FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 31004

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

Reason for change in estimated budget

n/a

Reason for change in scope

n/a

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Total budget request to be split as: USFS - $ 294,565 ODFW - $100,177 PNW - $115,116

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

1. What is the unique contribution of this project compared to the other projects on carcass placement and nutrient enrichment? Such as those in Canada, Washington, and those funded through the Fish and Wildlife Program's innovative review process. Go to www.nwcouncil.org/innovative and see projects 200105500, 200101300. Is there some attribute of this project, some synergy, that makes it very fundable? The "innovative" projects are pilot studies to test the efficacy of nutrient supplementation before proceeding with other studies and implementation.
2. What is the direct evidence suggesting that nutrient deficiencies in these streams are a major limitation for salmon production?
3. The sponsors propose to compare smolt production before and after carcass addition. Pre-treatment evaluations occurred over 1-5 year period, depending on the watershed. Given inter-annual variability in smolt production that could arise from variation in stream conditions and adult returns, is the pretreatment evaluation of sufficient duration to provide meaningful comparison with post-treatment smolt production?
4. Although the "control" and "treatment" watersheds were randomly selected, they are few in number (five treatments and three controls). How do the watersheds compare with respect to physical parameters such as watershed size, stream size, gradient (long profile), hydrograph, land use patterns, and especially nutrient loads, and biological parameters such as adult returns, juvenile growth and survival, rearing areas, and smolt size and production?
5. How far from estimated carrying capacity are the current populations of anadromous fish?
6. How will carcasses be dispersed throughout the watersheds? Will they be dispersed evenly, systematically or clumped in particular locations? How long are the treatment reaches?
7. The sponsors wish to achieve a saturation level of N15 enrichment. What is the evidence that these streams were saturated historically?
8. The sampling design needs to be described in more detail. Where will the biological samples be taken within each watershed? How many sampling locations in each watershed? How many samples will be taken at each location?
9. What will be the impact of nutrient addition on fish species other than salmon such as cutthroat trout? Are there exotic species in these watersheds that could benefit from nutrient addition?
10. How will the data be analyzed?

Comment:

Comment:

Concerning the other questions in the response, these answers were also of variable quality. By question,

2. What is the direct evidence suggesting that nutrient deficiencies in these streams are a major limitation for salmon production? The response provided indirect evidence only, nothing direct.

3. The sponsors propose to compare smolt production before and after carcass addition. Pre-treatment evaluations occurred over 1-5 year period, depending on the watershed. Given inter-annual variability in smolt production that could arise from variation in stream conditions and adult returns, is the pretreatment evaluation of sufficient duration to provide meaningful comparison with post-treatment smolt production? Concerning the experimental design, we concur with the response that the real value is the controls.

4. Although the "control" and "treatment" watersheds were randomly selected, they are few in number (five treatments and three controls). How do the watersheds compare with respect to physical parameters such as watershed size, stream size, gradient (long profile), hydrograph, land use patterns, and especially nutrient loads, and biological parameters such as adult returns, juvenile growth and survival, rearing areas, and smolt size and production? In the response, the watershed comparisons seem reasonable but the comparison is limited by a lack of detail on habitats in the systems, and there were some differences between streams in Tables 1 & 2.

5. How far from estimated carrying capacity are the current populations of anadromous fish? The response concerning carrying capacity is adequate since we recognize that these assessments are incomplete.

6. How will carcasses be dispersed throughout the watersheds? Will they be dispersed evenly, systematically or clumped in particular locations? How long are the treatment reaches? The response describes a fixed loading rate limited by ODFW and DEQ, this does assume that you trust this loading rate as being appropriate.

7. The sponsors wish to achieve a saturation level of N15 enrichment. What is the evidence that these streams were saturated historically? The response that saturation was based on past work (Bilby et al. 2001) is acceptable, but the assumption based on historical population sizes is dubious.

8. The sampling design needs to be described in more detail. Where will the biological samples be taken within each watershed? How many sampling locations in each watershed? How many samples will be taken at each location? The response's description of sampling methods is adequate.

9. What will be the impact of nutrient addition on fish species other than salmon such as cutthroat trout? Are there exotic species in these watersheds that could benefit from nutrient addition? The response's description of assessment of impacts on other fishes is very limited and inadequate.

10. How will the data be analyzed? The response on analytical methods is likely adequate.

Overall, the response is adequate and we note that the authors' were careful to address each ISRP question. They have proposed an ambitious project with a reasonable design to really test nutrient additions at an ecosystem scale, but the question seems to be whether we are likely to really learn more by this approach than we have through past nutrient studies. This project is quite expensive and funding in this Province is likely to be limited. Consequently, while we find the project technically sound, we recommend a Fundable rating but at a lower priority.

Comment:

Comments
Large scale study of potential increase in productivity and fish survival as a result of nutrient addition. Could provide needed information if done credibly. Carcass additions are the latest fad but still largely experimental so this project could assess merit of more widespread use. Need to ensure adequate control. Ties to smolt production need to be clear with nutrient pathways identified.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No

Comment:

Comment: