Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Assess the Current Status and Biotic Integrity of the Resident Fish Assemblage in Bonneville Reservoir |
| Proposal ID | 21011 |
| Organization | U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Western Fisheries Research Center Columbia River Research Laboratory (USGS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | James H. Petersen, Timothy D. Counihan |
| Mailing address | 5501A Cook-Underwood Road Cook, Washington 98605 |
| Phone / email | 5095382299 / [email protected]; [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | James G. Seelye |
| Review cycle | Columbia Gorge |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Gorge / Bonneville Reservoir |
| Short description | Resident fish in Bonneville Reservoir will be sampled to provide baseline information on the population characteristics and status of resident fish species and the biotic integrity of the resident fish assemblage. |
| Target species | ALL RESIDENT FISH SPECIES IN BONNEVILLE RESERVOIR |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 45.69 |
-121.86 |
Bonneville Reservoir |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Develop standardized protocols and a statistically valid sampling design |
a. Assess the efficacy of various sampling gears to characterize resident fish populations. |
(2001) |
$57,140 |
|
|
b. Develop sampling protocols for collecting and recording survey data. |
(2001) |
$12,314 |
|
|
c. Develop procedures for implementing a stratified random sampling design to be used in the surveys. |
(2001) |
$12,314 |
|
| 2. Implement and evaluate the protocols and sampling design |
|
(2001-2004) |
$171,424 |
|
| 3. Analyze resident fish survey data and report relative abundance and population characteristics of resident fish species in Bonneville Reservoir |
|
(2001-2005) |
$49,254 |
|
| 4. Formulate reference conditions for the resident fish assemblage in Bonneville Reservoir, identify candidate Index of Biotic Integrity metrics, examine the statistical properties and sensitivity of the individual IBI metrics and composite IBI scores. |
|
(2001-2005) |
$49,254 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $368,000 | $380,000 | $392,000 | $275,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 5 |
$181,023 |
| Fringe |
(USGS, ODFW, WDFW) |
$39,166 |
| Supplies |
(Field supplies and sampling gear) |
$20,965 |
| Travel |
(Vehicle and boat operation) |
$18,220 |
| Indirect |
(USGS, ODFW, WDFW) |
$92,326 |
| $351,700 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $351,700 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $351,700 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| USGS |
GIS computer support, field equipment. |
$10,000 |
in-kind |
| ODFW |
Personnel, field equipment, computer support. |
$2,000 |
in-kind |
| WDFW |
Personnel, field equipment, computer support. |
$2,000 |
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:
Oct 6, 2000
Comment:
Do not fund. A response is not warranted. The proposal is generally well written and addresses some concerns (i.e., reference to data sources for other large river/reservoir settings) identified by last years review (project 20066). Other sampling concerns (i.e., possible utilization of more quantifiable sampling techniques) were not addressed. In the reviewers minds, the proposal continued to contain only vague allusions to a general need for more data, without indicating why it is priority work or identifying substantive problems that need to be solved. The major task proposed - assessing efficacy of various sampling gear - could have been done in preliminary fashion as part of proposal preparation, allowing the proposers to focus on critical questions as significant objectives. The database the project could generate would be very useful if a major change in the hydrosystem or its operation was being planned, as baseline data from which to assess changes. Alternatively (or additionally) there is a need for biological investigation of the reservoir to help understand its carrying capacity for salmonids and to assess whether that capacity is currently exceeded. As written, the proposal was not pointed in that direction.
Reviewers are concerned that the biologic integrity portion of the proposal likely will not provide a product that will be of substantial use in the context of the Fish and Wildlife Program. IBI was developed for detecting disruptions in stable communities, but was not developed for use in highly perturbed systems. The most likely result of the analysis would be to describe the system as high variable and highly perturbed - which we already know. Collaboration with others is not identified. Specifically, the project is not tied to northern pike minnow work.
Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
Nov 15, 2000
Comment:
The Managers have some concern that this project is only looking at one measure of biotic integrity (resident fish) within the reservoir. This is good basic research but the contribution to management decisions is unclear.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Dec 1, 2000
Comment:
Do not fund. The unsolicited response falls short of what would be required to reverse our decision. It fails to address the material issues. We regret that the ISRP comments on this proposal in previous cycles were not as clear and helpful to the sponsors as they ought to have been. We provide the following comments on certain points to clarify our current analysis of this proposal. This is not to imply that point-by-point addressing of these issues in a subsequent proposal would necessarily lead to reversal of our recommendation.
The stated goal of the proposed study is to "assess the status of resident fish species and the biotic integrity of the resident fish assemblage in Bonneville Reservoir", which is a stated information need in the Subbasin Summary. The application intended for this information is to"...produce data that will establish a baseline from which the effects of hydroelectric operations and watershed activities that influence mainstem river conditions on the resident fish assemblage in Bonneville Reservoir can be evaluated." At the heart of the ISRP comments on this proposal is our doubt that it would be possible to relate shifts in the species composition of the resident fish assemblage to changes in operation of the hydroelectric system or watershed activities in the river basin. One of the reasons for skepticism is that there have been so many human-induced changes in the fish assemblage, brought about, for one thing, by introduction of non-native species. How would a "shift toward normative conditions" in the fish assemblage be identified in light of the drastic changes induced by the presence of non-native species? How would one define "biotic integrity" within a system altered by introduced species? The proposal fails to discuss basic issues of that kind, and instead focuses on sampling protocols and routines for developing data. The proposal does not convince the reviewers that it can develop information useful for measuring changes that might be due to the factors of interest. Prior to moving to data collection and routines it would be necessary to give thought to what the possible outcomes of the study might be and what interpretations might be possible. Such a thought process would necessitate review and interpretation of data obtained in the past. Availability of data might lead to selection of parts of the river other than Bonneville Reservoir as appropriate study areas. On the other hand, while the goal of attaining some level of "biotic integrity" might be a worthy one, it might prove to be impossible to agree on an appropriate measure.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 16, 2001
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Sep 11, 2001
Comment: