Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2007-003-00 - Dworshak Dam Resident Fish Mitigation Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2007-003-00 - Dworshak Dam Resident Fish Mitigation
Project Number:
2007-003-00
Title:
Dworshak Dam Resident Fish Mitigation
Summary:
The goal of this project is to improve resident fisheries in Dworshak Reservoir as partial mitigation for losses from the construction of Dworshak Dam and continuing impacts from ongoing dam operations. Dworshak Dam was built in 1971 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This 218.8 m (718 ft) high dam irrevocably blocked the North Fork of the Clearwater River for access to hundreds of miles of tributaries for anadromous fish production and flooded 86.9 km (54 mi) of riverine habitat for resident fishes. The resident fisheries that were developed in the reservoir were intended to mitigate for some of these losses; however, they were only partial mitigation for the historic losses. Current fish mitigation is inadequate for the reservoir operations that continue to severely impact native and non-native resident fish in Dworshak Reservoir and the North Fork Clearwater ecosystem. In addition, the productivity of this ecosystem has been significantly reduced due to the loss of ‘marine derived nutrients’ from anadromous salmonids that no longer access the drainage.
Kokanee are the best-adapted species for this fluctuating reservoir since they occupy the pelagic zone and spawn in tributary streams. Kokanee densities have exceeded 100 adults per hectare, and angler harvest has exceeded 200,000 fish in some years. In addition, kokanee function similarly to historical anadromous fish runs by providing an important prey source for other resident fish, including threatened bull trout. They also contribute to the productivity of the reservoir and its tributaries.
Although kokanee may serve as a surrogate for anadromous fishes in the ecosystem, bull trout and other resident fish may still be limited by reductions in available forage, aquatic macroinvertebrate biomass and taxonomic richness, and reduced growth rates due to loss of anadromous fish production and the nutrients that large anadromous carcasses provided (Clearwater Subbasin Plan, section 8.3.1, pg. 342). A limited food supply, due to declining reservoir productivity and nutrient levels, has been suggested as a critical limiting factor to stable fish populations in Dworshak Reservoir.
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 and catch rates of at least 0.7 fish/hr, at an average length of at least 25 cm. This project addresses this objective through supplementing the reservoir with nutrients in an effort to increase the efficiency of the food web. This will result in more desirable phytoplankton community (i.e. edible taxa) and increased zooplankton abundance, which should, in turn, provide more forage for kokanee. While kokanee will be the primary species benefiting from this project, it will also benefit other resident fish throughout the entire ecosystem. An improved kokanee population provides forage for the reservoir’s bull trout and smallmouth bass. Also, having 300,000+ adult kokanee migrate up tributary streams and die each fall will add nutrients to these stream systems, thereby enhancing fluvial fish populations above the reservoir.
This project will be conducted jointly with the USACE. The USACE Walla Walla District recently contracted Dr. John Stockner to evaluate the current state of the reservoir and develop a prescription for a 5-year nutrient enhancement experiment. The USACE will be purchasing the needed fertilizer and equipment and performing the nutrient applications, while IDFG project staff will work cooperatively with both Dr. Stockner and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assess the effectiveness of nutrient additions to increase reservoir productivity and enhance kokanee size or abundance.
In order to assess the effects of the nutrient supplementation, IDFG will monitor reservoir limnology at eight limnological stations; seven throughout Dworshak Reservoir and a single station in the North Fork Clearwater River below Dworshak Dam (NFC). Nutrient treatments will occur in the main reservoir and the North Fork Clearwater Arm, therefore stations in these areas will represent the treatment area. Since the Elk Creek Arm and Little North Fork Arm will not receive any nutrient supplementation, EC-6 and LNF-3 will serve as controls. A detailed description of the monitoring efforts and study area can be found in the QAPP attached to this project in Pisces.














Figure 1. Map of Dworshak Reservoir, major tributaries, reservoir sections, and limnological sampling stations.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
2007
Ending FY:
2022
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Mountain Snake Clearwater 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Bass, Smallmouth
Crappie, White
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Kokanee
Pikeminnow, Northern
Trout, Bull
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 100.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2018 (Previous) $293,887 $293,887 $293,887 $293,887 $267,545

General $293,887 $293,887 $293,887 $267,545
FY2019 (Current) $0 $0 $0 $22,973

Fish Accord - Idaho $0 $0 $0 $22,973
FY2020 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Fish Accord - Idaho $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Oct-2018

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2018 - FY2020)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2018 Expense $293,887 From: General FY18 SOY Budgets 07/17/2017
FY2019 Expense $263,887 From: Fish Accord - Idaho Accord Extensions (State of Idaho) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2019 Expense $263,887 To: Fish Accord - Idaho Combine work/$ into 2019-005-00 (IDFG) 10/12/2018 10/12/2018
FY2020 Expense $263,887 From: Fish Accord - Idaho Accord Extensions (State of Idaho) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2020 Expense $263,887 To: Fish Accord - Idaho Combine work/$ into 2019-005-00 (IDFG) 10/12/2018 10/12/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2019
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2018 (Draft)
2017 $208,295 41 %
2016 $208,561 49 %
2015 $225,531 51 %
2014 $208,406 49 %
2013 $181,539 46 %
2012 $203,141 48 %
2011 $87,059 29 %
2010 $213,835 51 %
2009 $186,453 48 %
2008 $155,370 42 %
2007 $397,599 71 %

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
78655 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 2007-003-00 EXP DWORSHAK DAM RESIDENT FISH MITIGATION Issued $293,887 3/1/2018 - 2/28/2019



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):15
Completed:6
On time:6
Status Reports
Completed:46
On time:24
Avg Days Late:3

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
31598 36670, 41797, 46350, 51686, 56059, 60349, 63844, 68053, 71840, 75428, 78655 2007-003-00 DWORSHAK DAM RESIDENT FISH MITIGATION Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 03/2007 03/2007 Issued 46 104 14 0 18 136 86.76% 0
Project Totals 46 104 14 0 18 136 86.76% 0


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-003-00-NPCC-20130807
Project: 2007-003-00 - Dworshak Dam Resident Fish Mitigation
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal: RESCAT-2007-003-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 2/26/2014
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through FY2017. Deliverable 2 (enclosure experiments) to be implemented for two years only through FY2014. See Part 6 of the decision document for an explanation supporting deliverable 2 in light of the ISRP review.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-003-00-ISRP-20120215
Project: 2007-003-00 - Dworshak Dam Resident Fish Mitigation
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number: RESCAT-2007-003-00
Completed Date: 4/16/2012
Final Round ISRP Date: 4/3/2012
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part
Final Round ISRP Comment:

The proposal should have provided a better summary of the response of kokanee to the initial addition of nutrients to the lake and have more strongly anticipated the expected future response. The following comments are given as feedback so future analysis might be strengthened.

To understand how the kokanee population responds to nutrient addition, it would seem to be necessary to track each cohort (brood year) separately over its lifespan. Data should have been broken out into growth and abundance by age, and before and after maturation, as that gives a better indication of whether there is a strong year class and how well the fish are growing. Although the sponsors indicated that they would age fish and some objectives addressed specific numbers of fish of a given age, it would have been better if they had set a target density, that is number, of fish of a given growth rate or size.There are many problems with assessing kokanee populations because of their short life and semelparity. Density plays a large role in not only pre-maturation growth rate but maturation schedule, post-maturation-decision growth rate, total survival of fish to an age, and thus on year-class strength. The proposal would have benefited from a clearer description of exactly how the sponsors would monitor kokanee response to better clarify if abundance and growth are actually responses or just observations independent of the nutrient addition. The sponsors simply showed that kokanee biomass went up after the years of nutrient addition, without carefully documenting the exact age-specific response or causal links that may be potentially identifiable in their shorter term plankton responses.

The proposal does not indicate how many age-groups of kokanee are present in Dworshak Reservoir, but from papers by Rieman and others it appears to be three. Table 1 of the response gives data for a variety of age-groups and appears to suggest the age-2 fish might be the oldest the project dealt with. This point needs clarification.

Reviewers were expecting to see creel census data presented in the response, but the response indicates no creel surveys were done because of lack of funds. This is an important oversight, but the sponsors note that some creel census will be incorporated into future efforts.

The sponsors repeated that, “The benefits of N supplementation are cumulative, with benefits reaching higher trophic levels in successive years.” This statement is poorly documented. If many of the phytoplankton responses are rapid and zooplankton consume phytoplankton, then why is it assumed that it takes 4-5 years for a kokanee response? How good are the scientific data from Stockner and the work of others leading to this conclusion and why was it not referenced? Understanding the reality of this lag time seems crucial to their claimed observed kokanee response in the past and crucial to the proposed 5-year time frame in this proposal. Without that understanding, the observed year class of kokanee may have been due to more random and unknown year class events/variations that kokanee are well known to exhibit.

In the response, new information was given on kokanee size and numbers from fall seining of prespawning adults collected at index tributaries of the North Fork Clearwater River. These data, presented with minimal detail, appear to contradict previous conclusions based on trawl and acoustic surveys. Figure 4 shows that the number of adult kokanee gathering to spawn increased sharply in 2010, but that average length was the same as before nutrient addition. This is the opposite of what was observed in summer trawl/acoustic sampling when fish density remained about the same, but biomass increased after nutrient addition as compared to pre-nutrient addition. Also, having this "record number" of spawners indicates a high density of age-0 kokanee might be expected for 2011, which is not a desired outcome, and apparently did not occur.

The ISRP has concerns about the interpretation of Objective 3 and the part of Deliverable 3 that involves this seining of index spawning streams and measurement of spawner length, weight, and fecundity of female spawners. The inference here is that spawner carcasses will increase the productivity of these streams and thus benefit resident fishes. The sponsors make the valid point that nutrient addition to lakes has been shown in other studies to increase kokanee growth and biomass. The sponsors, however, plan to measure neither stream productivity nor the response of lower trophic levels and resident stream fishes. For these reasons, the ISRP does not believe that simply measuring spawner abundance in the index streams and inferring a positive response is scientifically warranted. Without basic measures of stream and lower trophic level biomass productivity, it will be difficult to demonstrate any relationship between the reservoir nutrient enrichment actions with increases in stream food web productivity. If the project moves in that direction, comparisons with adjacent reference streams that are not accessible by Dworshak kokanee spawners would seem an important evaluation element.

Qualification #1 - Qualification #1 - The enclosure experiments are not adequately justified.
In Part - The enclosure experiments are not adequately justified. The enclosure (mesocosm) experiments were questioned in the initial ISRP review. Reviewers then felt this work might be of scientific value if it was well justified and shown to be an integral part of the overall effort. The response, however, did not provide an adequate justification for this component of the project. There were no hypotheses and no clear indication of what the measured responses would be, and how those responses could be directly related to kokanee growth and year class strength. This essential information should have been provided in the proposal or response, not just by referencing a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study at Heppner, Oregon. The sponsor's response defended the intent of the mesocosm study, and one justification for the enclosure experiments is that it will help assuage public concerns. The sponsors also argue that the enclosure experiments will allow them to better regulate nutrient addition to the reservoir and provide a better understanding of the trophic dynamics of the system, although effects on kokanee growth will only be able to be inferred from these experiments. Another advantage of the enclosure experiments is that they could allow determination of the effects of nutrient additions under conditions of less environmental variability than in the reservoir, and could strengthen the inference, based on the response of lower trophic levels, that nutrient addition to the reservoir is having a positive effect on kokanee. The ISRP does not find those arguments to be sufficiently compelling to scientifically justify the resources that would be consumed by this task.
First Round ISRP Date: 2/8/2012
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:

A lawsuit stopped lake fertilization in 2011, the fourth year of a five-year test, which although a setback for the project was beneficial in terms of monitoring and evaluation. With a cessation of fertilizer input, the sponsors saw a rapid response with blue green algae returning to pre-nutrient enhancement levels. In a nitrogen-limited system, blue green algae can fix nitrogen, and thus outcompete other species that need nitrogen. However, with adequate nitrogen levels, other algal species and their zooplankters predominate over blue green algae, and support a plankton-based kokanee fishery. 

The proposed food web monitoring is critical to evaluating success or failure of the proposed project and addressing both scientific and political concerns. Nevertheless, the ISRP wonders if the monitoring could be reduced in scale and budget and still meet the political and scientific needs for the project? For example, the enclosure experiment could be deleted, as it seems unnecessary and expensive. 

The sponsors did food web work, which should be encouraged, but do not identify the criteria they are going to use for evaluating success nor do they commit to much detail on their fishery goals, in spite of some recent positive results. For example, what kokanee population response is needed to indicate success? The sponsors need a more rigorous presentation of their analysis methods and of existing data to date, including how annual variation in kokanee abundance can be sorted out from treatment response. 

The proposal needs to be more sharply focused on a testable hypothesis. The sponsors argue that fertilization must be repeated, for an additional five years, because four years of data are apparently inconclusive (yet almost no detail regarding results is given to review). A critical question is whether four years of study shows significant enhancement of kokanee. When the population biomass "doubled" at the end of four seasons, were the IDFG management goals for kokanee met? Is it not possible that four years of fertilization were indeed adequate to evaluate a fishery response?

Alternatively, would simply monitoring the kokanee population in summer 2012 answer the question? Further, what really is the question – what kokanee population response is needed to indicate success? The sponsors need to discuss their results (especially kokanee) in light of what has been found in other water bodies. Is the Dworshak work really pioneering?

A response is requested on the following issues: 

  1. Provide justification that the duration of the second phase of the study (five years) is long enough to yield conclusive results, given the inevitability of natural variation in kokanee abundance, catch, and spawner counts, and the likelihood that a response of kokanee to the treatment will only be observed in the last one or two years of the study. In their response the sponsors should consider providing a more comprehensive analysis of variability in kokanee abundance and spawner counts prior to the first treatment. In addition it would be helpful if the sponsors provided information on the response of lake biota following cessation of the first set of treatments in 2010.
  2. Provide data indicating that pre-treatment kokanee population abundance, angler catch, and fish size did not meet IDFG’s management objectives for the reservoir, and how the objectives were derived.
  3. Provide better justification for how the enclosure experiments will directly contribute to understanding kokanee response to nutrient additions in the reservoir. Granted these experiments will shed light on limnological responses over a range of nitrogen concentrations and perhaps assuage public concerns, but what else will they do? For example, will these experiments provide information on trends in lake chemistry, phytoplankton, and zooplankton that cannot be reliably obtained from reservoir samples? Will the experiments provide greater understanding of mechanisms underlying biotic responses to nutrient addition? Will the experiments provide information on kokanee response that is not already known from the fisheries literature? Finally, could the enclosure experiment be reduced in scope or eliminated without compromising the project’s biological goals? 

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The proposal identifies three stated objectives: to enhance reservoir productivity, to enhance the kokanee population and to improve nutrient cycling in the river upstream from the reservoir.

The proposed work is to determine if the addition of nitrogen fertilizer to Dworshak Reservoir will enhance the kokanee population and improve the reservoir and upstream fishery. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service established a goal of stocking 100,000 lbs of trout annually in Dworshak as mitigation for the loss of resident fisheries (Ecovista et al. 2003, pg 327). However, this goal has only been met three times in the history of the project (IDWR 2000) and recently stocking has been approximately 20,000 pounds annually. Fisheries for non-native kokanee and smallmouth bass have since supplanted trout as the primary fisheries in the reservoir. However, these fisheries continue to be severely limited by reservoir operations. There are no present efforts to mitigate for the loss of historically abundant anadromous fish and marine derived nutrients to the fish and wildlife populations of the North Fork Clearwater ecosystem.

The sponsors present some evidence that the productivity of Dworshak Reservoir has declined, possibly due to operation of the dam, natural aging of the lake, and loss of marine-derived nutrients due to extinction of the salmon run in the North Fork Clearwater River. A five-year pilot nutrient enrichment project was funded in 2007 by BPA. After four years of nutrient addition and data collection the project was suspended in 2010 due to a permitting issue. A positive response in kokanee abundance was seen only in the fourth or last year of the study prior to its cessation. The sponsors are proposing another five year study to more conclusively determine whether nutrient additions to the reservoir will improve kokanee abundance, angler catch, and number of spawners. 

The work is consistent with the Fish and Wildlife Program and the North Fork Clearwater Subbasin Plan where one goal is “assessing where nutrient additions or reductions would be beneficial to focal species.” 

The proposed work would be better justified if the sponsors provided data indicating that pre-treatment kokanee population abundance, angler catch, and fish size did not meet IDFG’s management objectives for the reservoir, and how the objectives were derived. The project introduction states that it "seeks to improve resident fisheries in Dworshak Reservoir through the careful addition of a nitrogen-based fertilizer to the reservoir. In particular, the kokanee population should benefit from improved reservoir productivity and provide a better fishery for anglers. Further, fish and wildlife species in the North Fork Clearwater Subbasin will benefit from nutrients that kokanee transport to spawning tributaries where marine derived nutrients were historically abundant." However, it appears to reviewers that a more accurate description of the current goal is, or should be, to assess if fertilization is sufficiently cost-effective to adopt as regular, annual management.

Objective 3, “Improve nutrient cycling to the North Fork Clearwater River and its tributaries,” is based on the supposition that decomposition of the carcasses of larger runs of kokanee will increase nutrient levels in spawning streams and so benefit stream biota such as bull trout. They also surmise that kokanee fry will provide a food source for bull trout. While possible, this assumption seems at this point to be largely conjecture because no direct evidence was presented that the spawning streams were nutrient limited or that bull trout growth and survival were food limited. Furthermore, the sponsors do not propose to measure nutrient concentrations in the tributaries or determine if any changes in stream biota, including bull trout growth and abundance, have occurred following nutrient addition to the reservoir. Without this information Objective 3 cannot be accomplished. Consequently, either the sponsors should provide an adequate plan to accomplish this objective or the objective should be deleted from the proposed work at this time. 

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (ISRP Review of Results)

In the spring of 2007, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began applying liquid fertilizer weekly to the reservoir while IDFG monitored the response of the reservoir and kokanee population. Results from the first four years of nutrient supplementation indicated an immediate increase in densities of picoplankton, followed by a reduction in N2 fixing cyanobacteria concurrent with an increase in the proportion of edible phytoplankton taxa, and an increase in the density and biomass of Daphnia, the preferred forage of kokanee (Scofield et al. 2011). By the fourth year of the project, kokanee were larger than they were in a pre-supplementation year with similar fish densities, and kokanee biomass was twice as high as it had been in recent years for which the sponsors were able to estimate biomass (Wilson et al. in prep). In addition, spawner counts in index streams were the highest on record (Wilson et al. in prep). How much confidence can be placed on the "biomass being twice as high" statistic? Is that likely to be a real, meaningful increase when considering the extent of normal interannual variability? 

A positive response by kokanee was seen only in the last, or fourth, year of the first set of treatments. The sponsors expect the lake to return to pre-treatment conditions following cessation of the first round of nutrient supplementation in 2010. If this occurs and a kokanee response is observed only in the fourth or fifth year of the second set of treatments, as it was in the first set, it could be difficult to determine, with only one or two years of data, whether the response was due to the treatment or to natural variability in lake chemistry, phytoplankton, zooplankton abundance, and kokanee abundance. Given this variability, there is no certainty that a clear, scientifically valid, kokanee response will be evident in a five-year time frame. It seems that a study of much longer duration would be needed to account for natural variability and to provide conclusive results.

