FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 27024

Additional documents

TitleType
27024 Narrative Narrative
27024 Sponsor Response to ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleLife history strategies in Oncorhynchus mykiss: interactions between anadromous and resident forms.
Proposal ID27024
OrganizationOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameTimothy A. Whitesel
Mailing address2501 SW First Ave., P.O. Box 59 Portland, OR 97207
Phone / email5038725252 / timothy.a.whitesel@state.or.us
Manager authorizing this projectEd Bowles, Director of Fish Division, ODFW
Review cycleBlue Mountain
Province / SubbasinBlue Mountain / Grande Ronde
Short descriptionTo aid in conservation efforts for O. mykiss and alternative approaches within hatchery programs, evaluate the relationship between anadromous and resident forms.
Target speciesOncorhynchus mykiss
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Multiple areas within the Grande Ronde River subbasin, including the upper Grande Ronde River, Catherine Creek, Lookingglass Creek, Indian Creek, and Wallowa River.
45.35 -118.21 Upper Grande Ronde River
45.3139 -117.8722 Catherine Creek
45.7068 -117.8423 Lookingglass Creek
45.5342 -117.9201 Indian Creek
45.7255 -117.7853 Wallowa River
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Hydro RPA Action 107
Harvest RPA Action 164
Hatchery RPA Action 169
Hatchery RPA Action 173
RM&E RPA Action 184

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
NMFS Action 184 NMFS The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within regional prioritization and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the appropriate level of FCRPS funding for a hatchery research, monitoring, and evaluation program consisting of studies to determine whether hatchery reforms reduce the risk of extinction for Columbia River basin salmonids and whether conservation hatcheries contribute to recovery.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
198805301 NE Oregon Hatchery Master Planning Supportive. Understanding the nature of the relationship between anadromous and resident forms of O. mykiss is essential to this planning.
198909600 Genetic M&E program for Salmon and Steelhead Supportive. Understanding the nature of the relationship between anadromous and resident forms of O. mykiss relates directly to understanding the population genetics of O. mykiss.
198909700 Evaulate Supplementing Imnaha Summer Steelhead Collaborative. Understanding the nature of the relationship between anadromous and resident forms of O. mykiss is essential to a supplementation program.
199202601 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Development Collaborative. O. mykiss are an important component of the Grande Ronde River subbasin.
199202604 Life Studies of Spring Chinook Salmon and Steelhead - Grande Ronde River Collaborative. Understanding the nature of the relationship between anadromous and resident forms of O. mykiss is directly related to juvenile life history.
199306600 Northeast Oregon Fish Screening and Passage Project. Supportive. The population structure of O. mykiss may be influenced by or reflect screening and passage issues.
199403000 Technical Support - Grande Ronde Model Watershed Collaborative. O. mykiss are an important component of the Grande Ronde River subbasin.
199404600 Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Supportive. Understanding the nature of the relationship between anadromous and resident forms of O. mykiss is essential to this planning.
Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Collaborative. Understanding the nature of the relationship between anadromous and resident forms of O. mykiss is directly related to the success of the LSRCP hatchery programs. LSRCP funded the pilot work.
Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Supportive. Understanding the nature of the relationship between anadromous and resident forms of O. mykiss is essential to monitoring the populations.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Objective 1: Determine if and to what extent resident O. mykiss adults can produce anadromous progeny. Task 1.1. Artificial propagation of broodyear 2001. 5 $48,188 Yes
Task 1.2. Artificial propagation of broodyear 2002. 5 $21,180 Yes
Task 1.3. Artificial propagation of broodyear 2003. 5 $0 Yes
Task 1.4. Data summary and analysis. 5 $17,150 Yes
Objective 2: Evaluate the relative proportions of known-origin anadromous and resident O. mykiss as well as unknown-origin O. mykiss juveniles that are produced by resident and anadromous forms. Task 2.1. Otolith collection and analysis. 3 $82,609 Yes
Task 2.2. Data summary and analysis. 3 $19,519
Objective 3: Explore whether a relationship may exist between fall-spawning and spring-spawning forms of O. mykiss. Task 3.1. Spawning ground surveys. 4 $31,368
Task 2.2. Data summary and analysis. 4 $17,460
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Objective 1: Determine if and to what extent resident O. mykiss adults can produce anadromous progeny. 2003 2007 $421,068
Objective 2: Evaluate the relative proportions of known-origin anadromous and resident O. mykiss as well as unknown-origin O. mykiss juveniles that are produced by resident and anadromous forms. 2003 2004 $202,610
Objective 3: Explore whether a relationship may exist between fall-spawning and spring-spawning forms of O. mykiss. 2003 2005 $135,146
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2006FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005
$88,214$217,906$228,802$131,277

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel FTE: 2.41 $82,232
Fringe $49,339
Supplies $18,870
Travel $3,450
Indirect $37,703
PIT tags # of tags: 1,200 $2,880
Subcontractor otolith and gill tissue $43,000
$237,474
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$237,474
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$237,474
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
ODFW Personal services (FY 2002-2006). $24,626 in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Sep 28, 2001

Comment:

A response is needed. The presentation was more informative than the proposal. The proposal lacks sufficient detail, particularly regarding justification of the methods, sampling design for the field studies, and data analysis for all objectives. Some of these details were covered in the presentation but also need to be in the proposal. There needs to be a better justification for using Sr/Ca ratios in the otolith cores to identify the environment of the mother, including citations and preliminary data from the Grande Ronde. Data from the preliminary controlled breeding experiments needs to be presented, including broodstock sizes, performance measures for assessing the appearance of "smolt-like" conditions, and the number of progeny from various crosses that were detected at the Snake River dams. A summary of the evidence that resident and anadromous forms interbreed and the extent of interbreeding need to be included in the proposal.

Objective 1: How will resident and anadromous forms be distinguished? What are the locations, times, and methods for obtaining broodstock? What physiological and morphological measures will be used to assess anadromy? Where will the progeny be released and where will they be recaptured downstream during their migration to LGR? If the pilot work has been conducted for a few years, why is it necessary to conduct three more years of breeding experiments? What is the breeding design being used? Is it a quantitative genetics design or a simpler ANOVA-style analysis? The quantitative genetics design would be strongly recommended.

Objective 2: How will the "young of the year population" be distinguished from all other O. mykiss? What are the locations, times, and methods of the sampling? What are the sample sizes? How will the data be analyzed?

Objective 3: Needs to be greatly expanded. Task 3.1 may document occurrence of mature O. mykiss in the fall but how does this relate to the stated

Objective 3?

The investigators frequently use the term equilibrium but it is not clear how this would be achieved (i.e., what mechanism) or why an equilibrium would still be expected in a highly disturbed environment. An interesting example is included in the text. On page 2 (Section 9) the investigators report that recent returns of natural-origin anadromous adults to a tributary in the Imnaha River have recently been 75% females. A third life history strategy may be implied then, i.e., male residual steelhead trout. How would this strategy be involved in this proposal?

This proposal is very similar to activities described in LSRCP project 200109 (ODFW), the authors need to clarify if these are separate activities or where the pilot activities referred to in this new proposal previously included in project 200109?


Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

This project addresses RPA 184.

This proposal evaluates the potential for using local stocks of resident rainbow trout to supplement steelhead broodstock at NE Oregon Hatcheries. For example, it is unclear where experimental progeny will be released. If they are released at Irrigon Hatchery, then juveniles will likely move past dams in search of suitable habitat whether they are emigrating or not.

Although the proposed work would provide a contribution to the fisheries science, the RFC suggests the study design, methods, and data analysis for each objective in the proposed project need to be strengthened.

For Objective 1, more detail is needed to describe the study design, methods and data analyses. For example: What conditions will mimic a steelhead smolt program? What times and locations will the author sample? What morphological and physical characteristics will be measured to assess smolt development? What kind of data analysis will be conducted (e.g. ANOVA, MANOVA, Chi-square goodness of fit)? Perhaps citations may be needed to demonstrate the strategies and techniques involved. The objectives are clearly defined, but there is little reference to how the tasks will be measured.

Objective 2 focuses on examining the relative proportions of known-origin anadromous and resident O. mykiss and unknown-origin juveniles that are produced by anadromous and resident forms. The RFC applauds the use of otolith microchemistry analyses to identify life history strategies and determine maternal origin and encourages the sponsor to summarize the microchemistry pilot work to strengthen the argument that otolith microchemistry would be a useful tool to address the objective. Again, the author should better define the study design, methods and data analysis in the tasks to strengthen the proposed objective. The approach is conceptually an excellent idea; however, more detail is needed to demonstrate the best use of the techniques and principles to address the objective.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Not fundable. The proposal and response lack sufficient technical detail in the experimental design and genetic analysis that the ISRP believes to be essential to these investigations. The response provided good background material and results but not methods that are essential to the genetic analyses. Nevertheless, the reviewers were intrigued by the proposal and suggest that the proposal and response together comprise a good start on a potentially worthwhile project.
Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits are indirect. This work seeks to assess some of the causal factors underlying life-history variation in steelhead (resident vs. anadromous), and the extent to which hatchery practices influence this variability.

Comments
Important work that has potential to influence many aspects of recovery planning for steelhead. Some methodological details to be more fully explored.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes


Recommendation:
D
Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend. Agree with ISRP and CBFWA that the study design and method need more detail.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
184


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment: