FY07-09 proposal 200702600

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Estuary / Columbia Estuary

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs:

Termination date: 9/30/2009
Comments:

Final deliverables: Final technical report and final interpretive report.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable

NPCC comments: The ISRP reviewed a somewhat similar proposal previously in the AFEP review in 2004. It was not funded. The emphasis of that proposal was to use cores to investigate historical trends in contaminants. The present proposal deals with historical trends in levels of organic material, again using cores. Carbon and nitrogen are proposed as surrogates for productivity supporting fish and wildlife. Stable isotopes will be used to separate periods of marine and freshwater sources of productivity as well as human activities (eg dam construction). While this could be an innovative approach there are number of problems with the proposal. The way the proposal is written seriously detracts from its value and makes a fair evaluation of its merits very difficult. Better explanations of the work are required. The proposal is fraught with specialized jargon. The investigators need to provide more detail about how this work will relate directly to estuary restoration. The key question would be whether measurements of sediment attributes provide the appropriate indicators of habitat or aquatic community health. How would the link be made between variables of interest to paleoecologists and current indicators of ecosystem health? The proposal needs much more detail as to how it would apply the core sample data to answer current restoration questions, and how it would tie in with other projects that also are looking at historical conditions and their relation to the present (e.g., 200301000). Historically there was a mosaic of habitats in the estuary (including marshes, mudflats, riparian, and others) at different elevations. It is difficult to see how the core information from a limited number of sites would help plan the restoration of these complexes. Additionally, to accurately document historical changes requires that the cores be taken from sites that are neither depositional nor erosional. How will the investigators ensure that sample sites meet this criterion? Collaborative work is mainly internal, i.e., with USGS and other agencies interested in the sediment record. It would be more effective if other key agencies directly involved in restoration planning and fish and wildlife research and management were involved in the project instead of merely being "informed" about the work.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable

NPCC comments: The initial proposal was fraught with specialized jargon, but the detailed response made it much easier for the ISRP to review this innovative proposal. There is no doubt the work proposed would provide worthwhile research data on the historical changes in the productivity proxies chosen (total carbon, organic carbon, organic nitrogen, delta C13 and delta N15). The investigators are well qualified to do this kind of research and are leaders in their fields. The ISRP asked the proponents to explain how the historical data would relate to current indicators of ecosystem health. The proponent’s response did not specify how their broad geochemical approach would account for important dynamic aspects of food web ecology in the Columbia River estuary. Published research has shown that factors such as living space, temperature, flow, and others, interact with productivity to determine salmon survival. Based on current scientific knowledge, the assumption of a direct relationship between carbon production in the estuary and salmon is not defensible. Comparison of carbon production in the Columbia River estuary with Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay would be an interesting research question. However, extrapolation from the latter two areas to the Columbia River estuary is problematic because the latter two estuaries have had different sorts of histories and perturbations. Historical baselines of the three estuaries are likely not directly comparable. The application of the data to management actions was queried by the ISRP. This aspect remains a weak point and is a primary reason why the project is not fundable. While the proponents have good working relationships with researchers in the estuary, collaboration with LCREP and other restoration-oriented management agencies is not as evident. For example there is no mention of the present project in the LCREP’s proposal 200301100, and in fact this group has a different conceptual model that they are using to plan restoration. Historically, a mosaic of habitats existed in the estuary (including marshes, mudflats, riparian, and others) at different elevations with characteristic vegetation units. It is difficult to see how the core information from the limited number of sites mentioned in the proposal would help plan the restoration of these complexes. The ISRP appreciated the detailed answer to the question of how the core data would be controlled to accurately document historical changes.