FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28046

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:

The study design needs to be defined and reviewed prior to re-submission. A research-level proposal on the role of marine-derived nutrients within the Clearwater sub-basin is described. The key personnel have no experience in this field or in stream trophic dynamics, according to their listed qualifications, but the presentation was reasonable within a rapidly emerging field of study. They would do well to partner with one of the many groups that are now providing research on salmon carcasses, including the BPA-funded projects which they list - they must provide supporting documentation. Nutrient limitations and excesses exist within the sub-basin, but these were not listed - a review of this data is required before proceeding. In addition, they need to consider the use of salmon carcasses placed in the fall and the difficulty in controlling nutrient levels with that approach versus the addition of inorganic N and P strategically placed in the spring and summer growing season, at pre-described target levels based on flow, stream size, and background levels. Research is now underway to compare these approaches (carcasses versus nutrient pellets, and a new approach using carcass analogs is in development)- perhaps they should await these results. In British Columbia, the addition of inorganic nutrients is now a standard rehabilitation tool in coastal streams, and Interior resident trout streams (and lakes) but untested in the Interior anadromous areas.

Some indication of the availability of carcasses for this study is required. Apparently, in past years hatchery returns were insufficient to meet brood stock needs, let alone harvest and escapement requirements, as well as carcasses for streams (although some spent broodstock carcasses may be available, these may be questionably enough for the watershed or perhaps even experimentation). The proponents need to consider the key response variable, which is smolt yield. All of the other detailed analysis are redundant in an implementation project as this should be; research is in process or completed by research groups elsewhere. Of interest are the in-stream responses by fish in this area of the Columbia R. (trend monitoring of fish size, growth, and number) and the recruitment response. The latter is measured as the natural logarithm of the number of smolts produced per spawner as a function of the number of spawners, in treatment and control streams.

The stable isotope work may provide interesting research information, but is superfluous to work already in progress and not required in an implementation project. Also excessive even at the level of site monitoring for response trends is the periphyton and invertebrate monitoring, and even that is not as important to this study as the water quality monitoring. Before and after plus seasonal (spring summer and fall) monitoring of periphyton and macroinvertebrates as proposed will provide little additional information at high cost. Some monitoring of trends in periphyton and invertebrates may be useful to monitor at least visually during the experiment. All of the changes at these lower trophic levels will be reflected in the fish response, if any. Likewise, the extensive use of GIS seems overkill, and not subject to rigorous statistical evaluation (no design was provided), although a map-based description of nutrient levels in streams in general may be useful. A well-designed nutrient experiment will show no change in water quality since the nutrients are taken up immediately and transferred through the aquatic trophic levels to fish.

Respond with a new design, please, indicating whether a carcass approach (if available) or inorganic nutrient approach will be considered, and indicate how and where it will be applied and tested. Please base the design on information on nutrient levels in streams of this area, where production is not limited by other major factors (i.e., indicate that food supply is limiting growth and production). A mesocosm approach in the initial stages may be informative, followed by pilot scale studies in smaller tributaries. Show the connection to other related studies in the Columbia, and include letters of support.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comments
Research would parallel efforts in the Salmon River Basin (NMFS, Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, WDFW). This experiment is designed to evaluate the role of carcasses in stream ecosystems (as opposed to random dumping of carcasses without further monitoring). By replicating this experiment in a number of different river systems, we better learn how streams and fish will respond to nutrient enhancement.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
--

Comment: