RFP 25-2904 questions and answers.pdf

Michigan DNR response to bidder questions for the Channel Island post-construction evaluation study RFP.

• Has the control site been selected? No. To a large extent, this work is intended to follow the same procedures used in the Coreyon Reef post-construction evaluation (Chapter 1 of Koenigbauer 2024. See:

https://hammer.purdue.edu/articles/thesis/Aspects_of_reproductive_diversity_in_Great_La kes_fishes/27960441/1/files/51032609.pdf ). That study made use of two control sites, one 150 m from the new reef, and one 1km from the new reef. It was decided that the 150m control site was possibly too close to provide the desired contrast and that most of the comparisons were made to the 1km distant control site. The exact location for this study is left up to the study team in consultation with the MDNR. It could be any site about 1km distant that is devoid of rock (sand or soft sediment) but about the same depth as the reef.

If not, what are the criteria for control site selection? Are the control reef and the eDNA control site expected to be the same? Yes, that is our presumption.

• Can you provide a reference document (e.g., construction document) that specifies the area and/or dimensions of the constructed Channel Island Reef and Coreyon Reef? Yes, see the attached pdf file entitle “Saginaw Bay Channel Island Near Shore Reef Restoration.pdf”.

That document describes the expected reef orientation, shape, and area. In that document, the reef area is depicted as 1 hectare (2.5 acres), but recent cost limitations is leading to a likely reef area at about 0.81 ha (2 acres). The reef will be constructed from limestone cobble.

• Are there standard operating protocols (SOPs) specifying field methods, field equipment specifications, sample counts, egg mat and egg incubation set durations, video monitoring, etc. or is the contractor expected to develop a work plan and prescribe these? If there are SOPs, please provide a link or the documents. The work is expected to largely emulate the pre-construction evaluation conducted by another vendor. That work in turn was designed based on the post-construction evaluation of Coreyon Reef (Koenigbauer 2024). We recommend referencing that document for those methods. That study, however, did not include the eDNA component, but that element was described in the bid document.

• What are the state’s criteria in regards to deploying fertilized eggs (e.g., permits, wild vs hatchery eggs)? Is there a specific source (hatchery sources, locally sourced, contractor provided)? Walleye eggs can be provided by the MDNR at the request of the vendor. Eyed eggs would likely be supplied from the state’s Wolf Lake State Fish Hatchery in Mattawan, MI. It would be the responsibility of the vendor to take receipt of the eyed eggs at the hatchery, and transport them to the reef location. We are open to alternatives if the vendor elected to collect, fertilize and eye-up their own eggs, but those should be sourced from brood collected from somewhere within Saginaw Bay or its watershed. The vendor would need to secure a scientific collectors permit from the state (visit:

https://hammer.purdue.edu/articles/thesis/Aspects_of_reproductive_diversity_in_Great_Lakes_fishes/27960441/1/files/51032609.pdf https://hammer.purdue.edu/articles/thesis/Aspects_of_reproductive_diversity_in_Great_Lakes_fishes/27960441/1/files/51032609.pdf https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/managing-resources/fisheries/cultural-scientific-collectors-permit-fisheries ). The MDNR can provide a letter of authorization for the possession and deployment of fertilized walleye eggs.

• There is some overlap of water quality monitoring (including DO) with the data logger collection. What is the frequency and duration of the oxygen data-loggers data collection? Expected are one DO profile on the reef(s) and control site for each field visit.

The DO data loggers are longer term archival loggers for deployment and monitoring during the incubation periods for both Walleye and Lake Whitefish which means from about November through May. One successful logger is sufficient each for each study reef and control site but multiple loggers might be necessary to ensure successful data acquisition and instrument recovery. We recommend miniDOT DO logger equipped with wiper available from PME inc ( https://www.pme.com/products/minidot ). Loggers will require significant anchorage to guard against loss overwinter.

Underwater video is requested to monitor the sites. Is there an expectation of side-scan sonar efforts to map the reef, or is that beyond the scope of this RFP? Underwater video could be in the form of a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) or a towed camera like an U/W GoPro. The intent is to provide some visual reference for the condition of the reef and control substrate over the duration of the study. Likely one such assessment at the outset, study midpoint, and conclusion would suffice. Video surveys might by a transect the length of the reef or site or several randomly selected points. Visibility is often poor in Saginaw Bay and spring surveys after ice out might offer the best conditions. Videos should be recorded and archived. The vendor constructing the reef is responsible for making maps and sonar surveys of the finished product.

However, a side-scan sonar of the study sites (reefs &/or control) are a welcome and logical addition to the assessment but are not required.

• Is there an expected duration for the video monitoring of fish activity on the reef? It is not intended that video monitoring would be used to document fish usage. The intent is to have a visual representation of the condition of the reef for such as colonization by mussels, periphyton, algae or plants. Or for the degree of any sediment accumulation. Likely one such assessment at the outset, study midpoint, and conclusion would suffice. Video surveys might by a transect the length of the reef or site or several randomly selected points. Visibility is often poor in Saginaw Bay and spring surveys after ice out might offer the best conditions. Videos should be recorded and archived. There is no specified duration of the video(s).

• Are the predation gillnetting efforts the same as the spawner gillnetting effort or are these separate events? The expectation is that the gillnetting will largely emulate the methods of Koenigbauer (2024). For assessing the presence and relative abundance of spawners, netting was done with large-mesh overnight benthic gillnets (50 m length, 1.5 m height, mesh sizes = 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 cm, bar measure). Sampling in that study was a total of six net sets per weekly sampling event (two on the granite portion of the reef, two on the limestone portion of the reef, and two at the 1 km control site). The Channel Island Reef will only be constructed with one rock type (limestone) so the stone comparison https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/managing-resources/fisheries/cultural-scientific-collectors-permit-fisheries https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/managing-resources/fisheries/cultural-scientific-collectors-permit-fisheries https://www.pme.com/products/minidot component of the Coreyon Reef study will not take place on Channel Island. As such, just two net sets per week on the reef should suffice.

Regarding the gillnetting for potential egg predators; it was discovered that larger fish could also be egg predators and larger egg predator species were assessed with the same overnight 50 m x

1.5 m experimental gill nets used to capture spawning individuals (as described above). For smaller species, net sets were limited to a two-hour daytime set using 40 x 1.5 m micro-mesh benthic gill nets with four mesh sizes, each in a single 10 m panel (6.25 mm, 8.0 mm, 10.0 mm, and 12.5 mm, bar measure). Two such sets were made each week during the spawning and egg incubation period on the reef and control site (two sets each). The egg predator micromesh gillnet sets and large mesh gillnet sets could take place on the same days but would need separate nets as the spawner collections are envisioned to be overnight sets and the micromesh egg predator sets are short duration.

The intent of the gillnetting is to span the duration of the spawning and egg incubation period and the two net sets per week are ideally on different days over the work week. We recognize, however, that sampling windows may be short each week due to weather and it may be necessary to set all nets on the same day some weeks.