstrate compensating mechanisms. The lab duplication has less value as the fish are not exposed to the other rigors of the river after a TDG exposure, but may shed some light on whether reproduction is physiologically hindered by TDG exposure.

The response should include a review of Earl Dawley's resident fish and benthic organism studies.

In summary, several elements of this study do not seem as potentially beneficial while others do.

Less justified:

• Studies of bull trout at Hood River and near TDA dam
• Studies of lamprey at BON dam

More justified :

• Studies of bull trout in Lake Pend Oreille and lower Clarkfork River
• Studies of lamprey where TDG has higher/longer frequency, Willamette Falls?
• Lab studies of lamprey exposure to TDG
• Data analysis of spawning frequency of adults exposed to TDG during migration
• Artificial propagation studies of salmon after TDG exposure.

Uncertain with Data Provided:

• Studies of sturgeon larvae in populations below BON dam

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

The first part of this proposal intends to provide information on some key uncertainties about effects of gas supersaturation on three species of resident fish for which there is not much data: sturgeon, lamprey, and bull trout. If the states' water quality agencies are to continue to approve an upper limit of 120% total dissolved gas saturation (TDG) in river water (in contrast to the national water quality criterion of 110%), then they need a higher level of proof that 120% gas will not harm resident fishes (all life stages). The proposed study may not adequately answer the question. The ISRP has the following concerns over sample sizes and experimental designs.

All three species tend to be bottom oriented and deep water species, whereas most TDG effects are induced in the upper two meters of the water surface due to hydrostatic compensation. Thus, the frequency and geographic preponderance of gas bubble trauma (GBT) may be rare and difficult to find in these species. This problem calls for (1) especially well thought out experimental design and sampling of large numbers of fish, and (2) excellent control of TDG at the proposed sites for the exposure experiments. The study proposal does not clearly meet these criteria. In general, high TDG conditions are not excessive and chronic at either The Dalles or Bonneville, except in rare flood flow discharges. Thus, looking at only these two locations may not be the best "laboratory" because the desired test conditions near 120% may not occur. For valid tests of the effects of circa 120% TDG, a site where these conditions occur would be scientifically preferable. The ISRP also shares the proponents concern regarding the limited numbers of bull trout at Hood River for adequate sample sizes.

Regarding sturgeon components of the research, the ISRP agrees with the proponents' response that juvenile sturgeon in the Columbia may temporally circulate near the surface and hence be exposed to high TDG. Sturgeon larvae enter the surface waters when they are in their swim-up mode for dispersal. However, the lower Columbia population of sturgeon is healthy in terms of spawning, recruitment, and age structure. Thus, unlike other white sturgeon populations upstream where there are significant age class gaps in the populations, it is unclear that factors such as TDG are adversely affecting larvae below Bonneville. Documentation of larvae without GBT signs at the surface in circa 120% TDG water below Bonneville Dam would be valuable information.

For the bull trout and lamprey components of the study, the researchers were open to the ISRP's suggestion, described further below, to improve sampling and experimental field conditions by selecting study sites that are more likely to have high TDG levels. If the study's objective is to determine if 120% is benign, then the experiment must include that value. Apparently, BPA expressed concern over conducting the study outside the FCRPS. Nonetheless, good experiments require good design and better test and control conditions than may be found in the lower Columbia River. If acceptable test conditions and sample sizes are more likely to be found at locations other than BON and TDA dams, then it may be fiscally and scientifically more prudent to do experiments where relevant results are more likely to be obtained, with the results generalized to the sites of actual concern. The TDG curves submitted in the response suggest it will be difficult to maintain control of TDG at or near 120% in normal or low flow conditions for periods of time needed to assure a good "treatment" condition is administered in the river at BON and TDA. Flows in 1997 were atypically high and cannot be expected again with sufficient likelihood to plan an in situ experiment. Although artificially high spill could be implemented to create high TDG if low flow conditions prevail in 2003, the FCRPS operators may be reluctant to implement such large spills to achieve 120%. If experiments are performed in appropriate TDG levels at locations outside the FCRPS and prove "positive" (show GBT signs in fish), then the studies could be followed up at FCRPS installations in subsequent years, especially when it is likely that high flow conditions might prevail. A location where bull trout may be regularly exposed to high levels of TDG is in Lake Pend Oreille and the lower Clark Fork River. This area seems to have much greater potential for collecting adequate samples of bull trout and for exposing bull trout to the high TDG levels of concern. The management and operations of these dams on the Clark Fork are under study and it is much more likely that study of impacts, treatments and monitoring will increase our knowledge of bull trout, dams and TDG there than at the locations proposed in this proposal.

Given the general concern over adequacy of statistical design to determine whether fish are responding to habitat changes, a recent report to Washington State Independent Science Panel, May 7, 2002 may be of use. Dr. Peter Bayley, Oregon State University, suggested that much of the existing design of field observational research is inadequate to elucidate cause and effect habitat-population response mechanisms.

The exploratory lamprey studies were better justified given the paucity of data and the differences between lamprey and teleost fishes. Again, location for the experimental data collection raise doubts about adequacy of control and test conditions and the potential to collect adequate samples to test hypotheses. The lab component of this study seems to be better designed.

The study of TDG exposure to migrating adult salmon and subsequent effects on spawning is more likely to yield useful results with the design presented. The hypothesis that TDG exposure may not kill, but could impair reproduction of adults is reasonable. The technology exists in PIT and archive tags to test this hypothesis. Again, the ability to collect data with an adequate sample size will be a question. Depth of exposure will also be an issue, for some data suggest adult migrants use the deeper sections of the thalweg of LGR reservoir to migrate. Thus, successful spawning of "exposed" adults may be the result of depth compensation mechanisms. The lab duplication may have less value than the field experiment, because the fish are not exposed to the other rigors of river migration during and after a TDG exposure. However, lab studies carried out together with field experiments may shed some light on whether reproduction is physiologically hindered by TDG exposure. This experiment should be considered a screening test for more rigorous sampling if any indications of impairment is observed.

In summary, although the proposed work is important, several elements of this study are not adequately designed to assure statistically useful results while others show more promise and justification for at least exploratory investigation.

The less justified elements include:

• Studies of bull trout at Hood River and near The Dalles Dam due to low population levels and concerns about adequate sample size and the availability of needed exposure conditions. TDG studies of bull trout in Lake Pend Oreille and lower Clarkfork River may yield larger populations for study and more desired exposure conditions, which could be generalize to other locations.
• Studies of lamprey at Bonneville Dam due to the inability to regulate TDG exposures for experimental purposes. Studies of lamprey where TDG has higher/longer frequency, possibly at Willamette Falls, or a location where adequate fish samples can be obtained and where exposure conditions can be better controlled would provide more assurance of a successful study.

More justified elements would include:

• Lab studies of lamprey exposure to TDG
• PIT and archive tag data analysis of spawning frequency of adults exposed to TDG during migration
• Artificial propagation studies of salmon after TDG exposure.

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.

Comment:

Comments
The proposal addresses specific recommendations made in the Mainstem/Systemwide Province Water Quality Program Summary, Future Needs Section III.D. The proposal also implements the USFWS BiOp on the FCRPS - USFWS 8.2.2, 10.A.2.4. The state water quality agencies have indicated a willingness to permanently modify the water quality standard or establish site-specific standards for TDG for the Columbia and Snake River FCRPS projects. The states' support evaluation of the appropriateness of the water quality standard in terms of TDG impacts to aquatic species. Any revision would proceed through normal scientific review of the standard to ensure full beneficial use protection. The results of these projects would provide a technical basis for these evaluations.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

Comments: