FY 2000 proposal 20157

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:

Comment:

Comment:

Primary concerns. A. Regardless of whether a legal requirement for monitoring may exist, this proposal does not adequately convince the reviewers that a problem exists. Can the level of gas be correlated with the incidence of gas bubble trauma after four years? If not, how much longer will it be necessary to study the problem? A progress report consists of providing a range of percentages of resident fish showing gas bubble trauma. The range is .2% to 1.02% over a five-year period. Would it be reasonable for the investigators, at some point in time, to propose that such monitoring be discontinued, on the basis of the results over a sufficiently long period that show no adverse effects of 120% dissolved gas? Or perhaps the sampling frequency could be reduced?

B. The method that will be used to determine the degree of dissolved gas bubble trauma in fish sampled is not adequately described. Reviewers understand that there is (more or less) a standard method that is usually employed, and that the proposal indicates that fish will be examined for exopthalmia and macroscopic bubbles in fins and on body surfaces. However, is there a rating factor that is used, depending upon the relative severity of the trauma expected from what is observed, or is the criterion simply yes or no, present or absent.

In addition, it is not clear that gas bubble trauma will be monitored during periods of no flow augmentation. Do dissolved gas levels exceed 110% at times other than flow augmentation? Graphs of dissolved gas levels for a high water year and a low water year at different points downstream would be helpful to understand the extent of the problem. Periods of flow augmentation could be indicated.

C. There is no indication that the data are stored in a database or are otherwise available electronically.

The sponsors need to develop testable hypotheses and plans for making results available to the scientific community.

Other questions and comments which should be addressed. 1. Accomplishments should be stated in terms of information gained about gas bubble trauma and dissolved gas levels, not number of fish evaluated. 2. Is there evidence or references to the literature to support that exceeding the dissolved gas level standard of 110% causes problems to resident aquatic life? 3. What is the effect of high gas levels on invertebrates and other species besides fish? The food chain for fish? Are fish the most sensitive indicator of problems? 4. Using the binomial distribution, the upper limit of a 95% confidence interval is about 5% if the incidence of gas bubble trauma is 1% and n = 100 fish are examined. What is the precision of estimates realized in past studies? What is the precision for incidence of gas bubble trauma in species other than trout? What level of precision is necessary to satisfy the DEQ requirement that there be monitoring?

Comment:

Issue: The ISRP recommended funding for two projects. A third, proposed by IDFG, was not submitted in time for ISRP review, which has also been the case in previous years. The issue for the Council was whether it would accept the recommendations of the ISRP on the two projects the ISRP recommended without further inquiry, or whether the Council would also require those proposals to be consistent with the gas research plan requested in Fiscal Year 1998 and provided by CBFWA later that year. In addition the Council decided that the project not reviewed by the ISRP should be subjected to independent review prior to making a funding recommendation.

Past Council Treatment: In reviewing projects totaling $2.5 million in FY 98, the ISRP questioned the level of attention and expenditure that was being made on evaluating the effects of dissolved gas when "the physical causes and engineering solutions are known and the general biological detriment of high gas supersaturation were well proven." In response, the Council recommended that funding for these projects be held in reserve pending the development of a coordinated research plan by the Dissolved Gas Team, associated funding recommendations, and review by the ISAB of the Corps' gas program. Ultimately it was agreed that the research plan would be developed through CBFWA. (The plan was developed and released in December 1998).

In Fiscal Year 1999 the Council deferred a funding recommendation on two proposed gas projects, but recommended that Bonneville hold reserve funds sufficient for the two proposed projects. The deferral was made to permit time for CBFWA to review the ISAB report on the Corps' gas program, and develop a research plan in consideration of that review and the Gas Team's proposed research plan. Again, that plan was released in December 1998.

Council Recommendation: 1) Project 9602100 has been substantially reduced from previous years. It is primarily external examination of juvenile migrants for external signs of gas bubble disease. The project is linked to the smolt-monitoring program. This type of juvenile monitoring is required by Oregon and Washington water quality agencies as a condition to granting permits to dam operators to spill water for fish passage that results in exceedances of water quality standards for dissolved gas. The CBFWA research plan states that "biological monitoring [of gas bubble disease] will continue as long as it is a necessary element of the dissolved gas waivers." The Council recommends that this project be funded for one year, and reviewed in conjunction with the smolt monitoring program and other programmatic monitoring and evaluation programs.

2) Project 20143, though possessing a new project number, is the continuation of an ongoing gas project. It is primarily monitoring adult salmonids for signs of gas bubble disease. As of April 1999, neither the state of Washington nor Oregon requires adult monitoring as a condition of granting gas waivers for spill. Letters were received from both Oregon and Washington state water quality agencies, and neither stated that they would require this monitoring as a condition of granting waivers for exceeding standards for gas. The Council did receive and consider letters from CBFWA and EPA supporting the project. The Council has considered comments and presentations provided by the sponsor over the preceding months. The Council staff recommendation has been to not fund this project, principally because the monitoring does not appear to be required for the waivers, and that recommendation remains in place.

The Council is not inclined to recommend that this project be funded because it is no longer required by the state water quality agencies to secure gas waivers, which is the primary link the CBFWA gas plan requires of biological monitoring. Moreover, the data gathered from is a total dissolved gas (TDG) level of approximately 120% that can be viewed as a management trigger. While additional adult monitoring may continue to yield quality data, the sponsors did not indicate how additional data would possibly lead to a different management standard for TDG given the current spill program. The Council has asked the sponsor to provide any information that it may receive that the current spill program would be significantly altered in 2000 calling the continued adequacy of the 120% management trigger into question, and stated that it would revisit its decision in light of any such information. The Council has not received information from NMFS, the Corps, or the sponsor to date indicating substantial changes to the spill program.

The sponsor submitted information in a letter dated January 10, 1999 that identified three proposed studies that may occur in the 2000 migration year that may lead to differences in spill and gas conditions from those extant in recent years. There has been no official notification from NMFS or the Corps that the 2000 spill program per se will be significantly altered this year in a manner that substantially changes migration conditions. The Council understands that one of the studies (Bjornn) referenced in the January 10 letter includes the monitoring of a large number of adult salmonids for GBT. In addition, notwithstanding the fact that the three studies referenced by the sponsor that may occur in 2000, there is no indication that TDG levels will be permitted to exceed the levels approved in the waivers in recent years. The Council is concerned that additional funding for this type of adult monitoring, at this time, will not provide data with significant management relevance. Moreover, it appears that substantial monitoring of adult salmonids for gas bubble trauma (GBT) is already occurring in Corps funded research. Given the negligible incidence of GBT detected in adults in the several years of this and other monitoring efforts, the Council is reluctant to recommend additional direct program funding to this monitoring type of activity at this time. Nonetheless, the Council defers a final recommendation on this project at this time in order to determine if the water quality waiver permitting requirements discussed above will change from what is anticipated, and to allow the sponsor additional time to determine if the spill program for 2000 will be substantially modified.

3) Project 20157 also carries a new number, but the project has existed since 1995. The project was not reviewed by the ISRP due to its untimely submission. The project monitors biological symptoms of gas bubble disease as a condition for a waiver from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for spill at Dworshak dam. This project is scheduled to undergo a five-year evaluation by Idaho DEQ, IDFG, and NMFS, with a report expected in October of this year. The Council had the proposal submitted for ISRP review, and was awaiting the evaluation when the project sponsor withdrew the proposal for Fiscal Year 2000. The proposal should not be funded in Fiscal Year 2000.

Comment: