Within-Year Modification Request Form for FY 2008

 
Access CBFWA's Status of the Resource (SOTR) website or BPA's Report Center for more information on
Project 200700300 (Province: Mountain Snake Subbasin: Clearwater )
SOTR Province View
Status & Trends Projects Interactive Map Report
SOTR Subbasin View
Status & Trends Projects Interactive Map Report
SOTR Project & Correspondence
Project
Pisces Report
Project Status Work Funded

View Modification

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Section 2: Description
Section 3: Related Projects
Section 4: Planning and Design
Section 5: Construction/Implementation
Section 6: Operations and Maintenance
Section 7: Monitoring and Evaluation
Section 8: Total Budget
Section 9: Project Documents
Part 2. Current Status of Modification Request
Part 3. Comments on this Modification Request


Part 1 of 3. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status BOG Meeting Date
January 28, 2009 Finalized February 4, 2009

Modification Type: FY 2008 Within-Year Ongoing
BPA Project Number: 200700300
BPA Project Name: Dworshak Dam Resident Fish Mitigation Project
COTR/BPA Project Manager: Roy Beaty
Agency, Institution or Organization Requesting Rescheduling: Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Funding Type: expense
Project Leader: Sean Wilson
Province: Mountain Snake
Subbasin: Clearwater
 
Contact Person
First Name: Sean
Last Name Wilson
Address: 3316 16th Street
City, State Zip: Lewiston, ID 83501
Phone: 208-799-5010
Fax: 208-799-5012
Email: swilson@idfg.idaho.gov

Administrative Contacts
Primary Administrative Contact Secondary Administrative Contact:
Name Andy Dux Name
Address: 2885 W. Kathleen Ave Address:
City, State Zip: Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815 City, State Zip:
Phone: 208-769-1414 Phone:
Fax: 208-769-1418 Fax:
Email: adux@idfg.idaho.gov Email:
Note: Note:

Section 2a: Description (Species Information)
Target Species Micropterus dolomieu (smallmouth bass)
Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi (westslope cutthroat trout)
Oncorhynchus mykiss (rainbow trout)
Oncorhynchus nerka (kokanee)
Salvelinus confluentus (bull trout)

Provide explanations as to why the following alternative funding solutions are not feasible and will jeopardize the project:
Reduction in existing scope of project: The BPA CR-104594 provides funding to Idaho Fish and Game to monitor and evaluate the effects of nutrient supplementation on Dworshak Reservoir water quality and biological response across all trophic levels. The nutrient enhancement program is a cooperative program between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) and Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). The original monitoring plan for the Dworshak Reservoir nutrient enhancement project as written in the FY 07-09 solicitation proposal included a sampling frequency of twice per month during the first year of application (2007). The higher sampling frequency in 2007 was designed to ensure proper administration of fertilizer based on actual ecological response. The sampling plan for the second and third years of the enhancement experiment (2008 and 2009) was written as half the frequency, only once per month. The FY 07-09 funding decision handed down by the Council for the IDFG Dworshak Project was at the $160,000 level for all three years. Unfortunately this level of funding allowed IDFG to pay for only half of the semimonthly limnological analysis costs in 2007. Thankfully, the remaining $51,000 in limnological analysis costs were graciously paid for by the USACE in 2007. Upon completion of the 2007 field sampling it was recommended by Dr. John Stockner (USACE's nutrient enhancement contractor) to maintain the semimonthly sampling and subsequent analysis in years two and three (2008 and 2009). Further, he recommended that this continue through the first five years of the project (2007-2011). This is still the plan, which will necessitate funding for this work until 2011. At the end of the five-year pilot study in 2011, recommendations for the next phase of the project will be made. If the project is successful and efforts to move into a longer-term implementation phase are made, then monitoring efforts will be scaled back considerably to just include just those variables that quickly signal changes in reservoir conditions. More rationale for the semimonthly sampling frequency is provided by Dr. Stockner (see attached letter). Based on this recommendation, we submitted a BOG request in 2008 for $55,000 to cover expenses for semimonthly sampling. This request was granted and allowed the recommended sampling and analysis protocol to be implemented in 2008. Several factors have necessitated continuation of the more rigorous semimonthly sampling protocol utilized in 2007 and 2008. Based upon 2007 and 2008 findings, semimonthly sampling is imperative for detecting natural variation in reservoir conditions, which cannot be effectively detected with monthly sampling. Semimonthly sampling is also necessary to maintain the ability to fine-tune weekly reservoir fertilizer application rates in light of conditions that change on time scales shorter than a month. This was especially critical this past summer when fertilization was postponed for three weeks based on our data from semimonthly sampling. The second sampling event in July provided data that were crucial to this decision and would have been absent with a monthly sampling frequency. Lastly, data collected by the project provides critical real-time data that directs the subsequent application schedule to ensure the project remains within water quality standards identified by regulatory agencies. Costs incurred by the USACE to facilitate the implementation of the nutrient enhancement project partnership have substantially exceeded those provided by BPA. Combined USACE expenses in 2007 and 2008 totaled approximately $488,000 compared to $375,000 provided by BPA. We are requesting a budget modification to the BPA funded portion of the project to cover the cost of semimonthly water quality sample analyses in 2009. This request by IDFG is for $44,000, bringing the total request to $204,000 for 2009. The reduction in the amount of this request from the previous year is due to a reduction in sampling from the hypolimnion (from semimonthly to monthly). This is acceptable because the phytoplankton communities of interest reside primarily in the epilimnion rather than the hypolimnion. Furthermore, fertilizer is applied to the epilimnion and will not have a rapid effect on the hypolimnion. This illustrates our attempt to reduce costs as much as possible; however, this is the only portion of the sampling that we could justify eliminating. Given the above explanation, we feel any reduction in the existing scope of this project would jeopardize the entire nutrient enhancement program by reducing: 1.) the ability to discern trophic response relative to natural variation 2.) the ability to adaptively manage fertilization rates based upon reservoir response (as determined from limnological results) 3.) the ability to effectively determine compliance with water quality standards.
Deferral of existing work elements to later date: Project findings to date have been very encouraging. However, as explained above, our ability to assess the program’s success, utility, and ultimately cost effectiveness, relies solely on a robust study design. Deferral of any existing tasks only lessens the programs effectiveness, especially since assessment of reservoir response includes kokanee, which have a 3-year life cycle in Dworshak. Omitting parts of the monitoring should not be an option.

Section 2b: Description (Location Information)
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Location Description
46 30 58.572 N 116 17 40.38 W Dworshak Reservoir

Is this/Are these the same study location(s) that was/were identified in the original proposal? Yes

Condition/situation creating the need for the modification:
Is the situation the result of a catastrophic event that occurred within the existing location? No
Has a habitat/population/mechanical/structural dilemma developed in the proposed study location since the contract was signed with BPA? No

Section 2c: Description (Work Element Information)
What work elements in the existing proposal does the proposed modification address?
Work Element Work Element Title
C. Analyze/interpret data (162) Analyze and interpret limnological data

Proposed action to achieve the objective(s) The proposed action is to monitor and evaluate the effects of nutrient additions on the reservoir food chain by analyzing collected limnological data. Limnological data will be analyzed and interpreted as specified in the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) and Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for the Dworshak Reservoir Nutrient Enhancement Project (see attached SAP and QAPP document).

Does not implementing this modification jeopardize the ability to achieve existing biological objectives of this project, as well as other projects? Yes

Explain: Not implementing this modification (semimonthly sample analyses) would likely result in not detecting reservoir changes that are the standards by which we measure the programs success to achieve the biological objectives. Not only will assessment of program success be more difficult, but adaptive management in the form of adjusting fertilizer application rates will be compromised. These adjustments are critical for maintaining the desired nitrogen to phosphate ratios that promote the growth of desirable plankton taxa during the growing season. An increased abundance of undesirable plankton (i.e. bluegreen algae) will lead to not only a reduced growth potential for kokanee, but a potential public health hazard as well. Increasing the available nitrogen in Dworshak has shown promise in reducing the severity of these naturally occurring bluegreen algae blooms. Further, our determination of whether water quality standards are being adhered to will be less accurate without semimonthly sampling.

Section 2d: Description (BiOp Information)
NMFS and/or FWS Biological Opinion that this funding request addresses Strategy
NMFS &/or USFWS
How proposed actions will address the BiOp
(i.e., substrategy / limiting factor / metric to be achieved)

Section 2e: Description (Objectives)
Objectives of this proposed project
Objective
(abbreviation)
Full Description
Enhance resident fish The IDFG fish management objective for kokanee in Dworshak Reservoir is to maintain densities of 30 to 50 adult kokanee per hectare on an annual basis, at catch rates of at least 0.7 fish/hr, at a 30 cm size (Idaho Department of Fish and Game 2001b). This project addresses the objective by increasing and stabilizing the kokanee population, thereby providing more forage and nutrients to enhance ecosystem productivity and ultimately benefit all resident fishes. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District recently contracted Dr. John Stockner to evaluate the current state of the reservoir. After completing this evaluation, Dr. Stockner developed a prescription for a 5-year nutrient enhancement experiment on Dworshak Reservoir (Stockner and Brandt 2005). The USACE will be purchasing the needed fertilizer and performing the nutrient applications. Our IDFG project staff will work cooperatively with both Dr. Stockner and the USACE to assess the effectiveness of nutrient additions for increasing reservoir productivity and enhancing the resident fishery.

