FY 1999 proposal 198709900

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
198709900 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Dworshak Dam Impacts Assessment and Fisheries Investigation
Proposal ID	198709900
Organization	Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Melo A. Maiolie
Mailing address	2750 Kathleen Ave. Coeur d’Alene, ID 83814
Phone / email	2087691414 / mmaiolie@micron.net
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 1999
Province / Subbasin	Lower Snake / Clearwater
Short description	Determines ways to minimize losses of fish into Dworshak Dam. Devices such as strobe lights, sound, selective water withdrawal are being tested; also impacts to resident fish caused by drawdowns & routine operations are evaluated.
Target species	early spawning kokanee

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

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 1999 cost	Subcontractor

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 1999 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 1999 cost	Subcontractor

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 1999 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 1999 cost
Personnel		$70,000
Fringe		$25,000
Supplies		$10,000
Operating		$14,000
Capital		$360,000
Travel		$2,000
Indirect		$65,000
Subcontractor		$105,000
		$651,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 1999 cost	$651,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 1999 budget request	$651,000
FY 1999 forecast from 1998	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Funding is the biggest constraint since purchasing strobe lights will be a large capitol outlay expense. Another constraint is that the deployment of the lights will be done by the Army Corps of Engineers on a subcontract with us. A list of our milestones includes: purchasing the strobe light equipment, designing the floats and anchor setup to hold the lights, installing the lights near the reservoir outlets, and evaluating their effectiveness

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Resident Fish Review Comments

Recommendation:
Fundable if funds available

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Presentation: Dworshak Dam on the North fork Clearwater River completely blocks upstream passage and is used for power production. Annual drawdowns can be as much 155 feet. Dworshak Reservoir can support a self-sustaining kokanee population of about 30 - 50 adults per hectare. Kokanee use the tributaries for spawning. Winter kokanee tend to school and high entrainment losses during high flow periods are the problem. This project is based on past research on entrainment. IDFG tested sound as a possible "anti-entrainment" device but it didn't work. Strobe light tested in a wild environment were effective up to 30 meters away, but that is not enough distance at Dworshak. Strobe tests in clear water show kokanee stayed away up to 140 meters. It is necessary to test the lights in turbid water during spring flows. The next phase is to install strobe lights on dam. Monitoring (4 times per year) will include looking at kokanee behavior patterns at the turbine intakes; conducting spawner counts; conducting hydrocoustic estimates over the length of reservoir; and trawling to evaluate the physical characteristics of the fish.

Questions/Answers:

Is there an overall mitigation plan for the upper Dworshak area? Answer: The Dworshak Mitigation Plan (an agreement with the Corps) says to stock 100,000 of something annually, but we have never really stocked this much. Solving the entrainment losses are a high priority. NPT and University staff collaborate. There is an earnest effort to use past knowledge to preserve this fishery.

Is there a way of testing the lights on one rather than all of the turbines? Could you coordinate with the Corps to test one turbine first? Answer: No. The 3 turbines are side by side and run at different times.

Will the turbid water test be completed before the FY 99 budget cycle? Answer: Entrainment occurs in March, before the spring runoff and is a problem throughout the runoff season.

What happens if the strobe test doesn't work ? Answer: The project disappears. In order to be considered a success, the strobes need to work in muddy water and deter 50% of the fish most of the time.

Shouldn't NMFS pay for this because the summer drafts are used for temperature control for fall chinook? Answer: Summer drafts are better for kokanee but not for public recreation.

Have you done any public scoping? Answer: No, but it shouldn't be a problem. The locals want the entrainment problem solved. The most serious kokanee losses are related to winter flood control releases.

Will the Corps fund the O&M on the lights? How much will it be? Answer: The estimated O&M is much cheaper than other alternatives but the Corps hasn't agreed to fund O&M yet.

Screening Criteria: Yes

Technical Criteria: No. An overall Council-approved Mitigation Implementation Plan is needed for the Dworshak Reservoir.

Programmatic Criteria: Yes

General Comment: Can NMFS/anadromous fish dollars pay part of this project since it is mitigation for the impacts of salmon recovery actions? Can the full light array be delayed until the turbid water test is completed?

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Light array task deferred

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 1998-1)

Recommendation:
Adequate

Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This proposal is for a fish management study that primarily considers the use of strobe lights to guide fish with the primary purpose to reduce entrainment and improve a reservoir fishery. The proposal does not clearly relate what is to be measured to the desired goals. There is a need for the information to be collected on kokanee populations and dam operations, but the problem with fish populations is not well described. In particular, the proposal does not establish that entrainment is causing the problem. It also does not describe the effects of the work on other fish and, generally, does not provide clear descriptions of how this project relates to others.

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$160,000	$0	$0

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website