FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 27024
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 |
---|---|
27024 Narrative | Narrative |
27024 Sponsor Response to ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Life history strategies in Oncorhynchus mykiss: interactions between anadromous and resident forms. |
Proposal ID | 27024 |
Organization | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Timothy A. Whitesel |
Mailing address | 2501 SW First Ave., P.O. Box 59 Portland, OR 97207 |
Phone / email | 5038725252 / timothy.a.whitesel@state.or.us |
Manager authorizing this project | Ed Bowles, Director of Fish Division, ODFW |
Review cycle | Blue Mountain |
Province / Subbasin | Blue Mountain / Grande Ronde |
Short description | To aid in conservation efforts for O. mykiss and alternative approaches within hatchery programs, evaluate the relationship between anadromous and resident forms. |
Target species | Oncorhynchus mykiss |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
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 agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|---|---|---|
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
Year | Accomplishment |
---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
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
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
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
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated 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 2006 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
---|---|---|---|
$88,214 | $217,906 | $228,802 | $131,277 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 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 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash 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.
Fundable only if response is adequate
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?
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.
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.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUBenefits 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
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
Comment: