Nutrient Enrichment Project, by Sanderson

• Background • Challenges • Accomplishments • Opportunities Question

• Can enhancing stream nutrients positively affect juvenile salmon? growth and Nutrient stream survival of enhancement productivity chinook

• If so, • What is the best way to add nutrients? • Which streams might benefit most? Multiple approaches

1. Comparative Study (17 streams) 2. Behavioral Studies 3. Experimental Studies Comparative Study •Chemical & physical habitat •Nutrient limitation of periphyton •Algal production •Invertebrate biomass and drift •Survey of whole fish community •Juvenile fish size and survival •Stable isotopes of food web REACH 1 REACH 2 Upstream Downstream Water Chemistry [ TN, TP ] 3 riffles 3 riffles [ PO4, Si(OH)4, NO3, NO2, NH3 ] 3 riffles 3 riffles Nutrient Limitation NO Yes, pre & post spawners DOC July and Sept, 3 riffles July and Sept, 3 riffles Dissolved Oxygen NO NO Turbidity June and Aug, 3 riffles June and Aug, 3 riffles Primary Producer Algal biomass (AFDM) (tiles and rocks) 5 riffles (Tiles only) 5 riffles Community Chlorophyll a (tiles and rocks) 5 riffles (Tiles only) 5 riffles Isotope Composition 3 riffles 3riffles Invertebrate Community biomass / density 5 riffles Community Species composition NO 5 riffles Drift July and Sept, 3 riffles Isotope Composition – grazers, predators 3riffles Decomposition Leaf litter decomposition NO 4 removal dates: between July and Sept Fish: Community Species composition Snorkel survey Snorkel survey Abundance/Density/Biomass Snorkel survey Snorkel survey Size and age structure (length and weight) NO NO

Individual Length/weight/growth rate/condition NO NO Survival Achord Achord Salmonid diets NO NO Isotope Composition Yes Yes (2 dominant / 1 resident) Physical-Hydrologic Temperature (PVC + caps) Tidbits (1/stream) Tidbits (1/stream) stream parameters Discharge/Flow rates Flow meter and tennis ball NO methods Predator Survey Aquatic and terrestrial predators Bird surveys Bird surveys

Habitat EMAP Habitat survey Done – 2002 August 2003 Characterization Except Loon/Camas/Marsh Stream Sampling Design

1 km reference 1 km treatment

Sample site 40 x width

EMAP habitat survey

A B C D E F G H I J K Behavioral Study

- feeding behavior - habitat use - interactions with other fish Experimental Studies Whole Ecosystem Experiment

Number of Treatment Replicates Analog 2 Carcass 2 Inorganic Pellets 2 Control 2 Nutrients Juvenile salmonids Riparian species

Periphyton Invertebrates

Native trout and Habitat non-native species • Background • Challenges • Accomplishments • Opportunities StudyStudy timelinetimeline 2001 2002 2003 2004 Baseline monitoring Before Before During After Stream enclosure/channel experiments Ecosystem nutrient enrichment experiment

Plan A

Proposal submitted in 2000 Coordination among WDFW, ShoBans, Yakama and NOAA in 2001 Contract in legal dispute and awarded in spring 2002 Permits 2004 Permits 2005 USFS National Forest Permits (requests submitted for modifications to existing permits) Department of Environmental Quality - Boise (Level 1 meeting, June 2004) IDFG - Payette NEPA - Salmon-Challis - Sawtooth National Recreation Area IDFG Permit (fish sampling) ESA (modification to permit requested) Department of Environmental Quality USFW (Bull Trout) NEPA

Permits 2003 USFS National Forest Permits - Boise (received) - Payette (received) - Salmon-Challis (received) - Sawtooth National Recreation Area (received) - Boise National Forest Biological Assessment of Invertebrate Sampling and Stream Enclosure Experiments (Level 1 meeting 4/30/03) ESA Permit Section 10 (Salmon and Steelhead: #1402) ESA Permit Section 7 (Bull Trout; permit # 1-7-00-F-336, Study 2 request under review) IDFG Permit Request USFW (Bull Trout) NEPA

Permits 2002 USFS National Forest Permits - Boise (ID#BOI003601, issued8/1/02, no invertebrate sampling permitted) - Payette (ID#MCC033, issued 8/09/02) - Salmon-Challis (Yankee Fork sites approved; Middle Fork sites were not) - Sawtooth National Recreation Area (File Code 2700, issued 8/22/02) ESA Permit (#1056, Study 3) USFW (Bull Trout) IDFG Permit Request (Not Approved) NEPA 27 months of people time Permit-related meetings with state, tribal and federal entities

Date NOAA Staff Organization Attending

Sanderson, Kiffney, Ellensburg, WA (Shoshone Bannock, WDGW, Yakama Nation, Todd Pearsons, Doug Taki, Mike Haddix, Bill Sharp, Bob June 2001 Hockersmith Weyerhaeuser) Bilby March 2002 Sanderson, Kiffney, Coe Idaho State of Fish and Game, Shoshone Bannock Steve Yundt, Mike Haddix Dave Burns, Jane Cropp, Quinn Carver, Jason Dunham, United States Forest Service, Idaho State of Fish and Game, Nez- May 2002 Sanderson, Coe Russ Thurow, Dan Issak, Virgil Moore, Charlie Petrosky, Perce Tribe, Bonneville Power Administration Jeff Lutch, Steve Yundt, Felix McGowan, Peter Lofy Gary Rule, David Fornander, Jane Cropp, NMFS (Boise), United States Forest Service (Payette, Boise, June 2002 Sanderson, Amerson Salmon-Challis, Sawtooth NRA), Bonneville Power Administration, Kathy Nash, Dave Burns, Roger Nelson, Cam Meyer, Nez-Perce Tribe Paul Bryant, Michael Kellett, Joseph Vacirca, Mark Moulton, Felix McGowen, Peter Lofy, Shannon Stewart

Sanderson, Coe, Kiffney, Weyerhaeuser, British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Feb 2003 Bob Bilby, Ken Ashley Macneale, Tran Protection

Sanderson, Coe, Tran United States Forest Service - Payette National Forest Dave Burns, Kathy Nash, Jane Cropp, Jenni Blake Feb 2003 Sanderson, Coe, Tran United States Forest Service - Boise National Forest Paul Bryant, Michael Kellett Sanderson, Coe, Tran United States Forest Service - Rocky Mountain Research Station Russ Thurow Sanderson, Kiffney, Tran United States Forest Service - Rocky Mountain Research Station Jason Dunham, Amanda Rosenburg Sanderson, Kiffney, Tran Idaho State of Fish and Game Steve Yundt, Bill Horton, Jeff Lutch, Peter Lofy

March 2003 Sanderson, Kiffney, Tran United States Forest Service - Boise National Forest Mike Kellett Sanderson, Tran United States Forest Service – Sawtooth National Recreational Area Scott Loos Sanderson, Tran United States Forest Service – Salmon-Challis National Forest Patty Bates, Joey Vacirca, Russ Camper Michael Kellett, Lisa Nutt, Jim Nutt, Edna Vizgirdas, April 2003 Sanderson United States Forest Service - Boise National Forest Allyson Turner, Debbie Artimez Keith Johnson, Kim Apperson, Dale Allen, Jeff Lutch, Bill Sanderson, Tran, Drake Idaho State of Fish and Game March 2004 Horton, Gene McPherson Sanderson, Tran, Drake United States Forest Service - Payette National Forest Dave Burns, Kathy Nash, Jane Cropp Jeff Lutch, Sam Sharr, Kim Apperson, Jerry Lockhart, Bill Sanderson, Coe, Drake Idaho State of Fish and Game Horton, Sharon Kiefer April 2004 Sanderson, Coe, Drake United States Forest Service - Rocky Mountain Research Station Bruce Rieman, Jason Dunham

Sanderson, Coe, Drake United States Forest Service - Boise National Forest Michael Kellett, Laurie Fink

