FY 2000 proposal 20030
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
Title | Type |
---|---|
20030 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Impact of Nutrients on Salmon Production in the Columbia River Basin |
Proposal ID | 20030 |
Organization | University of British Columbia (U of BC) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | John Stockner |
Mailing address | 2614 Mathers Avenue West Vancouver, BC V7V 2J4 |
Phone / email | 6049265383 / stockner@axion.net |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 2000 |
Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide |
Short description | Examine the potential importance of nutrients on salmon production in the Columbia River basin by examining the impact of dams, reduced salmon returns and human activity on nutrient inputs to selected sections of the basin. |
Target species | Anadromous salmon |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|
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 | $92,500 | |
Fringe | (20%) | $18,500 |
Supplies | Computer 3,200 Backup device 400 Office Supplies 3,500 Communication 2,500 | $9,600 |
Travel | $12,000 | |
Indirect | 40% (or 0% if contribution agreement, see Section 8h). | $53,040 |
$185,640 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost | $185,640 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2000 budget request | $185,640 |
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.
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fund, this is an intriguing concept but the proposal is technically inadequate and not programmatically justified.Comments: Predicated on nutrient limitation of juvenile salmon production, Stockner et al. propose to calculate a TP nutrient budget and compare anthropogenic contributions of nutrient losses/gains to estimated historic contributions. Notwithstanding, some innovative appeal, the proposal is said by CBFWA to lack any current and urgent management need and offers no clear potential application. Its direct benefits to fish and wildlife are therefore held in question.
Among the sources and sinks that would be evaluated are impoundments, spawning adults (carcasses), sewage/industrial inputs and treatment, and logging/forestry, agriculture and other land-use practices. The proponents contend that nutrient balances determine the systems' salmon productivity and, ultimately, ocean survival. While based on well-documented nutrient retention in lake/reservoir systems in the Upper Columbia River Basin in Canada, they also argue that the influence propagates downstream into riverine sectors and that impoundments interrupt downstream nutrient spiraling. The overall objective is to provide managers with an assessment of nutrient status as a bottleneck to restoration to selected sections of the Basin. This proposal exemplifies hypothesis exploration (e.g., based on extant data) research that has the potential to expand our understanding of changed ecosystem processes in the Columbia River Basin as a result of human manipulations, and how to evaluate the relative contributions of our alterations.
Among several obvious uncertainties are: (1) potential evidence contradicting the argument for lower system production (in terms of juvenile salmonid prey, and lack of demonstrated growth limitation, as compared to historic, pre-development conditions; and (2) feasibility and applicability of "managed" nutrient amendments to long-term, sustainable restoration approaches.
The impact of reduced import of nutrient from declines in salmon runs is a reasonable question. However, this proposal is too general and is unlikely to result in a substantial contribution to understanding this problem. The link to the Fish and Wildlife Program and other research is weak. The objectives could be more clearly stated; methods should include greater detail. Much of the emphasis is on evaluation of literature, which may or may not be adequate in terms of helping to answer the question posed. As the authors point out, "the methods we are proposing provide only an "'overview'" of the potential impact....."
Five objectives are advanced, although the expected outcomes are not explicit. Numerous arguments exist for a rigorous assessment of this issue of nutrient limitation, but it may be valid to ask whether the existing, fragmented data sets are sufficient to describe a system that is so interconnected (not unlike some BC lakes, however!). It would be important to ensure that this analysis will examine impoundments as a continuum, not as discrete, independent reservoirs.
Methods advanced in the proposal could be more specific, especially relative to critical calculations such as nutrient fluxes following construction of dams, escapement losses, and inputs from various land-use practices. Alternative data sources are not listed or described.
No real schedule/work plan is provided; i.e., all objectives apparently are to be completed at the same time. The budget shows $92.5k salary for a single research assistant (?). The bios add to only .65 FTE.
Comment:
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? no - Question how this study fits in with a method that is already being applied.Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? yes -
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? yes -
Resource Criteria 4: Met? yes -
Comment:
May be considered an innovative project. Not clear what contribution the results from this study would have for management application. Does not meet a critical and urgent management need. Before this type of study should be funded, more coordination with existing water quality studies should be provided.Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];