Section 3: Is This Funding Request Related to Other Projects in the Basin?

Other projects that are related to this request
Project # Project Title/Description Nature of Relationship

Section 4: Estimated Budget for Planning & Design phase for this request (request amount only)

Work element-based estimated budget
Planning & Design
Objective Work Element Work Element Title Work Element Description Description of Metrics Task Duration
in FYs
Estimated Budget Subcontractor?

Outyear work element-based estimated 2009 - 2012 budget for this proposal
Planning & Design
Work Element Work Element Outyear Description Starting FY
numbers only
Ending FY
numbers only
Estimated cost

Outyear totals
Planning & Design

Section 5: Estimated Budget for Contruction/Implementation phase for this request (request amount only)

Work element-based estimated budget
Contruction/Implementation
Objective Work Element Work Element Title Work Element Description Description of Metrics Task Duration
in FYs
Estimated Budget Subcontractor?

Outyear work element-based estimated 2009 - 2012 budget for this proposal
Contruction/Implementation
Work Element Work Element Outyear Description Starting FY
numbers only
Ending FY
numbers only
Estimated cost

Outyear totals
Contruction/Implementation

Section 6: Estimated Budget for Operations & Maintenance phase for this request (request amount only)

Work element-based estimated budget
Operations & Maintenance
Objective Work Element Work Element Title Work Element Description Description of Metrics Task Duration
in FYs
Estimated Budget Subcontractor?

Outyear work element-based estimated 2009 - 2012 budget for this proposal
Operations & Maintenance
Work Element Work Element Outyear Description Starting FY
numbers only
Ending FY
numbers only
Estimated cost

Outyear totals
Operations & Maintenance

Section 7: Estimated Budget for Monitoring & Evaluation phase for this request (request amount only)

Work element-based estimated budget
Monitoring & Evaluation
Objective Work Element Work Element Title Work Element Description Description of Metrics Task Duration
in FYs
Estimated Budget Subcontractor?
Enhance resident fish Analyze/Interpret Data Analyze and interpret limnological data See section 2C above for full work element description. No metrics needed beyond the deliverables/reports specified by contract 1 $44,000 Yes

Outyear work element-based estimated 2009 - 2012 budget for this proposal
Monitoring & Evaluation
Work Element Work Element Outyear Description Starting FY
numbers only
Ending FY
numbers only
Estimated cost

Outyear totals
Monitoring & Evaluation

Section 8: Total Budget Modification Request

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2008 Cost
Supplies Limnological analyses contract $44,000

Total Estimated Budget Modification
Total FY 2008 budget modification $44,000
Total FY 2008 budget for this project, including modification request $204,000

Outyear Budget Totals
Not applicable

Cost sharing associated with this modification
Organization Item or Service Provided Amount ($) Cash or in-kind?
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Labor (USACE and contracted) and supplies/equipment to permit, prescribe, and apply nutrients $66,167 In-Kind
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Raw materials (fertilizer) $120,908 Cash

Section 9: Narrative, Maps and Project Documents
Document Type Size Date

Part 2 of 3. Current Status of Modification Request
Meeting Date Status Record Entry Date Decision Group Adjustment Category Urgency Status Budget Impact Reconsider Date
2/4/2009  1/28/2009  NA      Submitted  $44,000   
Decision Comments Next Steps
   
2/4/2009  2/4/2009  BOG  Budget  CAT-3b1: Adverse Biological Consequences to Project  Under BOG Review  $44,000  5/28/2009 
Decision Comments Next Steps
Semi-monthly sampling is not required by IDEQ.  Fish Four Review in April and a decision in May. 
2/4/2009  5/15/2009  BPA  Budget    BPA Approved  $44,000   
Decision Comments Next Steps
BPA approves with council concurrence to approve this request. $44,000 will be added to the FY09 project budget.   

Part 3 of 3. Comments on this Modification Request
There are no comments on this proposed modification.