FY 2003 Columbia Estuary proposal 199801400

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:

"Annual spring freshet flows through the Columbia River estuary are ~50% of the traditional levels that flushed the estuary and total sediment discharge is ~1/3 of the 19th Century levels. Decreased spring flows and sediment discharges have also reduced the extent, speed of movement, thickness, and turbidity of the plume that once extended far out and south into the Pacific Ocean during the spring and summer."

The proposal also provided a brief summary of results to date, and noted how this proposal builds on these results. In this initial review, we limit our comments to the proposed objectives, tasks, and methods (Section 9f).

The ISRP continues to be strongly supportive of research in this important habitat but also note that the investigators have extended their original objectives to include prediction of estuarine and marine survival of salmon.

"Our ultimate goal is to predict estuarine and marine survival using a combination of empirical indices and computer simulation models." (page 13, Section 9f)

The stated objectives of this large proposal are now to (Section 9f):

1. "Through long-term observations, describe interannual variations in the distribution, abundance, and performance (health and growth) of juvenile salmon in relation to temporal and spatial characteristics of physical and biological features associated with the Columbia River plume and the surrounding ocean.
2. Conduct fine-scale process studies to identify and characterize the benefit of unique features of the Columbia River plume to juvenile salmon.
3. Describe, through observations, historical reconstruction, and numerical physical modeling, the temporal and spatial physical features of the Columbia River plume in relation to ocean conditions.
4. Examine the relationship between ocean and plume conditions, river flow, and juvenile salmon production using biological models to identify critical relationships between food resources, predator-prey interactions, salmon growth and survival.
5. Develop and analyze scenarios that describe changes in salmon survival as a function of Columbia River plume characteristics that may result from altered river flows due to climate and human-induced modifications, and/or from changing oceanic conditions. We will use physical and biophysical models of the plume to relate future FCRPS operations and ocean/climate conditions to salmon survival."

Requests for clarification by Objective and Task:

Objective 1. (page 14) What is the value of the additional February cruise? Any inference concerning Columbia River salmon would again involve inferences about the residence of Columbia River salmon through the preceding months. We are uncertain that this assumption merits the investment in an additional cruise unless more justification or other objectives can be provided.

Task 1.b. (page 15) As in our last review of this program, we certainly support the predation aspect of this study and are uncertain about how predator population sizes will be estimated. No results of past predation sampling was included in this proposal, what progress has been made and have population sizes been estimated? How transient are these predators and variable is their population size?

Task 1.c. (page 16) The objective of this added task is justified but the methods not adequately described. There is no description of salmon sampling efforts and reference to only "occasionally" sampling zooplankton. How will this information be incorporated into other sampling designs if there is not a specific sampling effort in support of this objective?

Task 1.d. (page 16) How consistently can the "ocean entry mark" be determined on otoliths (by species) and have studies been conducted to verify that the "mark" does relate to ocean entry. Other proposals reviewed referred to chemical analyses used to determine when the fish enter the marine environment.

Task 1.d. (page 17) Given the extensive comments presented by the ISRP in their last review, this review committee was surprised that a more thorough description of these methods were not included in this proposal! Many of the past comments continue to seem valid and require real clarification and not debate. We have read the past comments and considered what any misunderstanding may be ... but we should not have to "interpret" this aspect of the proposal. Estimation of growth and survival is probably the critical task in this large proposal. If it cannot be done, then it would clearly limits the value of this investment. The issue seems to be that you can measure growth rate and size of individuals sampled but how can growth and survival between sampling periods be inferred if you do not know the residence time of the individual (or its population) in the plume? If the intention is to compare size of fish between sampling periods, how can this issue be addressed and how can survival be differentiated from dispersal? Part of this answer may relate to Task (1.e.). Our question concerning the IGF-I hormone is how sensitive the assay is in providing "a good index of recent growth rate in salmonids"?

Task 1.f. (page 17) Why are only two months proposed for sampling, would not the July sample be important in examining duration of use of the plume and changes in stocks during this summer period?

Task 1.g. (page 18) Is there a source or base sample of these fish and pathogens in the Columbia River? Without that sample we are uncertain what the fish sampled from the plume would be compared against. How will survival actually be assessed by this sampling?

Task 1.h. (page 18) Clarify the intent of "We usually only enumerate those taxa from the 1-m, bongo, and neuston nets that are part of the salmon diets." If this were true, how would selectivity be assessed?

Task 2.a. (page 19) It is not evident how samples collected during the plume front studies relate to the other collections ... are these in addition to the monthly samples collected under Task 1? Also, sampling of a front using the Nordic 264 net would seem inconsistent with the size of the net versus the scale of the front. What are concerns associated with using this net to sample the fronts?

Most of the remainder of the proposal addresses the extensive analysis and modeling component of the study. The modeling work, however, overlaps extensively with two other proposals (30001 Historic Habitat..., and 30002 Optimization of FCRPS impacts ...) and lead to confusion concerning tasks and deliverables. Our understanding of the relation with proposal 30001 is that the numerical modeling tasks in project #199801400 will apply the results from that proposal. However, the relationship with proposal #30002 is certainly less clear (although tables of these interrelationships are noted in the other proposals). To clarify the role of analyses and modeling (by model type and objective), the ISRP requests that the proponents clearly differentiate activities as estimation, simulation, and validation of the models developed; and who the responsible investigators are for each task. A single summary table or flow chart may be adequate. Proposal #30002 indicates that all numerical modeling will be included in project #199801400 and during the briefings it was indicated that any validation work would also be included in that project. We are then uncertain of the necessity of a separate proposal (#30002) unless it is solely focused on definition of possible management scenarios.

The budget for ship time is not well described (i.e., activities by vessel and costs) but ISRP notes that other or supplemental sources of funding for ship-time and other vessel alternatives such as fishing boats may be available. There is precedent for this in ground fishing research being done by NMFS at the NWFSC. Further, the size of this proposal makes it difficult to assess costs by activity and the relative priority of various tasks. Given the increasing competition for resources in this Province, it would be appropriate to rank the value of the various activities or provide a strong justification if this should not be done.

Comment:

Comment:

This proposal requests funding to continue research in the Columbia River plume to evaluate the role of the plume in the survival and growth of juvenile salmon, biological and physical processes within the plume, and modeling studies to investigate the management of Columbia River flows to improve "habitat opportunity" in the plume (although habitat opportunity as a metric remains undefined and is an objective of this study). The proposal provides a strong technical justification and scientific background as to why these studies are related to the FCRPS. Most notably, they note:

"Annual spring freshet flows through the Columbia River estuary are ~50% of the traditional levels that flushed the estuary and total sediment discharge is ~1/3 of the 19th Century levels. Decreased spring flows and sediment discharges have also reduced the extent, speed of movement, thickness, and turbidity of the plume that once extended far out and south into the Pacific Ocean during the spring and summer."

The proposal also provided a brief summary of results to date, and noted how this proposal builds on these results. The ISRP continues to be strongly supportive of the research but also note that the investigators have extended their original objectives to include prediction of estuarine and marine survival of salmon.

"Our ultimate goal is to predict estuarine and marine survival using a combination of empirical indices and computer simulation models." (page 13, Section 9f)

1. "Through long-term observations, describe interannual variations in the distribution, abundance, and performance (health and growth) of juvenile salmon in relation to temporal and spatial characteristics of physical and biological features associated with the Columbia River plume and the surrounding ocean.
2. Conduct fine-scale process studies to identify and characterize the benefit of unique features of the Columbia River plume to juvenile salmon.
3. Describe, through observations, historical reconstruction, and numerical physical modeling, the temporal and spatial physical features of the Columbia River plume in relation to ocean conditions.
4. Examine the relationship between ocean and plume conditions, river flow, and juvenile salmon production using biological models to identify critical relationships between food resources, predator-prey interactions, salmon growth and survival.
5. Develop and analyze scenarios that describe changes in salmon survival as a function of Columbia River plume characteristics that may result from altered river flows due to climate and human-induced modifications, and/or from changing oceanic conditions. We will use physical and biophysical models of the plume to relate future FCRPS operations and ocean/climate conditions to salmon survival."

Objective 5 involves the prediction of salmon survival based on changes in hydrosystem management and flows and climate conditions as mediated through the lower river, estuary, and plume. The objective builds on recent modeling efforts by associated staff in the Columbia River estuary. Given the number of questions posed in the ISRP's preliminary review, the simplest response is to list the questions and response:

• Objective 1, Re: February cruise. While reviewers are not convinced by the response (1st paragraph), the authors' provide a suggested approach to examine the importance of February sampling. Their suggestion included one February cruise in the three-year program, which would be used to assess the importance of future such cruises. This seems reasonable but the total cost of the full program may not provide for this.
• Objective 1b (Predation and forage fish surveys), response is adequate.
• Objective 1c (Top trophic predators), the survey integration with objective 1a was clarified, but data to be collected on these predators remains marginally described.
• Objective 1d (Salmon growth), response is adequate.
• Objective 1d (residence time of salmon within the plume?). The issue of residence time remains a significant uncertainty in this study and major assumptions about residency are required in this analysis, but the comparisons to be made were clarified in the response. The discussion of microsatellites to assess residence is not obvious, as this will only assess stock of origin. The only significant development in this topic may be the reference to a project to develop miniature tags for monitoring the residence and survival of individual salmon.
• Objective 1e (Endocrine assessment), reasonable response and seems to be worth investigating. The remaining concerns maybe the sensitivity of the assay to sampling conditions, stress on the fish, and storage time for the samples. These should be assessed during the study.
• Objective 1f (Genetics). The original proposal only referred to sampling for stock composition during June and September (page 31). If stock composition is an important component of the study then a separate sampling design is likely needed. However, this would require additional costs and sampling platform. We support the development of the microsatellites for stock composition but note that the investigators must also be concerned with the collection of base line samples from the known spawning populations.
• Objective 1g (Pathogens), the basis of our original concern was addressed (i.e., basis of comparison between plume samples and source). However, we are uncertain about the idea of comparing infections by stock based on genetic stock identification of individuals. GSI analyses of a mixed sample of fish does not assign individual fish to a stock. There are multivariate analyses that may be useful for this but these are not referred to in the text. We suggest that more consideration of this analysis is still required.
• Objective 1h (Prey resources), the correction provided is adequate.
• Task 2a (Role of fronts). Response is marginal in that it is difficult to believe that each front will be size of the net opening. Convenient when it occurs but how likely is this? Sampling of any fronts smaller in diameter, or larger, will confound the sampling method with the spatial scale of the biological events.

Comment:

Comments
The proposal is complete, ready to implement, and fulfills Biop requirements in part. Because this proposal is sponsored by NOAA Fisheries, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further on it.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

Comment:

Columbia Estuary Issue 1: ESA Research Projects, Survival and Growth of Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Plume (Project 199801400); Holistic Habitat Opportunities and Food-Web Linkages of Juvenile Salmon (Project 30001); Optimization of FCRPS Impacts on Juvenile Salmonids (Project 30002); Acoustic Tracking Array for Studying Ocean Survival and Movements of Columbia River Salmon (Project 30007); Canada-USA Shelf Salmon Survival Study (Project 30010)

Council Recommendation: These five proposals are all research proposals involving study of the estuary habitat, the Columbia River plume and the ocean habitats that Columbia River salmon traverse during their migration. The Council is recommending two of these proposals for funding in this provincial review, that two of the proposals be moved to the Mainstem/Systemwide review for consideration, and that one proposal not be funded at this time. Of the five research projects, only 199801400 is an ongoing effort. It has proposed a rather substantial expansion of its plume study. It received a High Priority rating from CBFWA and the ISRP gave it a fundable recommendation, noting that the project sponsors felt that tasks 4 and 5 could be deferred for 1-2 years if budget constraints affected funding. NOAA Fisheries supported this NOAA Fisheries sponsored research project. They identified the project addressing numerous RPAs, but most significantly RPAs 158 and 162. Bonneville supported the project, but noted that it should coordinate with the other four proposed research projects. Bonneville's comments on the other four proposals are similar to their comments on 199801400 and will only be addressed here.

The Council agrees with the ISRP, BPA and NOAA Fisheries that the project provides an important research effort, which could probe how the hydrosystem and its operation impacts the estuary and near-shore ocean and plume environment. The Council also supports the expansion of objectives 1,2 and 3 of the project believing that these expanded objects will address ESA concerns in a fashion that outweighs the Council's lower priority for expanded research projects. However, the Council agrees with the ISRP and the project sponsors that Objectives 4 and 5 could be deferred. The Council does not recommend funding those two objectives at this time. Funds for the base of this project and for the expansion of the ongoing objects would come from the base allocation for the provinces.

Project 30001 received a High Priority rating from CBFWA and a fundable recommendation from the ISRP. NOAA Fisheries supported the project, again unsurprising, noting that the project addressed RPAs 158 and 162. The Council supports funding the project as another important research opportunity to address ESA concerns that would outweigh the Council's lower priority on new research projects.

Funds for the new Project 30001 would come from the unallocated placeholder since funding this project would exceed the Council's recommended budget for these provinces. Though given a High Priority designation from CBFWA and supported by the ISRP and NOAA Fisheries, the Council does not recommend funding project 30002 at this time. The Council's reasoning is based upon the ISRP comments on this project and upon budgetary constraints. ISRP stated that "since we see nothing fundamentally wrong with this proposal's presentation, we recommend funding. However, we also believe that this proposal is a couple of years ahead of its useful time and that it could be deferred if funding limitations required." [Emphasis added.] The Council believes that other projects that implement ESA actions and provide results in the time period of the current FCRPS Biological Opinion during this tight budget situation should outweigh implementation of this research proposal. Project 30002 could be better sequenced at a later time to take advantage of the information gained from the expansion of Project 199801400.

The Council finds that the other proposals, 30010 and 30007, should be moved to the Mainstem/Systemwide review for consideration. Project 30010 is clearly an ocean research proposal and does not fit within the geographic scope of the Lower Columbia and Estuary Provincial review. It is more appropriately considered in the Mainstem/Systemwide review along with other ocean research projects.

Project 30007 also involves ocean research, but has research elements for the plume and near shelf that could be considered under the Lower Columbia and Estuary review. Although given a Do Not Fund recommendation by CBFWA, the ISRP rated this project as fundable, but recommended funding at a reduced level from the proposal. Both NOAA Fisheries and Bonneville suggested moving the project to the Mainstem/Systemwide review, BPA noting that the project could coordinate with a similar NOAA Fisheries proposal on acoustic tracking. The Council agrees with these comments and would suggest reviewing the project in the Mainstem/Systemwide process.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website