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

The lack of detail given in the proposal on results to date, especially regarding kokanee, made the proposal more difficult to review adequately. The sponsors need to provide more results and discussion than a table and two figures. Data and discussion about creel results including fish size, and catch rates, would have been informative.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging)

The sponsors will work in collaboration with the USACE’s Dworshak Resident Fish Mitigation Project. The proposed work also is relevant to two BPA funded projects: the Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project (199404700) and IDFG’s nutrient restoration project on the Kootenai River that is part of the Kootenai River Resident Fish Mitigation Project (198806500). Relationships with USACE are described, with the USACE covering the cost of the fertilizer and its application, $181K annually, as before.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Most Deliverables are accomplishable and relate directly to the stated Objectives. Standard limnological methods will be used to collect data on lake chemistry, phytoplankton, and zooplankton. Data on the kokanee population will be collected using protocols developed by IDFG. These methods appear sound.

There are six deliverables, including badly-needed public outreach.

Deliverable 1: Monitor limnological conditions of the reservoir – Some monitoring is clearly appropriate but needs to be described in more detail and better justified. Monitoring accounts for nearly half of the annual budget for the proposal. 

The ISRP has commented in its retrospective reports and other reports on the importance of monitoring to evaluate responses to actions; however, the ISRP has also noted that monitoring needs to be targeted so it can answer the needed questions but not consume a disproportionate portion of the project’s budget. We wonder if a scaled down monitoring plan for the food web could adequately provide the project’s M&E needs and increase cost-effectiveness for the project. 

Deliverable 2 is the experimental enclosure experiments. Although interesting, the need for enclosure experiments (Deliverable 2) is uncertain. The central question this proposal addresses is whether the kokanee population will respond positively to nutrient additions and the enclosure experiments will shed little light on this question. Reviewers are not convinced of the need for this task, suggesting it is redundant with work done elsewhere.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/16/2012 11:01:02 PM.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (3/7/2012)
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-003-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2007-003-00 - Dworshak Dam Resident Fish Mitigation
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: The reduced budget addresses the biological objective regarding reservoir productivity, and the work element addressing the M&E effectiveness of the USACE?s Dworshak Reservoir nutrient enhancement project on increasing kokanee abundance, density, and growth.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-003-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2007-003-00 - Dworshak Dam Resident Fish Mitigation
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This is a clearly written proposal that presents a multi-pronged approach to improving the kokanee fishery in Dworshak Reservoir. In the response, the sponsors adequately explained their basis for concluding that underwater strobe lights will effectively reduce fish entrainment at Dworshak Dam.



Project objectives focus on increasing kokanee size and abundance, reducing entrainment through Dworshak Dam, and enhancing reservoir productivity. The Clearwater Subbasin Plan (Problem 5, objective 1 - strategy 2) specifies the installation of strobe lights and defines research to minimize fish entrainment through Dworshak Dam. The Subbasin Plan defines research to investigate the effects of loss or lack of nutrients due to federal hydropower-related loss of anadromous salmonids, and evaluate nutrient enhancement alternatives (section 4.3.1 Aquatics: I. General, Proposal 1). The project methods appear reasonable, and the experimental design is defensible.



The proposal describes links to other related projects including 1) the USACE Walla Walla District's Dworshak Reservoir Nutrient Enhancement Project; 2) the Confederated Colville Tribes' Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhancement Project (# 199501100) that is focused on assessing and reducing kokanee entrainment, monitoring kokanee abundance, and testing the effectiveness of underwater strobe lights at reducing fish entrainment; and 3) the Idaho Fish and Game studies of bull trout in the North Fork Clearwater, which is determining bull trout temporal and spatial distributions within Dworshak Reservoir.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2007-003-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2007-003-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: FCRPS mitigation; strobes.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-003-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2007-003-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: This project Merged To 2019-005-00 effective on 10/9/2018
Relationship Description: Combining projects 2007-003-00 Dworshak Dam Resident Fish Mitigation and 1994-047-00 Lake Pend Oreille Kokanee Mitigation both with IDFG.


Name Role Organization
Eric Stark Technical Contact Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Brenda Aguirre Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Sean Wilson Project Lead Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Andrew Dux Supervisor Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Jennifer Lord Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration