FY 2002 Innovative proposal 34006

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:

There are many areas with and without salmonids, at which, one might compare the abundance and distribution of insectivorous birds to provide some of the preliminary evidence that should have been presented or proposed (adequate stratification of habitats would be necessary). Abundance and diversity in control and treatment sections may provide most of the required information (and perhaps already available) that one might need to access the role of salmon carcasses on insectivorous birds - there seems little need at this stage for detailed process-orientated models. Furthermore, this may not be possible given the variability typically found in samples of aquatic invertebrates. The authors need to conduct some preliminary statistical analyses of existing invertebrate data to show that this proposal is realistic. It is not clear why measures of aquatic invertebrate standing crop are important to the hypothesis except in the case of dippers. The authors should show that the number of emerging aquatic insects (and standing crop) is a significant part of the available forage for nesting birds during the period proposed for study. The stable isotope analyses might provide further evidence of the importance of marine-derived nutrients (as shown elsewhere), but there is little information provided on the latter in this proposal. Some investigation early in the study could assist in determining the sensitivity of that work and the required sampling. However, while the USFWS Breeding Bird Survey shows declining trends of some of the species that use riparian areas in the Columbia Basin, there is no evidence implicating salmon at this time. Given their extensive migratory pathways, many other causes of the declines need to be considered as well.

Other questions:

• Given what is known about variation in bird abundance, species diversity, and nesting success, are the birds that are expected to be observed in the few sampling areas proposed sufficient to test the hypothesis?
• How do vegetation samples contribute to a test of the hypothesis?
• "As part of regular nest monitoring, eggshells discarded by adult birds after hatching will be collected." Won't these eggshells be difficult to find? Don't the adult birds generally carry these shells far from the nest? To what data will results of the stable isotopes in eggshells be compared? Will this part of the study provide any quantitative assessment related to the hypothesis? If these isotopes are found both in fish and shells, what does that contribute to the test of the hypothesis?

Comment:

Comment:

Comments
Wildlife proposal

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
No

Comment:

Comments
Wildlife proposal

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No