FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200308400

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:

This is a thorough, basic research proposal that generally meets the ISRP review criteria, although there are several technical questions that need elaboration in a response (see below). The topic is of regional interest, and the proposal shows how it is included in the FWP, Action Agencies' Implementation Plan, Mainstem Solicitation, and the Sturgeon Program Summary. The background section gives up-to-date details of prior work on the subject, including data. The objectives and tasks are fairly clear, and the planned methods (including sample sizes) are laid out in detail. There is a qualified staff, and they have demonstrated their capability to do the work with prior studies funded elsewhere. The study is highly contaminant oriented, and food and feeding are given attention mainly through analysis of stomach contents. There might have been a more ecological flavor.

There are two general difficulties with this sort of work. First, knowing with some certainty that changes in physiological and biochemical indicators will translate into biologically meaningful reductions in growth and reproduction and second, knowing with some certainty that the changes in physiological and biochemical indices that are observed are a direct consequence of exposure to contaminants and not a result of some other environmental factors (e.g., changes in flow regime, temperature) or a density-related phenomenon. The sponsors need a better justification of the ecological consequences of the research if it is to be useful to managers. The proposal also lacks clear, mechanistic hypotheses and methods for data analysis that are specific to testing these hypotheses. Several elements of the proposal need to be expanded. For example, objective 1, Task 1a purports to determine if food consumed by sturgeon are meeting their nutritional needs. Stomach contents and caloric value of the stomach contents will be assessed. Exactly how will the information gained from stomach contents and caloric value be used to determine if the nutritional needs are being met? How will nutritional status be assessed? How will the "relationship between stomach contents, caloric content, and nutritional status" (page 13) be assessed and what will it mean?

Objective 2 purports to measure contaminant levels in sediments, stomach contents, and fish tissues and to use this information to assess the association between nutritional status and contaminant concentration, and to use sediment and water chemistry to evaluate locational differences and associations with tissue chemistry. How will this be done? What type of analysis will be employed? Task 2b asserts that biological endpoints (e.g., CF, GSI) indicative of adverse effects will be measured. A better justification of the validity of these endpoints as indicators of adverse effects is needed. For example, what is an "adverse effect" and how much does an endpoint such as CF or GSI need to be reduced before an adverse effect occurs? How will the information gathered in this research be used to assess adverse effects on maturing sturgeon? Overall, most of the methods lack sufficient conceptual detail to convince a reviewer that the research will accomplish what it proposes. It is unclear how much new knowledge relevant to restoration and protection of sturgeon will be generated by this research beyond what is already known from past studies. These difficulties need to be addressed in a response.

This project was not selected by the Action Agency/NMFS RME Work Group for additional review.

Comment:

Comment:

This thorough proposal generally meets the ISRP review criteria, although there were several technical questions that needed elaboration. The response elaborated, but did little to clarify the ISRP's questions. The ISRP requested a better justification of the ecological consequences of the research if it is to be useful to managers.

The topic is of regional interest, and the proposal shows how it is included in the FWP, Action Agencies' Implementation Plan, Mainstem Solicitation, and the Sturgeon Program Summary. The background section gives up-to-date details of prior work on the subject, including data. The objectives and tasks are fairly clear, and the planned methods (including sample sizes) are laid out in detail. There is a qualified staff, and they have demonstrated their capability to do the work with prior studies funded elsewhere. The study is highly contaminant oriented, and food and feeding are given attention mainly through analysis of stomach contents. There might have been a more ecological flavor.

There are two general difficulties with this sort of work. First, knowing with some certainty that changes in physiological and biochemical indicators will translate into biologically meaningful reductions in growth and reproduction and second, knowing with some certainty that the changes in physiological and biochemical indices that are observed are a direct consequence of exposure to contaminants and not a result of some other environmental factors (e.g., changes in flow regime, temperature) or a density-related phenomenon. The response did little to assuage our concerns on these points.

Overall, most of the methods lack sufficient conceptual detail to convince a reviewer that the research will accomplish what it proposes. It is unclear how much new knowledge relevant to restoration and protection of sturgeon will be generated by this research beyond what is already known from past studies.

Comment:

Comments
Not Reviewed

Already ESA Required?

Biop?
No

Comment:

Comments: