FY 2000 proposal 20061
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Influence of Marine-Derived Nutrients on Juvenile Salmonid Production |
| Proposal ID | 20061 |
| Organization | U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Columbia River Research Laboratory (USGS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Matthew G. Mesa |
| Mailing address | 5501A Cook-Underwood Rd. Cook, WA 98605 |
| Phone / email | 5095382299 / matt_mesa@usgs.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Evaluate the influence and efficacy of marine-derived nutrient influx via adult salmonid carcass decomposition on the productivity of selected Columbia River basin tributaries and stream-rearing salmonids. |
| Target species | Various species of Salmonidae, including but not limited to, spring chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 9154 |
Wind River Ecosystem Restoration |
Project 9154 has baseline fish and habitat data from potential streams to be used for our research |
| 83319 |
New fish tag system |
We plan to use the new flat-plate PIT-tag detector technology to be developed under project 83319 |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
GS-12@2080 h; GS-11@2080 h; GS-7@1040 h; GS-5@3120 h |
$140,951 |
| Fringe |
@ 28% of personnel for perms and terms; @ 7% for temps |
$32,635 |
| Supplies |
Electrofishers, field supplies, computer, PIT-tag detectors, laboratory supplies |
$27,150 |
| PIT tags |
4000@ $2.90 ea. |
$11,600 |
| Travel |
Vehicle rentals (2), vehicle mileage, and travel to meetings |
$11,475 |
| Indirect |
@ 38% |
$85,048 |
| Subcontractor |
Initial work on stable isotope analysis |
$1,000 |
| $309,859 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $309,859 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $309,859 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do not fund, programmatically and technically deficient. Submit revised proposal next year.
Comments:
This is a commendable idea that needs development. In a proposal next year, proponents should specify the study system and demonstrate their technical ability to design and interpret natural isotopes studies. The proposal in its present form is regarded to be of questionable benefit to fish and wildlife, not based on sound science principles, and CBFWA itself questions how results might be integrated in current management actions.
How is this proposal going to advance ongoing efforts in the region? Would the information provide another tool for salmon recovery? The proposal is written with unseemly hyperbole: For example, "historically the Columbia River supported overwhelming numbers of spawning salmon". Science demands greater specifics than to use such words as 'overwhelming,' particularly without offering any scale. The historical numbers were small compared to some Pacific salmon ecosystems.
One of several studies to test the role of marine-derived-nutrients (MDN) from salmon carcasses in stream and riparian productivity and fish production, this study is intended to determine optimum test site, conduct MDN supplementation experiment, and assess various responses including fish condition and other factors influencing their survival. As with so many extrapolations of the Bilby et al. hypothesis, there is inadequate comparison with stream systems that have viable salmon populations and carcass deposition. Yet the proponents devote one of the three objectives to characterizing stream and salmon productivity prior to addition. The question remains whether increased stream productivity will necessarily result in increased returns, and thus increased natural salmon carcass deposition, which this study would not evaluate. The technical basis is explained and rationale for benefits to fish and wildlife are given. They appear to acknowledge that MDN will complement, but not necessarily be the sole factor, in potential recovery.
The proponents correctly identify an obvious problem associated with depressed salmon populations in the Basin. The proposal describes the relationship to Section 7 of the FWP relating to "coordinated salmon production and habitat," but it exhibits too little appreciation of how much this issue and approach is on-going or proposed for the Basin. Only minimal collaborative efforts (e.g., with Wind River Ecosystem Restoration Project, #9154) are described.
With regard to methods: Stable isotope sampling should probably encompass more sources (e.g., stream POM), and reviewers find it curious that no effort is to be made to examine the potential contribution of MDN to riparian and adjacent upland consumers. Replication of stable isotope samples is not addressed, and the proposal offers no description of the qualifications of the contractor who would conduct the stable isotope analyses.
The success of the study will depend on identification of suitable study sites. Since the proponents plan to evaluate response over the entire length of the stream, locating streams with adequate pre-data as well as being logistically feasible to work in might be a problem. The concept of paired treatment and control streams is good as well as before and after evaluations. The approach to documenting productivity (obj 2) seems reasonable.
Proponents intend to examine physiological factors as a measure of fish health, but no justification is provided. They propose to PIT tag juvenile salmonids to examine survival and movement but neglect to describe how fish will be collected, indicate how many fish will be tagged (except in the budget), or advise if wild or hatchery fish are to be employed. In Obj 3, introducing carcasses at a density comparable to historical escapement along the entire streams seems very ambitious unless this is a small stream. While the time period proposed for evaluation is not expressed, page 4 suggests it is 3 yrs.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Criteria all: Met? yes -
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
May be considered an innovative project. Not clear that results from this study would affect current management actions. This work is currently taking place. Should be revisited in FY01 in the context of monitoring and evaluating ongoing implementation of carcass placement.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];