Michael Kellett, Lisa Nutt, Jim Nutt, Edna Vizgirdas, June 2004 Macneale, Tran United States Forest Service - Boise National Forest Allyson Turner, Debbie Artimez StudyStudy timelinetimeline 2001 2002 2003 2004 Baseline monitoring Before Before During After Stream enclosure/channel experiments Ecosystem nutrient enrichment experiment

2001 2002 2003 2004 Baseline monitoring Partial Partial Complete Complete Stream enclosure/channel Complete experiments Ecosystem nutrient enrichment experiment

Plan B Table 3. Streams included in baseline monitoring efforts of the nutrient enhancement study.

Forest Sho-Ban or ISS Other – Carcasses in SF Nutrient Wilderness drainage only Enhancement Bear Valley Boise C Analog Elk Boise Inorganic South Fork Boise T Carcass Lower Big Payette Rush Payette Chamberlain Payette WF Payette Permitted reach outside of Chamberlain anadromous zone Lake Payette C Secesh Payette C Permitted reach insufficient Summit Payette Camas Salmon-Challis Access, border wilderness Cape Horn Salmon-Challis Analog Loon Salmon-Challis Access, border wilderness Marsh Salmon-Challis Control C Sulphur Salmon-Challis Access, border wilderness Analog Elk Creek Trib Sawtooth Analog Valley Sawtooth Control C StudyStudy timelinetimeline 2001 2002 2003 2004 Baseline monitoring Before Before During After Stream enclosure/channel experiments Ecosystem nutrient enrichment experiment

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 ? Baseline monitoring Partial Partial Complete Complete Stream enclosure/channel Complete experiments Ecosystem nutrient enrichment experiment

Plan C ?

Our specific goal for summer 2004 is to select and monitor sites that will be acceptable by all parties for nutrient enhancement in 2005. The streams: What have we learned from baseline monitoring? Response Variables i. Fish ii. Chemistry iii. Periphyton & Invertebrates iv. Isotopes v. Non-native species

• Background • Challenges • Accomplishments • Opportunities Baseline Parameters Monitored Summer 2003/2004

Fish Water Primary Invertebrate Temperature Physical Fish Stable Chemistry Productivity Community Discharge Characterization Community Isotopes

Water Biomass (rocks Hess sampling collection and tiles) Tidbits Snorkeling Fish Decomposition Drift sampling Habitat survey survey collections Nutrient rates Measure flow limitation Stable isotopes Stable Isotopes

3-4 sampling 3-4 sampling 2-3 sampling Measured over 1 sampling 2 sampling 1 sampling event events events events 3-4 months event events Fish through space and time: - species composition and distribution - chinook survival, abundance and size Fish abundance by stream and species whitefish (all CH<40mm called fry) sucker 5000 sculpin rainbow trout 4000 fry dace

length of stream 3000 cutthroat trout m chinook 2000 bull trout brook trout 1000

Number per 400- 0

A A O V C M H VAL H A m only SUM LAK ETR SUL B ELK MAR SFS C C LOO0- C WF 0 2 early late surveyed June 30 - July 10, 2003 August August

snorkel survey 2003 Chinook by stream and habitat 3.5

3 shallow slow 2.5 shallow fast

2 2 deep slow deep fast 1.5

# CH/m 1

0.5

M K R L O A K R L S A M O SU LA ET SU CH BV EL MA VA SF CH CA LO

stream

snorkel survey 2003 hord Ac &

Zabel 1992-2002 C

5 F

8 l l

6 G B

5 f l

h s

11 e

S S F

11 S

7 r

6 n

7 a

10 G

B L

STREAM

d r

7 e

9 l E

4 F

5 O

2 H

5 A

9 A

V B

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

V A L V I S U R hord Ac &

Zabel

y lle 5

1992-1994, 1998-1999

5 G

f 4 l

h S

5 r

5 o

5 a

5 B L

d STREAM r

5 e

k 5 El

S 4 EF

H C

A 4 C

5 VA B

80 75 70 65 60

T H N G L E Chemistry

1) What are concentrations? 2) How do they vary? a) Time b) Space 3) Are nutrients limiting? Average concentrations PO4 June-September 2003 18 16 Detection limit = 0.6 14 12

l 10

ug/ 8 6 4 2 0

R L R O O M L M G A K C A S K S C A A T O H U U A B H L E V F A U F M V E L C S S C L C E S B S L R W

NO3 45 40 Detection limit = 2.1 35 30

l 25

ug/ 20 15 10 5 0

K S M L C R M A C O G L A K O R S A F A U E T U V F H B A H L O A U L S C S S E S B W C L V C E L M R Space Time • upstream vs. downstream • within year • across years

9 9 Bear Valley Creek 2003 Lake Creek l) / 7 6 5

PO4 (ug 3

PO4 (ug/l) 3

0 1 Jul Aug Sept Cape Horn Creek 2.5 Upstream 2 Downstream 1.5

PO4 (ug/l) 1

0.5

0 160 180 200 220 240 260 2001 Day of Year 2002 2003 Nutrient Limitation Assessment C

P September 10 C N

) 8 2 NP cm P 6 ug* ( l

4 ophyl r o 2 Chl

0 BVA LAK LOO RUS SEC SFS SUL SUM WFC

• N-limited (except RUS and LOO?) • Co-limited (except RUS, SFS, WFC)

Significant p<0.05 Sig. lower Will we be able to link marine derived nutrients to benthic production (a.k.a. fish food)? Chlorophyll )

2 5 2002 4 3 l (ug/cm l mid Aug - mid Sep 2 mid/late Sep 1

Chlorophy 0 S K A K EL ETR SEC SUL SFS RU LA LBG CH CHO SUM VAL MAR WFC BVA

5 2003 ) 2 4

3 ll (ug/cm Jul 2 Aug Sep 1 Chlorophy

0 K VAL BVA LAK EL SFS ETR SUL LBG CAM MAR CHA LOO SEC RUS SUM CHO WFC 2500 2002

e 2000

1500 bundanc A

Invertebrates e t a 1000 ebr t r e v n

I 500

0 ETR LAK LBG SEC SUM VAL Stream

ETR LAK LBG

Other Diptera Chironomidae Ephemeroptera Plecoptera Trichoptera Misc SEC SUM VAL 1400 e

nc 1200 da

un 1000 b A

Relationship between e 800 t a br

e 600

chlorophyll concentration t

r 2

e R = 0.2149 v

n 400

& total invertebrate abundance I l a t

o 200

2002 T 0 0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000 1.2000

Chlorophyll (ug/cm2)

1400 R2 = 0.49 (VAL)

e 1200 c n R2 = 0.38 (SUM)

1000 2 R = 0.68 (LAK) R2 = 0.12 (LBG) bunda A

e 800 t a br e

t 600 2

r R = 0.51 (SEC) e 400 l Inv a t 2 To 200 R = 0.81 (ETR) 0 0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000 1.2000

Chlorophyll (ug/cm2) 15 Juvenile Chinook 1999 δ15N Signatures

) 10 t p p 8 15 (

N 6 e

ag 4 ver

A 2

0 10 6 8 11 1 1 9 5 6 7 2 4 4 3 r n y k y k n e o ig ek on ek e e B e eek le e eek eek eek lle e or Riv lm r r al lm r re r r r a H a C V C C C C V h per e C k s y Cr S l Sa rd sh pe es rk Up ak E ear k a e r lle a o L B or phur m H pper a C ec F l Loon C U V S F . u Ca Ma E. S S

Sanderson et al. 2003 isotope samples for chinook, steelhead and trout are being processed

Number indicates order in which streams were sampled over a 1-month period. Data from Bilby, Bennett, Roni Salmon River Basin chinook 1999 14 y = 0.0008x2 - 0.1698x + 15.493 12 R2 = 0.232

10 ) ppt

( 8 N 5 1 6

2 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Length (mm)

Data from Bilby, Bennett, Roni Salmon nutrients are detected in periphyton shortly after spawning

Periphyton Isotope Values 2002 7

) Periphyton_July t p

p 4 Periphyton_October ( 3 15N

δ CHO ETR MAR VAL 2

Data from Shoshone Bannock Tribe How will non-native brook trout respond to nutrient enhancement? Will brook trout interfere with potential benefits? Brook Trout….competition? predation??

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 Absent Present Chinook survival to lower granite dam Chinook survival to lower granite

Levin et al. 2002 On average: 0.8 for every 6 juvenile chinook there is 1 brook trout 0.6 0.4 0.2

0 A G G M O A R C M brook trout: chinook R C B A H H E U BV LB U C C C EFS ELK H LAK LOO MA SFS SE SUL VALWF S

BT 120 80 CH

60 80

(mm) 40 40 % of strikes 20 mean length (±SD) mean length (±SD) 0 0 juvenile brook on in mid on chinook trout bottom column surface

Data from Sanderson, Achord, Macneale • Background • Challenges • Accomplishments • Opportunities Ecosystem Scale Nutrient Enhancement Studies 1 completed or in progress

1. Matt Mesa, USGS 2. Dan Shively, USFS 3. Todd Pearsons, WDFW I 5 4. Bill Sharp, Yakama Nation 5. Ken Ashley, BC 6. Kootenai + IDFG 7. Shoshone Bannock 3&4 8. Beth Sanderson, NOAA A A 6 1 I 2 C

8 C Carcass I C A A Analog A 7 I Inorganic ExperimentalExperimental DesignDesign

Ecosystem nutrient addition experiment (2005)

Number Treatment of Streams Streams Bear Valley Analog 2 Sulphur South Fork Carcass 2 TBD Inorganic Elk 2 Nutrients TBD Marsh Control 2 Valley

TOTAL 8

Our specific goal for summer 2004 is to select and monitor sites that will be acceptable by all parties for nutrient enhancement in 2005. Nutrients Juvenile salmonids Riparian species

Periphyton Invertebrates Habitat Native trout and non-native species Why is this project novel and important ? I 8 Compare three approaches simultaneously C A

0.5

0.4

A 0.3

I V Measure growth and survival of fish in treated

U 0.2

S 0.1 reaches 0.0

A M A O S lk rd G e n h S h ur G y C V A H H F E e B ak oo rs F es lf B lle B C C C E H L L L a S c Su U a WF M Se V STREAM

habitat Algae Monitor responses in food web and role of NO3 habitat PO4

September These streams have low concentrations of 10 C N

) 8 2 NP m c nutrients and are Nitrogen-Limited, unlike P 6 ug* ( l l

phy 4 o r streams where most other research has o 2 Chl

0 been conducted BVA LAK LOO RUS SEC SFS SUL SUM WFC Options Products Ecological Management Total Costs Insight Insight

1 No new funding Monitoring data and moderate low 0-70K comparative studies ending 2004, publications in peer reviewed journals 2 1-year nutrient Option 1 and high moderate 300-400K experiment short-term comparison of (2005) nutrient additions on stream productivity and juvenile growth and survival 3 Long-term nutrient Option 2 and high high To be experiment Long-term comparison of 3 determined (1 + generations) types of nutrient additions, responses for multiple cohorts of fishes, and retention of nutrients across years

Value of baseline data

1 2 3 Option Acknowledgements

Jon Drake Tom Good • Idaho Department of Fish and Game • Payette, Boise, Salmon-Challis National Forests Todd Bennett Sarah Morley • Rocky Mountain Research Station Morgan Heim Pip Courbois • Sawtooth National Recreation Area Damon Holzer Mike Adams Tyler Ritchie Dave Hooper Funding: BPA Will Holden Henry Fu NOAA Fisheries Byron Amerson Andy Albaugh Cumulative Risk Initiative Katie Barnas Adam Goodwin Sean Gilbertson Jenn Jones Jon Reum Nadine Quintana-Krupunski Anna Ritchie Amanda Winans Daniel Hailey Desiree Johnson Steve Achord EC, CB and FE Staff