FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 31004

Additional documents

TitleType
31004 Narrative Narrative
31004 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleSalmon Carcass Enrichment -- Willamette (Clackamas) & Sandy Subbasins
Proposal ID31004
OrganizationU.S. Forest Service, Mt. Hood National Forest (USFS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameDan Shively
Mailing address16400 Champion Way Sandy, OR 97055
Phone / email5036681605 / dshively@fs.fed.us
Manager authorizing this projectDan Shively
Review cycleLower Columbia
Province / SubbasinLower Columbia / Willamette
Short descriptionMulti-year salmon carcass enrichment project applied over entire 5th field watersheds (with replicates and controls) aimed at restoring native runs of salmon and steelhead in the Clackamas and Sandy rivers.
Target speciesSteelhead, Lower Col. ESU, threatened (NMFS 3/98); Chinook Salmon, Lower Col. & Upper Willamette ESUs, threatened (NMFS 3/99); Coho Salmon, Lower Col./Southwest WA ESU, proposed (NMFS); and Cutthroat Trout, Southwest WA/Col. River ESU, proposed (USFWS).
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
45.375 -122.5 Clear Creek (tributary to Clackamas River); RM 1.0 to 10.0
45.3251 -122.2892 North Fork Eagle Creek (tributary to Clackamas River); RM 0.0 to 5.0
45.305 -122.28 North Fork Clackamas River; RM 0.5 to 3.2
45.07 -122.055 Oak Grove Fork of the Clackamas River; RM 0.3 to 3.1
45.37 -122.87 Lost Creek (tributary to Sandy River); RM 0.5 to 5.0
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
RPA 183

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
2001 Completed project planning and design, NEPA, and test applications (w/o BPA funding) in both the Clackamas River and the Sandy Subbasin. Added 21 tons of surplus hatchery coho salmon to the Clackamas system and 16 tons to the Sandy Subbasin.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
22002 Influences on Stocking Salmon Carcass Analogs on Salmonids in Columbia River Tributaries Both projects aimed at evaluating food web responses to nutrient enrichment via salmon.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Enrich treatment watersheds with surplus hatchery coho a. Aquire and refrigerate surplus fish. 3 $9,100
b. Distribute salmon carcasses via helicopter. 3 $117,612 Yes
c. Distribute salmon carcasses via labor crew. 3 $60,200 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Enrich treatment watersheds with surplus hatchery coho. 4 5 $402,328
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2004FY 2005
$196,258$206,070

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Quantify food web responses (biofilm and macroinvertebrates) to salmon carcass additions. a. Collect samples, conduct lab analyses, report results. 3 $115,116
2. Quantify fish responses to salmon carcass additions. a. Collect fish samples, conduct analyses, report results. 3 $38,807
3. Evaluate water chemistry fluctuations to salmon carcass additions. a. Collect water quality samples, conduct analyses, report results. 3 $20,534
4. Estimate salmon carcass retention and movement. a. Measure carcass retention and movement. 3 $48,312
5. Estimate natural spawner escapement. a. Conduct area-under-curve escapement estimates for naturally spawning coho. 3 $100,177
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Quantify food web responses (biofilm and macroinvertebrates). 4 5 $251,507
2. Quantify fish responses. 4 5 $83,532
3. Evaluate water chemistry fluctuations. 4 5 $44,200
4. Estimate salmon carcass retention and movement. 4 5 $103,992
5. Estimate natural spawner escapement. 4 5 $215,631
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2004FY 2005
$339,093$356,048

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2003 cost
Personnel FTE: 5.6 total: USFS-2.05, ODFW-1.65, PNW-1.9 $239,505
Supplies $125,723
Travel $11,000
Indirect $63,630
NEPA n/a -- already completed $0
Subcontractor Operations contracts $70,000
$509,858
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost$509,858
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2003 budget request$509,858
FY 2003 forecast from 2002$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Reason for change in estimated budget

n/a

Reason for change in scope

n/a

Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
USFS Smolt Monitoring, PNW & Mt. Hood NF $50,000 in-kind
BLM Labor and Smolt Monitoring $27,500 in-kind
ODFW project coordination via STEP Coordinator $12,000 in-kind
PGE project support $12,000 cash
USFWS Eagle Cr. Nat'l Fish Hatchery Labor $3,000 in-kind
Northwest Steelheaders Volunteer Laborers $2,500 in-kind
Trout Unlimited Volunteer Laborers $2,500 in-kind
Sandy River Watershed Council Volunteer Laborers $3,000 in-kind
Clackamas River Basin Watershed Council Volunteer Laborers $3,000 in-kind
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.

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

A response is needed. The sponsors should address the following questions:
  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?

Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

NMFS has identified that this project is a BiOp project.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Fundable but at low priority. The response states that the objective of this project is "to restore fish populations within these streams". This may be the goal of this investigation but does not seem to be the objective since only one restoration method is presented and the body of the proposal is clearly a research program. We have assessed the response on that basis. Regarding our question 1 from the preliminary review: What then is unique about a "whole system" treatment as a research topic and what might you really expect to achieve? The test is between treated and untreated systems but the scale of these streams also introduces a number of sources of uncertainty into the interpretation of results. For example, if production was greater in the treated systems (as expected likely), was it proportional to the total loading, was production increased throughout each system or just certain habitats, etc.? Or, if production was not different between systems, does this mean treatment simply does not work? It may actually reflect differences in variability between streams, within streams, other bottlenecks in production, or it really did not work. Therefore, if the only aspect of uniqueness is the "first large-scale proposal of this magnitude utilizing carcasses as the direct nutrient source" then there seem to be pros and cons to this scale of investigation. How much value should we place in this type of study then?

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.


Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Indirect benefit.

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


Recommendation:
D
Date:
Jul 23, 2002

Comment:

Recommend deferring consideration of new anadromous fish mitigation proposals in the Willamette subbasin until issuance of the NMFS/USFWS BiOp for the Willamette Basin federal hydroprojects.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: