FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 199702400

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

In April 2002, a settlement agreement between the plaintiffs (National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Seattle Audubon Society, and American Bird Conservancy) and defendants (USACE, USFWS) was signed by Federal Judge Barbara Rothstein. This agreement has set in motion the development of an Environmental Impact Statement and long-term management plan for Caspian terns in the Columbia River estuary, a process that was until recently stalled due to the pending lawsuit. The increase in the FY03 budget over what was forecast in 2001 is largely due to this new development. As part of this plan, resource managers may attempt to restore tern habitat outside the Columbia River estuary and attract a portion of the Caspian terns currently nesting on East Sand Island to those restored colony locations to further reduce bird predation on juvenile salmonids from the Columbia River Basin.

Reason for change in scope

See above.

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Cash cost sharing in previous years covered avian predation related work not funded by BPA (e.g., habitat management/alterations on East Sand Island and Rice Island; bird hazing at up-river locations; barge project in Commencement Bay; evaluation of bird excluders on pile dikes to reduce cormorant predation). In-kind cost sharing covered primarily personnel costs for resource managers participating in the Caspian Tern Working Group.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

The experimental design is good. A key question however is the continued relevance and value of the program to the goals of saving salmon in the FCRPS. This five-year program is clearly in its mature if not senescent stages as far as benefits to the FCRPS system. Enormous amounts of information have been gathered about tern biology and feeding behavior to the credit of the avian research team. Key recommendations have been to move (if not eliminate breeding habitat). And this has been successful. Much of the future work however appears aimed more at preserving terns (see court comment above) than at preventing further degradation of salmonids due to predation. Additionally, it is less clear how details about bioenergetics of tern diet, stable isotope ratios studies, fatty acid signatures, and contaminant levels may be valuable to reducing tern impact on salmon. As elaborated in a previous ISRP Review two years ago in 2000, we agree with the previous review that:

" ...an in-depth independent peer-review be conducted to evaluate the results and conclusions generated from this project before proceeding with what would be potentially a very costly expansion of this work." Like northern pikeminnow management, it would be good to know about more direct consequences and cost:benefits of the program on adult return rates.

Several important questions that seem relevant to the FCRPS are the relationship of predation loss to juveniles that (1) migrated in river or (2) were transported near the estuary in a barge. Since PIT tags usually contain this information, a study of existing PIT tag data seems in order. Thus far, NMFS studies have shown that SAR's (adult returns) from transported smolts exceeds SAR's of juveniles that migrate through the FCRPS. One important strategy that could reduce tern predation is the timing, location and release patterns of smolts from barges in the estuary. For example, if terns are daylight feeding birds, would release at night improve predator avoidance? Or, would release closer to the ocean reduce bird predation without other impacts to the SAR rate.

The authors suggest there are differences between hatchery and wild fish losses. The NATURES artificial production program has a goal to produce fish with more wild like phenotypes, genotypes and behaviors. Experiments that test predator avoidance fitness values in different types of new NATURES program fish may also be worthwhile endeavors for future research of both the artificial hatchery improvement program and avian predator program. Research in the future should be more focused on experiments that would primarily assist salmonid recovery in the FCRPS.

Questions about cause and effect of the tern population also concern the ISRP. Could the recent upsurge in bird predators be a result of the overwhelming preponderance of hatchery-raised smolts (which seem to be more susceptible)? Could one response to supplementation in the basin and outright hatchery releases be the creation of behaviors conducive to being eaten by birds, even after the long in-river journey? Is it the result of barging and mass releases? Is there something we're doing to enhance fish passage at dams that is making fish less fit farther downstream (delayed mortality)? Does less predation by northern pikeminnow because of the pikeminnow control program just mean more weak fish left for birds? Could the use of terns in hatcheries make hatchery fish more fit as far as predator avoidance is a learned response? This project would be more valuable to the FCRPS with more focus on the salmon aspect of the problem.

Some general questions. Why are tern populations expanding inland? Is new habitat being created? Will moving terns to new locations create a burden for other forage species? How much of the predation problem is a function of a fish hatchery system that artificially concentrates tens of thousands of smolts in the river? Should we rethink the artificial production and release strategy rather than predator removal strategy? Is there a correlation between the tern relocation effort and this year's return rate of steelhead?

Summary

The past five years of research conducted has been good and has provided ample information about the impacts of terns to salmon. The obvious management actions are now in progress to the extent courts are allowing it (moving or reducing tern populations). Some further management options and experiments that relate to how transported fish are released from barges (where, when, etc) may be useful to the FCRPS. These have not been proposed but should be done.

