FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200310700

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:

Although the topic of salmonid production is important and temperature effects issues are timely, the proposal lacks clarity. The background section is long and not well organized. It lacks focus on the salient features leading up to a hypothesis for the proposed study. Although temperature is a key element, few thermal references are given for the many generalizations. Some topics are introduced that do not seem germane to the proposal. Information on ESA listings seems to have been tacked on at the end of the section with little thought. The Council's Fish and Wildlife Program is not mentioned although the rationale lists RPAs from the Biological Opinion, but does not say what they are or discuss the Action Agencies' need to address them. The acronym RPA seems to have been used in several places when the general BiOp is meant. The rationale uses stated needs for food and feeding studies in the mainstem, estuary and ocean as justification for the work in the John Day watershed, without clarifying that this seems to be a general need over salmonid life histories. In the section on relationship to other projects, the proposal discusses the linkage with the ODEQ and ODFW studies, but does not make clear just which organization will do what (there does not appear to be any cost sharing).

It is not apparent that the study would have the ability to separate abundance, growth, and the influence of competition The proposed study focuses on growth as the response variable to water temperature and food availability. It will depend upon other studies (by ODEQ and ODFW) for measurement of fish abundance (page 10). Those studies are said to provide information on presence/absence of juvenile salmonids and indices of abundance. Experience suggests that adjustments in abundance will be the primary response by populations of juvenile salmonids. Dominance hierarchies are established, leading to emigration of less competitive individuals or species. In this way, growth rates will not necessarily reflect the influence of environmental factors on the population. It is proposed (page 12, item 3) to temporarily confine salmonids in stream reaches for the purpose of measuring their growth rates. This is an unrealistic procedure that is unlikely to satisfy the requirements of an appropriate sample of conditions in a natural stream. For example, the method of confinement may, in itself, modify the production of invertebrate stream drift. A further problem is that other than specifying that the study is proposed to be conducted in the John Day Basin, no sites have been chosen for the study. It is at this stage uncertain that appropriate sites, that will represent"...key stream continua representing substantially different thermal regimes (and land management effects) ..." can be found. (page 12).

It is not clear that the proposal meets the ISRP review criteria (although known to the proponents from solicitation materials, they are not clearly identified in the proposal). There is sound science described in the background, but its application to the study is not clear. The study seems to lack rigor of purpose (perhaps more a matter of quality of explanation than of intent). There appears to be benefit to fish and wildlife in larger fish at outmigration when growth is high, but the benefit of the project in guiding land management is not broached. The objectives and expected outcome are not clearly stated. The proposal's objectives are actually tasks, and the listed tasks are detailed elaboration on them. The real objectives remain to be clearly stated. Reference is made to meeting the objectives stated in subbasin documents, but these are not given or addressed. The methods are very detailed and instructive (perhaps leading to quibbles over details). The figure was not labeled so that reviewers could tell what the notations mean. The whole project is considered monitoring and evaluation, with no further discussion.

In summary, the proposal is poorly presented and not well organized. Hypotheses are not clear and the implicit ones are rather simplistic given our current understanding of temperature impacts, feeding ecology, competition, etc. Study sites (and therefore the land use practices to be compared) have not been selected. The proposal is not fundable in its present form and the deficiencies were not clarified in the presentation. The ISRP's concerns are unlikely to be resolved in a response.

Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:

HABITAT ACTION EFFECTIVENESS RESARCH GROUP -- Does the Proposal address RPA Objectives?

This proposal is designed to examine the effect of temperature and food availability on juvenile salmon growth rates within the John Day Subbasin. While the experimental layout, with pristine treatment areas and anthropogenically altered control areas, is well designed for the study objectives, its relevance to 183 is limited.

Elements the Proposal is Lacking.

The proposal does not directly meet the requirements of RPA 183. The sample size and site selection do not adequately address monitoring needs.

Means and Opportunities to Strengthen the Proposal.

It could be made more applicable by simultaneous measurement of salmonid survival rates in treatment and control areas, in addition to growth rates. This proposal will also benefit from increased sample size and site selection that produces more representative sampling. The basic material is present to generate a high quality project.

ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:

The Action Agency/NMFS RME Work Group's review concludes that the proposal, while directed at RPA 183, does not meet their needs. The ISRP concurs.

Comment:

Comment:

Although the topic of salmonid production is important and temperature effects issues are timely, the proposal lacks clarity. The background section is long and not well organized. It lacks focus on the salient features leading up to a hypothesis for the proposed study. Although temperature is a key element, few thermal references are given for the many generalizations. Some topics are introduced that do not seem germane to the proposal. Information on ESA listings seems to have been tacked on at the end of the section with little thought. The Council's Fish and Wildlife Program is not mentioned although the rationale lists RPAs from the Biological Opinion, but does not say what they are or discuss the Action Agencies' need to address them. The rationale uses stated needs for food and feeding studies in the mainstem, estuary and ocean as justification for the work in the John Day watershed, without clarifying that this seems to be a general need over salmonid life histories. In the section on relationship to other projects, the proposal discusses the linkage with the ODEQ and ODFW studies, but does not make clear just which organization will do what (there does not appear to be any cost sharing).

It is not apparent that the study would have the ability to separate effects of abundance, growth, and the influence of competition The proposed study focuses on growth as the response variable to water temperature and food availability. It will depend upon other studies (by ODEQ and ODFW) for measurement of fish abundance (page 10). Those studies are said to provide information on presence/absence of juvenile salmonids and indices of abundance. Experience suggests that adjustments in abundance will be the primary response by populations of juvenile salmonids. Dominance hierarchies are established, leading to emigration of less competitive individuals or species. In this way, growth rates will not necessarily reflect the influence of environmental factors on the population. It is proposed (page 12, item 3) to temporarily confine salmonids in stream reaches for the purpose of measuring their growth rates. This is an unrealistic procedure that is unlikely to satisfy the requirements of an appropriate sample of conditions in a natural stream. For example, the method of confinement may, in itself, modify the production of invertebrate stream drift. A further problem is that other than specifying that the study is proposed to be conducted in the John Day Basin, no sites have been chosen for the study. It is at this stage uncertain that appropriate sites, that will represent "...key stream continua representing substantially different thermal regimes (and land management effects) ..." can be found. (page 12).

It is not clear that the proposal meets the ISRP review criteria. There is sound science described in the background, but its application to the study is not clear. The study seems to lack rigor of purpose (perhaps more a matter of quality of explanation than of intent). There appears to be benefit to fish and wildlife in larger fish at outmigration when growth is high, but the benefit of the project in guiding land management is not broached. The objectives and expected outcome are not clearly stated. The proposal's objectives are actually tasks, and the listed tasks are detailed elaboration on them. The real objectives remain to be clearly stated. Reference is made to meeting the objectives stated in subbasin documents, but these are not given or addressed. The methods are very detailed and instructive (perhaps leading to quibbles over details). The figure was not labeled so that reviewers could tell what the notations mean. The whole project is considered monitoring and evaluation, with no further discussion.

In summary, the proposal is poorly presented and not well organized. Hypotheses are not clear and the implicit ones are rather simplistic given our current understanding of temperature impacts, feeding ecology, competition, etc. Study sites (and therefore the land use practices to be compared) have not been selected. The proposal is not fundable in its present form and the deficiencies were not clarified in the presentation.

Comment:

Comments
The question of how temperature and food interact to affect fish growth is an important an interesting issue. However, the study design is not adequate to determine how temperature and food influence fish growth. There are a number of other confounding variables that can affect temperature, drift, and in turn juvenile growth. The authors note these other variables, but it is difficult to tell how they are dealt with in the design or analysis phase. Also nutrients and light can strongly influence invertebrate abundance, which in turn, influences drift rate. Moreover, biological interactions among juvenile fishes such as competition for space, will lead to changes in reach scale abundances. And juvenile fish growth is strongly linked to local population size. The method described for assessing growth rate is very questionable. The nets used to confine individuals within an area will affect growth rates, and limiting movement of fish may also affect growth rates. The standard design for assessing growth of fish is a mark-recapture study. Although this is an interesting question, the proposal lacks clear hypotheses, methods, and analyses.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
No

Comment:

Comments: