Show new navigation
On
  • Log In
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
  • Help
    • Help
    • Help Center
    • Data dictionary
    • EF&W Program documents
    • Request support
    • Send feedback
      • View all help topics
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
  • Mitigation work
    Mitigation work View all mitigation work topics
  • Reporting
    Reporting View all reporting topics
  • Funding
    Funding View all funding topics
  • Search
RSS Feed for updates to Proposal RMECAT-2008-471-00 - Upper Columbia Nutrient Supplementation Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Proposal Summary

Proposal RMECAT-2008-471-00 - Upper Columbia Nutrient Supplementation

View the dynamic Proposal Summary

This Proposal Summary page updates dynamically to always display the latest data from the associated project and contracts. This means changes, like updating the Project Lead or other contacts, will be immediately reflected here.

Download a snapshot PDF

To view a point-in-time PDF snapshot of this page, select one of the Download links in the Proposal History section. These PDFs are created automatically by important events like submitting your proposal or responding to the ISRP. You can also create one at any time by using the PDF button, located next to the Expand All and Collapse All buttons.

Proposal History


Archive Date Time Type From To By
Download 7/28/2010 11:23 AM Status Draft ISRP - Pending First Review <System>
7/8/2011 11:54 AM Status ISRP - Pending First Review Pending Council Recommendation <System>
7/8/2011 11:54 AM Status Pending Council Recommendation Pending BPA Response <System>

This online form is dynamically updated with the most recent information. To view the content as reviewed by the ISRP and Council for this review cycle, download an archived PDF version using the Download link(s) above.

Back To Top

Basics

Proposal Number:
   RMECAT-2008-471-00
Proposal Status:
 Pending BPA Response
Proposal Version:
 Proposal Version 1
Review:
 RME / AP Category Review
Portfolio:
 RM&E Cat. Review - RM&E
Type:
 Existing Project: 2008-471-00
Primary Contact:
 John Jorgensen (Inactive)
Created:
 5/24/2010 by (Not yet saved)
Proponent Organizations:
 Yakama Confederated Tribes
Project Title:
 Upper Columbia Nutrient Supplementation
 
Proposal Short Description:
 This project will assess and characterize nutrient availability, and if
needed will perform controlled experimental addition of limiting
nutrients to enhance natural production of anadromous salmonids and
their supporting ecological functions and limnological conditions in
rivers in the Methow Subbasin.
 
Proposal Executive Summary:
 Pacific salmonid populations have declined dramatically across the Columbia River
Basin. These population declines are often due to cumulative effects of multiple factors
affecting production in freshwater and marine environments. An important result of these
population declines is the concurrent nutrient, productivity, and ecosystem function
losses associated with significantly reduced marine derived nutrient (MDN) loading rates
from the loss of salmon carcasses. Anadromous salmon carcasses provide significant
amounts of MDN, which historically provided the basis for primary productivity in
stream systems, especially in the interior areas of the Columbia Basin that are naturally
oligotrophic. Lower MDN loading from diminished salmon runs results in negative
feedback through reduced juvenile rearing capacity for Pacific salmon systems. Recent
research has indicated that MDN loading rates as low as 6 to 15% of historical levels
currently exist among anadromous salmon spawning streams in the Pacific Northwest.
This project will quantify and evaluate nutrient status and availability in two watersheds
of the Methow River Basin (Twisp and Methow rivers), under current conditions of
diminished anadromous salmon runs. More specifically, this project will conduct a
rigorous multi-trophic level sampling program to quantify and evaluate baseline water
quality and nutrient availability, primary, secondary, and tertiary productivity rates
including algal, periphyton, and benthic macroinvertebrate, and fish communities. A
stratified random sampling design will be used to select study sites in each of the upper,
middle, and lower reaches of the study area river(s). The goal is to develop a
comprehensive pre- and any post-treatment biological assessment of experimental
nutrient addition. Finally, this project provides the necessary adaptive management
framework to determine if nutrient limitation and/or imbalance currently exist, and to
generate empirically-based recommendations for restoring ecological processes needed to
increase natural production of anadromous salmonids, with additional unquantified
benefits to anadromous Pacific lamprey, resident fish, riparian ecosystems, and wildlife
populations.
Purpose:
 Habitat
Emphasis:
 RM and E
Species Benefit:
 Anadromous: 85.0%   Resident: 10.0%   Wildlife: 5.0%
Supports 2009 NPCC Program:
 No
Subbasin Plan:
Fish Accords:
  • Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama
Biological Opinions:

Back To Top

Contacts

Contacts:

Back To Top

Project Significance & Problem Statement

Describe how you think your work relates to or implements regional documents including: the current Council’s 2014 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program including subbasin plans, Council's 2017 Research Plan,  NOAA’s Recovery Plans, or regional plans. In your summary, it will be helpful for you to include page numbers from those documents; optional citation format).
Project Significance to Regional Programs: View instructions
This section describes the relation of this proposed project to the: 1) objectives in the Columbia River Basin Accords, 2) objectives, strategies, and hypotheses identified in the Methow River Subbasin Plan, 3) objectives of the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program (Program), and 4) the 2003 Mainstem Amendments. This section also describes applicable relationships between the proposed project and Biological Opinions, recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans, and other relevant regional or local plans. See original proposal for complete narrative Sections 10.C.1 through 10.C.5
In this section describe the specific problem or need your proposal addresses. Describe the background, history, and location of the problem. If this proposal is addressing new problems or needs, identify the work components addressing these and distinguish these from ongoing/past work. For projects conducting research or monitoring, identify the management questions the work intends to address and include a short scientific literature review covering the most significant previous work related to these questions. The purpose of the literature review is to place the proposed research or restoration activity in the larger context by describing work that has been done, what is known, and what remains to be known. Cite references here but fully describe them on the key project personnel page.
Problem Statement: View instructions

Problem statement -

The problem addressed by this project is the continued low level of natural production of anadromous Pacific salmonids (Onchorynchus spp.) in the Methow River Basin in North Central Washington (Upper Columbia Basin, Figures 1 and 2) and the potential relationship with diminished marine derived nutrients (MDN) inputs to the system. The Methow River historically supported multiple viable anadromous salmonid populations as well as Pacific Lamprey (Lampetra tridentata), resident trout, and numerous other fish and wildlife populations. Population abundance of these species have declined dramatically from historical levels. Numerous factors are associated with these declines, stemming from in- and out-of-basin sources of mortality. Although significant measures have been implemented to reverse this trend during recent decades, there is little realized improvement in numbers of salmon returning to this region of the Columbia River Basin.

In fact, depressed natural production due to reduced MDN inputs is a chronic problem across the Columbia River Basin. The Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan calls for nutrient enhancement as a restoration strategy, but also points out the need for a better understanding of why, where, and how much nutrients may be needed (UCSRB 2007). A more holistic approach to understanding and resolving underlying conditions that limit productivity in our aquatic systems in general can be a critical step in salmon restoration. By characterizing nutrient availability, trophic status and potential nutrient limitation related to reduced MDN levels in the Methow River Subbasin (Twisp and Methow rivers), it may be possible to specifically mitigate identified anthropogenic nutrient, productivity, and ecological function losses to restore higher levels of natural productivity. In addition to nutrient limitation, we understand that loss and deterioration of physical habitat may also limit natural production of salmonids to varying degrees in different parts of the study area (Methow Subbasin). Large efforts are underway to preserve, rehabilitate, and restore river processes and physical habitat conditions throughout the Methow Basin and the Upper Columbia (UCSRB 2007; NPPC 2004). Recovery criteria have been established and desired increases in natural production, if co-limited by habitat quantity, quality, and food availability, would require coordinated efforts, to restore both nutrient availability and physical habitat. In this context we are currently pursuing collaborative efforts with local and regional researchers and managers. This integrated approach appears to provide the best chance of improving natural production in the study area by working to restore the biological and physical habitat conditions required for survival of early life history stages of salmonids.

Technical and Scientific Background/Justification

Factors limiting natural production of Pacific salmonids -Current low levels of natural production of anadromous Pacific salmonids in the Columbia River Basin and other west coast North American river systems are the cumulative result of multiple factors in the freshwater and marine environments. Reduced natural production in the freshwater environment can occur at various life stages and can be caused by physical and biological limitations. These can include degradation of spawning, incubation, and rearing habitats, effects of invasive species through competition and predation, passage restrictions to and from critical habitats, climate change, and nutrient limitation and resulting cascading trophic effects (NRC 1996; Ruckelshaus et al. 2002; Williams 2006). Mortality in the Columbia River, the estuary, and in marine environments can also occur at multiple life stages, and may be affected by physiological acclimation, competition, predation, harvest, passage and migration success, and other immediate or delayed artificial and natural factors (Ruckelshaus et al. 2002; Williams 2006). One estimate suggested recent salmon escapement levels may only provide 6-7% of historical MDN inputs to salmon rivers in the Pacific Northwest (Gresh et al. 2000). Another analysis suggested < 2% of historical marine-derived P is currently returning to the Snake River (Scheuerell et al. 2005), and that, under some circumstances, there could even be a net export of nutrients when adult escapement is extremely low (Moore and Schindler 2004). Roles of marine-derived nutrients –Nutrient availability is central to natural productivity in aquatic systems in general, and for Pacific salmonids in particular (e.g. Gende et al. 2002; Naiman et al. 2002; Wipfli et al. 1999). Historically, anadromous Pacific salmonids provided significant inputs of MDN to freshwater streams (Cederholm et al. 1999, 2001; Gresh et al. 2000), likely serving as a metabolic driver for interior systems otherwise characterized as oligotrophic or ultraoligotrophic (nutrient-poor). This nutrient input canaffect ecosystem metabolism from the bottom up, enhancing biological productivity at all trophic levels (Wipfli et al. 1998).

Kline et al. (2007) reported two main pathways by which nutrients make their way from salmon carcasses to the environment: (1) thedirect pathway, where salmon spawn and carcasses are directly consumed, by bears, birds, fish (young salmon and resident species), and stream invertebrates; and (2) the remineralization pathway, where nutrients are released back into the water by microbes during the decomposition of salmon carcasses. Increased nutrient availability from decomposing salmon carcasses, in the forms of N, P, and C, provides the basis for increased algal and periphyton production and microbial growth in streams (Bothwell 1989; Peterson et al. 1993; Yani and Kochi 2004). This in turn can enhance productivity and diversity of the invertebrate community and production of juvenile salmonid forage (Johnson et al. 1990; Mundie et al. 1991; Quamme and Slaney 2003; Yani and Kochi 2004; Holderman et al. 2008). In addition, carcasses can significantly increase substrate surface area available for microbial and invertebrate productivity and diversity. Increased secondary production can enhance instream growth, condition, and survival for juvenile resident and anadromous fish populations and may ultimately contribute to increased numbers of out-migrating salmonids and survival due to higher fitness (Peterson et al. 1993; O’Keefe and Edwards 2003).

Numerous studies suggest broad cycling of salmon-derived nutrients into multiple trophic levels in riparian and terrestrial ecosystems (Gende et al. 2002; Reimchen et al. 2003). MDN has been identified in the hyporheic zone and in riparian and adjacent terrestrial forest soils, vegetation, invertebrate, and vertebrate communities ssociated with Pacific salmonid ecosystems (Ben-David et al. 1997; Cederholm et al. 2000; Hildebrand et al. 1999a, 1999b; Bilby et al. 2003). The preponderance of evidence has made it clear that current discussions on restoration efforts must include the role of MDN in restoring salmon populations and the systems on which they rely (Peery et al. 2003; Stockner 2003, and references therein).


Back To Top

Objectives

What are the ultimate ecological objectives of your project?

Examples include:

Monitoring the status and trend of the spawner abundance of a salmonid population; Increasing harvest; Restoring or protecting a certain population; or Maintaining species diversity. A Project Objective should provide a biological and/or physical habitat benchmark by which results can be evaluated. Objectives should be stated in terms of desired outcomes, rather than as statements of methods and work elements (tasks). In addition, define the success criteria by which you will determine if you have met your objectives. Later, you will be asked to link these Objectives to Deliverables and Work Elements.
Objectives: View instructions
Objective 1 (OBJ-1)
1) Determine whether nutrient availability and/or imbalance significantly limit
natural production of anadromous salmonids in the Methow River Basin (e.g. the
Twisp and Methow rivers) (Years 1-3);
Objective 2 (OBJ-2)
If significant nutrient limitation is confirmed by work funded under Objective 1,
quantify changes in natural production of juvenile anadromous salmonids in
response to experimental nutrient addition (Years 3-8);
Objective 3 (OBJ-3)
Implement and evaluate ongoing nutrient management (Years 9-10 and beyond as needed)
Objective 4 (OBJ-4)
Determine if results can be successfully scaled up to larger geographic areas, and applied to other rivers in the Columbia Basin.

Back To Top

Project History

Financials

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Expenditures *
FY2019 $0 $0
Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama $0 $0
FY2020 $0 $0 $0
Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama $0 $0
FY2021 $0 $0 $0
Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama $0 $0
FY2022 $0 $0 $0
Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama $0 $0
FY2023 $0 $0
Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama $0 $0
FY2024 $0 $0
FY2025 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Mar-2025

Actual Project Cost Share

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Current Fiscal Year — 2025
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2023 (Draft)
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014 $20,000 4%
2013 $10,000 5%
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008

Discuss your project's recent Financial performance shown above. Please explain any significant differences between your Working Budget, Contracted Amount and Expenditures. If Confirmed Cost Share Contributions are significantly different than Proposed cost share contributions, please explain.
Explanation of Recent Financial Performance: View instructions
Expenditures for 2009 and 2010 represent invoiced costs from 2009 contract. Remaining budget expenditures ($49,224) have been spent under the 2009 contract.
Discuss your project's historical financial performance, going back to its inception. Include a brief recap of your project's expenditures by fiscal year. If appropriate discuss this in the context of your project's various phases.
Explanation of Financial History: View instructions
None

Back To Top

Reporting & Contracted Deliverables Performance

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):5
Completed:4
On time:4
Status Reports
Completed:29
On time:16
Avg Days Late:13

                Count of Contract Deliverables
Earliest Contract Subsequent Contracts Title Contractor Earliest Start Latest End Latest Status Accepted Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
41807 47984, 52183, 56576, 56662 REL 16, 56662 REL 55 2008-471-00 EXP UPPER COLUMBIA NUTRIENT SUPPLEMENTATION Yakama Confederated Tribes 04/01/2009 01/31/2016 Closed 29 46 0 0 3 49 93.88% 1
BPA-5921 PIT Tags - Upper Columbia Nutrient Supp. Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2010 09/30/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-6398 PIT Tags - Upper Columbia Nutrient Supp. Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2011 09/30/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-7035 PIT Tags - Upper Columbia Nutrient Supp. Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2012 09/30/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-8923 PIT Tags - Upper Columbia Nutrient Supp. FY16 Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2015 09/30/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 29 46 0 0 3 49 93.88% 1

Selected Contracted Deliverables in CBFish (2004 to present)

The contracted deliverables listed below have been selected by the proponent as demonstrative of this project's major accomplishments.

Projects that are the product of merges and/or splits from other projects may not have the complete list of historical deliverables included below. If you wish to highlight deliverables that are not listed, please refer to Pisces to determine the complete list and describe the missing deliverables in the Major Accomplishments section.

Contract WE Ref Contracted Deliverable Title Due Completed
41807 H: 174 Narrative comments 9/29/2009 9/29/2009
41807 B: 160 Create Custom Database 3/29/2010 3/29/2010

View full Project Summary report (lists all Contracted Deliverables and Quantitative Metrics)

Discuss your project's contracted deliverable history (from Pisces). If it has a high number of Red deliverables, please explain. Most projects will not have 100% completion of deliverables since most have at least one active ("Issued") or Pending contract. Also discuss your project's history in terms of providing timely Annual Progress Reports (aka Scientific/Technical reports) and Pisces Status Reports. If you think your contracted deliverable performance has been stellar, you can say that too.
Explanation of Performance: View instructions
To date, deliverables have been fairly stellar (though this is a new project). Some deliverables have been affected by uncontrollable variables (ISRP review, contracting and admin processes). These variables, at this point are extremely difficult to change.

Back To Top

Results: Reporting, Accomplishments, and Impact

  • Please do the following to help the ISRP and Council assess project performance:
  • List important activities and then report results.
  • List each objective and summarize accomplishments and results for each one, including the projects previous objectives. If the objectives were not met, were changed, or dropped, please explain why. For research projects, list hypotheses that have been and will be tested.
  • Whenever possible, describe results in terms of the quantifiable biological and physical habitat objectives of the Fish and Wildlife Program, i.e., benefit to fish and wildlife or to the ecosystems that sustain them. Include summary tables and graphs of key metrics showing trends. Summarize and cite (with links when available) your annual reports, peer reviewed papers, and other technical documents. If another project tracks physical habitat or biological information related to your project’s actions please summarize and expand on, as necessary, the results and evaluation conducted under that project that apply to your project, and cite that project briefly here and fully in the Relationships section below. Research or M&E projects that have existed for a significant period should, besides showing accumulated data, also present statistical analyses and conclusions based on those data. Also, summarize the project’s influence on resource management and other economic or social benefits. Expand as needed in the Adaptive Management section below. The ISRP will use this information in its Retrospective Review of prior year results. If your proposal is for continuation of work, your proposal should focus on updating this section. If yours is an umbrella project, click here for additional instructions. Clearly report the impacts of your project, what you have learned, not just what you did.
All Proposals: View instructions
  • For umbrella projects, the following information should also be included in this section:
  • a. Provide a list of project actions to date. Include background information on the recipients of funding, including organization name and mission, project cost, project title, location and short project summary, and implementation timeline.
  • b. Describe how the restoration actions were selected for implementation, the process and criteria used, and their relative rank. Were these the highest priority actions? If not, please explain why?
  • c. Describe the process to document progress toward meeting the program’s objectives in the implementation of the suite of projects to date. Describe this in terms of landscape-level improvements in limiting factors and response of the focal species.
  • d. Where are project results reported (e.g. Pisces, report repository, database)? Is progress toward program objectives tracked in a database, report, indicator, or other format? Can project data be incorporated into regional databases that may be of interest to other projects?
  • e. Who is responsible for the final reporting and data management?
  • f. Describe problems encountered, lessons learned, and any data collected, that will inform adaptive management or influence program priorities.
Umbrella Proposals: View instructions

Because this is a new project it is exempt from a response in this project history section.

 


Back To Top

Past Council Recommendations and ISRP Reviews


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: Fish Accord ISRP Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2008-471-00-ISRP-20100323
Project: 2008-471-00 - Upper Columbia Nutrient Supplementation
Review: Fish Accord ISRP Review
Completed Date: None
First Round ISRP Date: 7/10/2009
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:

This proposal includes some methods that are not appropriate and does not provide sufficient detail in other areas to enable an evaluation of scientific merit. The ISRP requests a response to the following items: 1. Provide more detail on the process that will be used to determine nutrient limitation. How will the information on nutrient concentration, trophic processes, etc. be used to determine whether there is a nutrient deficiency and, if so, what element is constraining production? Consider the use of nutrient diffusing substrates to augment this portion of the study. Additional background information on current carcass abundance in the system also would be useful. 2. Consider enhancing the methods to be used for measuring primary production. At a minimum, total periphyton biomass should be measured along with the measure of chlorophyll content. A measure of whole-system metabolism would considerably improve this aspect of the study. 3. The invertebrate sampling protocols are not fully described and in some cases appear to be inappropriate to answer the questions being asked. Indicate how the Hess samples will be processed and approximately how many samples will be taken, given the significant costs inevitably associated with sample processing. Why is there no measure of invertebrate density and biomass included? How will the information on invertebrate community composition be related to nutrient status and productivity? Fully describe how the Hess samples and kick-net samples will complement each other. 4. More fully describe the methods to be used in evaluating juvenile fish populations. Will density and biomass be measured? If so, how will these population attributes be measured? 5. Describe how adult abundance and smolt production will be measured at the Methow study sites. Without this information, determining the effect of nutrient addition on the productivity on salmon and steelhead will be either very difficult or impossible. 6. Describe how potential density-dependent effects of fish population response to food limitation will be addressed. How will the effects of water temperature, flow, and changes in other habitat attributes be accounted for when assessing the responses to nutrient addition? 7. Consider the application of a bioenergetics model to identify appropriate hypotheses and design experiments. 8. Include a more detailed description of the adaptive management process that will be used in moving this study forward. 9. Describe how the evaluation will deal with the presence of and confounding effects of hatchery fish and the role of hatchery fish carcasses in the study design and evaluation, including the identification of their marine-derived nutrient contribution.
Documentation Links:
Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2008-471-00-NPCC-20110427
Project: 2008-471-00 - Upper Columbia Nutrient Supplementation
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-2008-471-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (In Part)
Comments: Implement with condition through FY 2014: Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications (as noted in May 12, 2010 Council decision). Implementation beyond 2014 based on ISRP and Council review of the results report and recommendation of future work.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 This recommendation was made by the Council at its meeting on May 12, 2010. Based on the ISRP review (ISRP document 2010-8) the Council recommends that Bonneville fund the pre-treatment activities and that the implementation of the nutrient enrichment portion of the study plan be dependant upon favorable scientific review of an updated study plan.
Council Condition #2 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #6 Research projects in general—.
Explain how your project has responded to the above ISRP and Council qualifications, conditions, or recommendations. This is especially important if your project received a "Qualified" rating from the ISRP in your most recent assessment. Even if your project received favorable ratings from both the ISRP and Council, please respond to any issues they may have raised.
Response to past ISRP and Council comments and recommendations: View instructions
The Final ISRP response report responds to all of the ISRP comments (see <a href="http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2010-8.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2010-8.htm</a>).<br/> <br/> The project meets scientific criteria, though this outcome is not shown in the above assesment.

Back To Top

Adaptive Management


Project Level: Please discuss how you’ve changed your project (objectives, actions, etc) based on biological responses or information gained from project actions; because of management decisions at the subbasin state, regional, or agency level; or by external or larger environment factors. Specifically, regarding project modifications summarize how previous hypotheses and methods are changed or improved in this updated proposal. This would include project modifications based on information from recent research and literature. How is your new work different than previous work, and why?
Management Level: Please describe any management changes planned or made because of biological responses or information gained from project actions. This would include management decisions at the subbasin, state, or regional level influenced by project results.
Management Changes: View instructions
Adaptive management framework This project is designed and proposed within an adaptive management (AM) framework to address inherent uncertainties associated with research, monitoring, and evaluation in complex, altered river systems. A short description of adaptive management and how this project will function within a hierarchical adaptive management framework is presented below, followed by detailed descriptions of methods by work element and trophic level. Adaptive management is a valuable process of ‘learning by doing’ that involves much more than simple monitoring and response to unexpected management impacts (Walters 1986, 1997). It has been proposed that adaptive management should begin with a concerted effort to integrate existing interdisciplinary experience and scientific information into dynamic models that attempt to make predictions about the impacts of alternative policies (Holling 1978; Walters 1986; Van Winkle et al. 1997). This modeling step is intended to serve three functions: (1) provide problem clarification and enhanced communication among scientists, managers, and other stakeholders, (2) policy screening to eliminate likely unsuccessful options, and (3) identify key knowledge gaps”. Typically, the design of management experiments (such as this project) is a key second step in the process of adaptive management, and a new set of management issues may arise regarding how to deal with the costs and risks of large-scale experimentation. Two critical AM components include: (1) a direct feedback loop between science and management, and (2) the use of coordinated research, monitoring, and evaluation to guide and refine management (Halbert 1993; Figure 3). These features differentiate adaptive management from traditional trial-and-error or learn-as-you-go management (Hilborn 1992; Halbert 1993). Figure 3. A generalized adaptive management model to be used in this project. Within this general AM framework, the following sequence of iterative actions are provided below, and illustrated in Figure 4. 1) Design and implement a biomonitoring program with appropriate response variables for each trophic level (water quality, including nutrient availability), primary (algae/periphyton), secondary (macro invertebrates), and tertiary (fish) production; 2) Implement replicated trophic level sampling to compare empirical nutrient concentration with defined limiting values, and any reconstructed historical nutrient availability estimates; 3) Perform sample size and power analyses by trophic level to ensure adequate statistical rigor to detect treatment effects, and follow a defined logic path (Figure 4), including possible outcomes of treatments among intended, unintended target species or communities; 4) Assess nutrient limitation using analysis of empirical chemical, biological, and ecological metric data. 5) Repeat the above steps annually during 2-3 pre-treatment years to assess current trophic status. 6) Conclude nutrient status of the Twisp River. 7) Provide nutrient addition prescription if needed (detailed program of controlled addition of limiting nutrients). 8) Implement experimental nutrient addition for up to 5 years, along with annually repeated biomonitoring activities used during the pre-treatment years using similar sampling protocols and study sites as pre-treatment years. 9) Determine the success of the project’s experimental treatment phase and determine whether nutrient addition should be recommended as a future ongoing management action. 10) Provide recommendations to resource managers as needed. Within this hierarchical AM framework, this project has four sequential phases (Figure 4) presented below. A staggered implementation schedule is expected because work will begin in the Twisp River, with the possibility of expansion to other tributaries based on success in the Twisp. 1) Pre-treatment (diagnosis) Phase (Years 1-3) ; biomonitoring activities collect data to characterize the ecological baseline condition, including nutrient availability; 2) Decision Phase (Year 3) ; data from Phase 1 is analyzed to decide whether the study area rivers are nutrient deficient; 3) Treatment Phase (Years 3-9) ; experimental nutrient supplementation treatments are administered, monitored; and evaluated; and 4) Recommendation Phase (after year 8); based on performance and success of experimental treatments in Phase 3, recommendations are provided concerning whether nutrient addition should be considered as a future ongoing management action. Figure 4. Adaptive project design and implementation flowchart.

Back To Top

Project Documents & Reports

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Public Attachments in CBFish

ID Title Type Period Contract Uploaded
P110437 Project Narrative Other - 2/20/2009 2:50:26 PM
P112086 200847100 ISRP FAN1B Other - 6/15/2009 4:24:10 PM
P113788 200847100 ISRP FAN2 Other - 10/15/2009 9:35:45 AM
P113789 200847100 ISRP FAN2 Responses Other - 10/15/2009 9:38:31 AM
P113790 200847100 ISRP FAN2 Cover Other - 10/15/2009 9:41:18 AM
P115592 200847100 ISRP FAN3 Other - 3/15/2010 8:50:39 AM
P115593 200847100 ISRP FAN3 Response Report Other - 3/15/2010 8:52:17 AM
P115594 200847100 ISRP FAN3 Cover Other - 3/15/2010 8:53:18 AM
P125770 Upper Columbia Nutrient Supplementation; 4/09 - 12/11 Progress (Annual) Report 04/2009 - 03/2011 52183 3/27/2012 7:27:16 AM
P131487 Upper Columbia Nutrient Supplementaion Project Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 04/2009 - 12/2011 56576 3/28/2013 11:21:33 AM
P136758 UCNS Progress (Annual) Report 01/2012 - 12/2012 56662 REL 16 5/27/2014 9:37:54 AM
P142639 Upper Columbia Natural Production Restoration Project - RM&E Progress (Annual) Report 03/2014 - 02/2015 56662 REL 55 4/2/2015 10:58:29 AM
P175662 Upper Columbia Nutrient Supplementation; 4/09 - 12/11 Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM

Other Project Documents on the Web

None

Back To Top

Back To Top

Project Relationships

The Project Relationships tracked automatically in CBFish provide a history of how work and budgets move between projects. The terms "Merged" and "Split" describe the transfer of some or all of the Work and budgets from one or more source projects to one or more target projects. For example, some of one project's budget may be split from it and merged into a different project. Project relationships change for a variety of reasons including the creation of efficiency gains.
Project Relationships: This project Merged From 2008-405-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: FA-LRT-YAKAMA moveto 200847100

This project Merged From 2008-412-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: FA-LRT-YAKAMA moveto 200847100

This project Merged From 2008-456-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: FA-LRT-YAKAMA moveto 200847100

This project Merged From 2008-457-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: FA-LRT-YAKAMA moveto 200847100


Additional Relationships Explanation:

Methow Subbasin Projects - The Yakama Nation is a contributing member to the
Methow Restoration Council, the basin’s Watershed Action Team. Members of the MRC
include WDFW, USGS, USFWS, USFS, BOR, DOE, Methow Conservancy, Washington
Rivers Conservancy and Wild Fish Conservancy. Projects among the different groups
include hatchery monitoring and evaluation programs, habitat restoration projects, flood
plain protection, and habitat effectiveness monitoring.
Project personnel work collaboratively with the WDFW hatchery monitoring and
evaluation program. The locations of their rotary screw traps provide valuable sampling
sites for measuring condition factor population attributes of resident and anadromous fish
in the study areas. Data collected at the traps, including, survival, egg to emigrant, and
SAR rates will give us good estimates of pre- and post- fertilization production. We are
also pursuing collaborations with the Wild Fish Conservancy and DOE as part of a basinwide
water quality evaluation program.
USGS effectiveness monitoring – Initial discussions confirmed that BOR, USGS (Pat
Connelly, Cook WA) and Dr. Colden Baxter (ISU, Pocatello) will be collaborating on
evaluations of physical habitat improvements and operating instream PIT tag stations
within the Methow Basin to assist in monitoring juvenile and adult production and
addressing potential project treatment (experimental nutrient addition) effects.
Collaborative discussions between key project personnel and these within-basin
cooperators are ongoing and are undertaken to provide mutually beneficial monitoring,
evaluation, and analytical outcomes among all parties.
Kootenai/y fertilization projects - Most key personnel (Drs. Anders, Ashley, Shafii,
Smith, Ward, and Yassien) have been involved with many aspects of the Kootenay Lake
and Kootenai River nutrient assessment and subsequent fertilization projects and their
development since 1990. Interaction of key project personnel with those of other
pioneering, long-term successful nutrient evaluation and addition projects in North
America and elsewhere provide invaluable project design, implementation, monitoring,
evaluation, and analytical attributes for this project. These scientific and management
networks also provide logistical efficiencies required for successful long-term scientific
and management collaborations.
British Columbia Projects – Several key project personnel (e.g. Drs. Ashley, Ward and
Yassien) have also been instrumentally involved in the design, implementation,
evaluation, and analysis of numerous successful nutrient evaluation and nutrient addition
projects from conceptual design through implementation of experimental phases through
implementations phases as ongoing management phases. Several examples of such
project in B.C. involving key proposed project personnel include nutrient assessment and
enhancement projects on the: Adams River, Mesilinka and Keogh rivers, Big Silver
Creek, and the Salmo and Chilliwack rivers.


Back To Top

Focal Species

Primary Focal Species
Chinook (O. tshawytscha) - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU (Endangered)
Steelhead (O. mykiss) - Upper Columbia River DPS (Threatened)

Secondary Focal Species
Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) - Lower Columbia River ESU (Threatened)
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope (O. c. lewisi)
Whitefish, Mountain (Prosopium williamsoni)
Wildlife

Describe how you are taking into account potential biological and physical effects of factors such as non-native species, predation increases, climate change and toxics that may impact the project’s focal species and their habitat, potentially reducing the success of the project. For example: Does modeling exist that predicts regional climate change impacts to your particular geographic area? If so, please summarize the results of any predictive modeling for your area and describe how you take that into consideration.
Threats to program investments and project success: View instructions
An intensive long range monitoring plan accounts for some limiting factors.

Back To Top

Types of Work

Work Classes

Tagging

Please explain why the tagging technology used in this project was selected. Include a discussion of how the cost and applicability of the selected tagging technology influenced your selection. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.
NA
Describe any of the innovative approaches that your projects proposes that are in direct support of the ISAB/ISRP's recommendations to improve techniques for surgical insertion of internal tags, or external attachment of acoustic, radio, or data storage tags that reduce handling time, fish injury and stress. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.
NA
For specific tagging technologies, please address the tagging report's recommendations for genetic markers, otolith thermal marking, PIT tags, acoustic tags and radio tags for improving technologies in any way applicable. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.
NA
If your project involves ocean port sampling and lower river sampling for coded wire tag (CWT) recovery, address the tagging and tag recovery issues (statistical validity of tagging rates, tag recovery rates, and fishery sampling rates) presented in the Pacific Salmon Commission's Action Plan to Address the CWT Expert Panel (PSC Tech. Rep. No. 25, March 2008).
NA
Explain how your tagging and tag recovery rates ensure a statistically valid result for your project. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.

NA

Data Management

What tools (e.g., guidance material, technologies, decision support models) are you creating and using that support data management and sharing?
<No answer provided>
Describe the process used to facilitate receiving and sharing of data, such as standardizing data entry format through a template or data steward, including data exchange templates that describe the data collection methods, and the provision of an interface that makes data electronically accessible.
<No answer provided>
Please describe the sources from which you are compiling data, as well as what proportion of data is from the primary source versus secondary or other sources?
<No answer provided>
Please explain how you manage the data and corresponding metadata you collect.
<No answer provided>
Describe how you distribute your project's data to data users and what requirements or restrictions there may be for data access.
<No answer provided>

RM&E

What type(s) of RM&E will you be doing?
Action Effectiveness Research
Uncertainties Research (Validation Monitoring and Innovation Research)
Where will you post or publish the data your project generates?

Back To Top

Location

Loading ...
Layers
Legend
Name (Identifier) Area Type Source for Limiting Factor Information
Type of Location Count
Alder Creek-Methow River (170200080610) HUC 6 Expert Panel Assessment Unit 2

Back To Top

Project Deliverables

Project Deliverable definition: A significant output of a project that often spans multiple years and therefore may be accomplished by multiple contracts and multiple work elements. Contract Deliverables on the other hand are smaller in scope and correspond with an individual work element. Title and describe each Project Deliverable including an estimated budget, start year and end year. Title: A synopsis of the deliverable. For example: Crooked River Barrier and Channel Modification. Deliverable Description: Describe the work required to produce this deliverable in 5000 characters or less. A habitat restoration deliverable will contain a suite of actions to address particular Limiting Factors over time for a specified Geographic area typically not to exceed a species population’s range. Briefly include the methods for implementation, in particular any novel methods you propose to use, including an assessment of factors that may limit success. Do not go into great detail on RM&E Metrics, Indicators, and Methods if you are collecting or analyzing data – later in this proposal you’ll be asked for these details.
Project Deliverables: View instructions
Measure basline nutrient levels (DELV-1)
This deliverable is described in the project narrative as objective 1.
Types of Work:
Evlauate Nutrient Addition (DELV-2)
These methods are described in the project narrative and are similar to the first deliverable.
Types of Work:

Back To Top

Objectives & Project Deliverables

Objective: Objective 1 (OBJ-1)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
Measure basline nutrient levels (DELV-1)
Objective: Objective 2 (OBJ-2)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
Evlauate Nutrient Addition (DELV-2)
Objective: Objective 3 (OBJ-3)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
Objective: Objective 4 (OBJ-4)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
*This section was not available on proposals submitted prior to 9/1/2011

Back To Top

Project Deliverables & Budget

Project Deliverable Start End Budget
Measure basline nutrient levels (DELV-1) 2011 2014 $0
Evlauate Nutrient Addition (DELV-2) 2013 2017 $0
Total $0
Fiscal Year Proposal Budget Limit Actual Request Explanation of amount above FY2010
2011 $0
2012 $0
2013 $0
2014 $0
2015 $0
2016 $0
2017 $0
Total $0 $0
Item Notes FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Personnel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Prof. Meetings & Training $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Vehicles $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Facilities/Equipment (See explanation below) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rent/Utilities $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Capital Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Overhead/Indirect $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PIT Tags $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Back To Top

Cost Share

Source / Organization Fiscal Year Proposed Amount Type Description
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2012 $55,000 Cash Development of isotope analysis and bio energetic modeling as it relates to energy transfer through food webs.
There is a good probability of obtaining this funding.

Back To Top

Project References or Citations

Ashley, K. I., and J. G. Stockner. 2003. Protocol for applying limiting nutrients to inland waters. American Fisheries Society Symposium 34: 245-258. Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C. Ben-David, M., T. A. Hanley, T. R. Klein, and D. M. Schell. 1997a. Timing of reproduction in wild mink: the influence of spawning Pacific salmon. Canadian Journal of Zoology 75:376–382. Bilby, R.E., E.W. Beach, B.R. Fransen, J.K. Walter, and P.A. Bisson. 2003. Transfer of nutrients from spawning salmon to riparian vegetation in western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 132:733-745. Bode, R. W., M. A. Novak, and L. E. Abele. 1991. Quality assurance work plan for biological stream monitoring in New York State. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water, Albany, NY. Bothwell. M. L. 1989. Phosphorus-limited growth dynamics of lotic periphyton diatom communities: aerial biomass and cellular growth rate responses. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:1890-1901. Cederholm C.J., M.D. Kunze, T. Murota, and A. Sibatani. 1999. Pacific salmon carcasses: essential contributions of nutrients and energy for aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Fisheries, 24, 6–15. Cederholm, C. J., M. D. Kunze, T. Murota, and A. Sibatani. 2000. Pacific salmon carcasses. Fisheries. 24:6-15 Cederholm, C.J., and thirteen co-authors. 2001. Pacific salmon and wildlife — ecological contexts, relationships, and implications for management. In Wildlife–habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Edited by D.H. Johnson and T.A. O’Neil. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. pp. 628–684. Gende, S. M., R.T. Edwards, M.F. Willson, and M.S. Wipfli. 2002. Pacific salmon in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. BioScience 52:917-928. Gresh, T., J. Lichatowich, and P. Schoonmaker. 2000. An estimation of historic and current levels of salmon production in the northeast Pacific ecosystem: evidence of a nutrient deficit in the freshwater systems of the Pacific Northwest. Fisheries 25: 15- 21. Hildebrand, G.V., C.C. Schwartz, C.T. Robbins, M.E. Jacoby, S.M. Arthur and C. Servheen. 1999b. The importance of meat, particularly salmon, to body size, population productivity, and conservation of North American brown bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:132-138. Hildebrand, G.V., T.A. Hanley, C.T. Robbins, and C.C. Schwartz.1999a. Role of brown bears (Ursus arctos) in the flow of marine nitrogen into a terrestrial ecosystem. Oecologia 121:546-550. 25 Holderman, C., P. Anders, B. Shafii, and G. Lester. 2008. Characterization of the Kootenai River aquatic macroinvertebrate community before and after experimental nutrient addition, 2003–2006. Report to the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and Bonneville Power Administration. 53 pp. Johnson, N.T., C. J. Perrin, P.A. Slaney, and B.R. Ward. 1990. Increased juvenile growth by whole river fertilization. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:136-144. Holderman, C., P. Anders, B. Shafii and G. Lester. 2009a. Characterization of the Kootenai River aquatic macroinvertebrate community before and after experimental nutrient addition, 2003-2006. Report to Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and Bonneville Power Administration. 94 pp. Kline, T.C., C.A. Woody, M.A. Bishop, S.P. Powers, and E.E. Knudsen. 2007. Assessment of Marine-Derived Nutrients in the Copper River Delta, Alaska, Using Natural Abundance of the Stable Isotopes of Nitrogen, Sulfur, and Carbon. American Fisheries Society Symposium 54:51-60. Martens, K.D. and Connolly, P.J. 2008. Lower Methow tributaries intensive effectiveness monitoring study. Interim Report. U.S.G.S., Cook, WA. 71 p Moore J.W. and D.E. Schindler. 2004. Nutrient export from freshwater ecosystems by anadromous sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 61, 1582–1589. Mundie, J.H, K. S. Simpson, and C.J. Perrin. 1991. Responses of stream periphyton and benthic insects to increases in dissolved inorganic phosphorus in a mesocosm. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:2061-2072. Naiman, R.J., R.E. Bilby, D.E. Schindler, and J.M. Helfield. 2002. Pacific salmon, nutrients, and the dynamics of freshwater and riparian ecosystems. Ecosystems 5:399-417. Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC) 2004. Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Portland, ORhttp://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/Default.htm NRC (National Research council). 1996. Upstream: salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. O’Keefe, T.C., and R.T. Edwards. 2003. Evidence for hyporheic transfer and removal of marine-derived nutrients in a sockeye stream in Southwest Alaska. American Fisheries Society Symposium 34: 99-107. Peery, C.A, K. Kavanaugh, and J.M. Scott. 2003. Pacific salmon: Setting biological defensible recovery goals. Bioscience 53:622-623. Peterson, B. J. and 16 coauthors. 1993. Biological responses of a tundra river to fertilization. Ecology 74:653-672 Quamme, D. L. and P.A. Slaney. 2003. The relationship between nutrient concentration and stream insect abundance. American Fisheries Society Symposium 34: 163-175. Reimchen, T. E., D. D. Mathewson, M. D. Hocking, and J. Moran. 2003. Isotopic evidence for enrichment of salmon-derived nutrients in vegetation, soil, and insects 26 in riparian zones in coastal British Columbia. American Fisheries Society Symposium 34:59-69. Ruckelshaus, M.H., P. Levin, J.B. Johnson, and P.M. Kareiva. 2002. The Pacific salmon wars: what science brings to the challenge of recovering species. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33:665-7-6. Scheuerell M.D., P.S. Levin, R.W. Zabel, J.G. Williams, and B.L. Sanderson. 2005. A new perspective of marine derived nutrients to threatened stocks of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 62, 961– 964. Stockner, J. G. (editor). 2003. Nutrients in salmonid ecosystems: sustaining production and biodiversity. American Fisheries Society Symposium 34, Bethesda, MD. Snow, C., C. Frady, A. Fowler, and A. Murdoch. 2007. Monitoring and evaluation of Wells and Methow hatchery programs in 2006. Prepared for Douglas County Public Utility District and Wells Habitat Conservation Plan Hatchery Committee, by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Methow Field Office, Twisp, WA. Snow, C., C. Frady, A. Fowler, and A. Murdoch. 2008. Monitoring and evaluation of Wells and Methow hatchery programs in 2007. Prepared for Douglas County Public Utility District and Wells Habitat Conservation Plan Hatchery Committee, by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Methow Field Office, Twisp, WA. UCSRB 2007 Citation needed Williams, R.N. 2006. Return to the River: restoring salmon to the Columbia River. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, MA. Wipfli, M. S., J. Hudson, and J. Caouette. 1998. Influence of salmon carcasses on stream productivity: response of biofilm and benthic macroinvertebrates in southeastern Alaska, U. S. A. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 1503-1511. Wipfli, M. S., J.P. Hudson, D.T. Chaloner, and J P. Caouette. 1999. The influence of salmon spawner densities on stream productivity in Southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:1600-1611. Yanai, S., and K. Kochi. 2005. Effects of salmon carcasses on experimental stream ecosystems in Hokkaido, Japan. Ecol Res 20:471-480.

Back To Top

Notes

None

Back To Top

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment Rating:  Response Requested
BiOp Workgroup Comments:
Although the monitoring does not pose a conflict with RPA needs; resulting actions in out-years to test hypothesis may detrimentally impact ongoing ISEMP studies in the Entiat and other UC watershed stream reaches. Further coordination with ISEMP staff on control and treatment reaches needs to be identified if this work is implemented in the UC. (Please Respond as to how you are coordinating with the ISEMP studies)

Please identify:
1. Why your data is "not electronically available"; and
2. What data sets will not be "electronically available" for various deliverables. Please specify the deliverable that is not electronically available. (Note a data set includes the raw data collected and additional data on analysis). For example if there is a deliverable for population adult abundance or habitat, we expect your raw and synthesized data to be made available electronically.
- Your response may help BPA identify funding needs for data repositories or identify an existing data warehouse that your data could be stored.

The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: (56.1 56.2)
All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and
All Deleted RPA Associations ( )
Proponent Response:

I have already met with the ISEMP coordiantor (Pamela Nelle) about these issues. At this point there is no ISEMP work being done in the Twisp River, the only immediate planned study tribuatary for this project. I will continue to coordiate with ISEMP on all matters concerning project impacts.

Data is not currently stored online, but will be available electronicly.


Back To Top