Much of the proposed new tern research is aimed at assisting the growth, development and monitoring of new tern colonies elsewhere, which seems counterproductive to salmon recovery. Other parts of the monitoring and research proposal tasks seem to be on details and data not directly useful or have large payoffs for the FCRPS management objectives. Their value to science is not questioned, but in a world of limited funding, projects with the greatest benefit to the recovery of salmon deserve the highest priorities. One program option would be to alter the project (and reduce funding) to refine how better to manage improvement of smolt production, transport and release programs as they relate to avian predation and other factors of smolt survival.

Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:

OCEAN AND ESTUARY SUBGROUP -- Action items addressed - 49; 101; 103; 104; 186; 195. This project is complete enough for funding.

ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:

The ISRP comments are focused on the relevance (benefits to salmon) more than the quality of the science in this proposal. The scientific design aspects are good and thus consistent with the RME group's evaluation of the acceptability of the program.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

This proposal is designed to determine predation rates by seabirds on juvenile salmonids, evaluate the efficacy of management initiatives to reduce avian predation, and assist resource managers in the development of plans for long-term management of avian predation. The current proposal is for continuation of work that has been underway for several years, but that is now being driven by a settlement agreement from an intensive court case that pitted the interests of bird conservationists against those restoring salmon. There is an expanded budget that reflects settlement-mandated tasks.

The ISRP review criteria are met. The experimental design is good. This five-year program has gathered much new information about tern biology and feeding behavior. Key recommendations have been to move, if not eliminate, breeding habitat. These recommendations have been successful. The proponents have given a good summary of past results. They have measured the net effectiveness of tern removal on salmonid survival that is contributing positively albeit modestly to recovery according to population models. Bioenergetics of tern diet, stable isotope ratios studies, fatty acid signatures, and contaminant levels may be valuable in further assessing tern diets and impacts on salmon.

A shortcoming identified in previous years was the lack of peer-reviewed publications, a factor now addressed by the latest group of publications. Another previous shortcoming was the need for a more in-depth review of the program. This review has been accomplished externally via the court case. Although this proposal does not dwell on the court case, there was impetus from it for looking at other bird predators of salmonids (to put terns into broader context) and other potential nesting sites to receive research and management attention (upriver and coastal).

The authors were highly responsive to ISRP questions and (1) illustrate important facts that cast better light on the rationale for their studies and (2) suggest alternative approaches to gather data that may be more relevant to improving salmon survival. Much of the proposed new tern research is aimed at assisting the growth, development and monitoring of new tern colonies elsewhere, which must be balanced with colony reductions in the estuary for enhanced salmon recovery. Other parts of the monitoring and research proposal tasks seem to be on details and data not directly useful or have large payoffs for the FCRPS management objectives. The sponsors agreed to address several important questions that seem relevant to the FCRPS: the relationship of predation loss to juveniles that (1) migrated in river or (2) were transported near the estuary in a barge. Since PIT tags usually contain this information, a study of existing PIT tag data seems in order. Thus far, NMFS studies have shown that SARs (adult returns) from transported smolts exceeds SARs of juveniles that migrate through the FCRPS. One important strategy that could reduce tern predation might be adjustments in the timing, location and patterns of release of smolts from barges in the estuary. For example, if terns are daylight feeding birds, would release at night improve predator avoidance? Or, would release closer to the ocean reduce bird predation without other impacts to the SAR rate. The researchers indicated a willingness to include such analyses where possible with PIT tag data and to coordinate with the NMFS and USACE in such experiments.

The past five years of research has been good and has provided ample information about the impacts of terns to salmon. Logical management actions (moving or reducing tern populations) are now being implemented to the extent they are allowed by the courts. Some further management experiments that relate to how, where and when transported fish are released from barges may be useful to the FCRPS and the sponsors have agreed to address these options. The authors are willing to collaborate with transport release studies. Presumably, these would need to be included in research funded by the USACE. Another future research effort could examine the differences between hatchery and wild fish losses.

If the proposal is funded, some restatement of tasks and goals would be in order to reflect the modifications and effort reorientation mentioned in the response. The sponsor identified the following tasks for elimination in the interest of cost savings: Task 3.2. Collect information on diet composition at selected gull colonies in the lower Columbia River between Bonneville Dam and the mouth of the Snake River; Task 3.3. Collect information on foraging aggregations of piscivorous seabirds along the lower Columbia River between Bonneville Dam and the head of McNary Dam pool.

The ISRP agrees that these tasks have lower priority. However, given the importance of other questions related to salmon survival posed in the review, the ISRP is not recommending reduction in the budget for this program. Instead, these tasks are given lower priority and should be addressed only if other more pressing tasks can be completed with the funds provided. If appropriate, the proposal could be recast to reflect these changes in priority.

Comment:

Comments
This is an important effort to characterize avian predation and evaluate appropriate management actions.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

Comment:

Comments:
Not deemed responsibility of ratepayers, COE should fund to attempt to resolve responsibility under lawsuit.

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website