FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28041

Additional documents

TitleType
28041 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleDworshak Zooplankton Entrainment
Proposal ID28041
OrganizationNez Perce Tribe (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameDavid P. Statler
Mailing address3404 Highway 12 Orofino, ID 83544
Phone / email2084767417 / daves@nezperce.orgt
Manager authorizing this projectJaime Pinkham
Review cycleMountain Snake
Province / SubbasinMountain Snake / Clearwater
Short descriptionApply 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 speciesbull trout, kokanee
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
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 agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated 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
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
$0
$0
$0
$0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated 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 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$252,000$259,560$267,347

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required
Date:
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.
Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
Nov 30, 2001

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.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Dec 21, 2001

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.
Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU

Comments

Already ESA Req?

Biop?


Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU

Comments

Already ESA Req?

Biop?


Recommendation:
D
Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
--


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment: