FY 2003 Request for Studies proposal 200305000

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

This study is different from most of the others because it is investigating pedigrees both inside and outside the hatchery. This adds a dimension that potentially could contribute to understanding the consequences of selection differences between the hatchery environment and the natural environment. It is a fascinating study, with considerable overarching policy implications from the results. It is less clear how the results will assist in parameterizing the extinction risk models used in recovery planning.

Is there inter-breeding with resident trout and if so, how is it accounted for in the analyses?

Does the study address the following RFS questions:

Are there statistically significant differences in reproductive success between natural-origin and hatchery-origin fish when measured at the second generation (F2)? Do F1 progeny with HxW parents differ from F1 progeny with HxH parents in the production of F2 progeny?

Yes

What are possible hypotheses to explain this difference? For example, can the difference be attributed to reduced genetic fitness of hatchery-origin compared to natural-origin fish? Are differences more significant during any specific life history stages?

Yes

What is the likely effect of any difference, in terms of population growth, population recovery, and genetic diversity/fitness in subsequent generations according to the Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) criteria?

Not easily - It is not clear how the results will assist in parameterizing the extinction risk models used in recovery planning because the hatchery origin fish in this study are not native, have inherently maladaptive life history traits in the receiving environment, and have been subject to artificial culture and selection.

Does the proposal address the additional criteria for selecting among well-designed and responsive proposals include:

The degree to which studies are directly applicable to one or more of the following listed ESUs (for which there are currently no reproductive success studies underway): Upper Columbia steelhead, Mid-Columbia steelhead; Snake River fall chinook; and Columbia River chum. Studies not occurring in those ESUs, but with clear applicability to those ESUs will also be considered;

The study site and ESU fall outside of the Columbia basin – the studies conclusions would be applicable to situations in which the HO population is not native or locally adapted to the watershed of the hatchery of concern.

The degree to which the study is designed (or is capable of being extended) to address whether and to what extent any difference in reproductive success of hatchery spawners persists in subsequent generations (beyond F2);

Yes

The degree to which proposals may provide information more broadly applicable to multiple species/ESUs identified above;

Yes

Potential to commit to a long-term study (beyond F2); and

Yes

Overall cost effectiveness

Good

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

The response is excellent, extremely thorough, and goes beyond addressing the stated review concern to also address deeper underlying issues. The response is persuasive about how it addresses RPA 182. The ISRP has no hesitation in supporting this study. This is the only study that could possibly address the concern of “reverse domestication.” This proposal offers opportunities to monitor essentially all the genetic issues raised in regard to hatcheries. The fact that this is out-of-basin does not temper its strengths and applicability. The Conclusions section of the response provides five good reasons why the proposal should be funded. The letter of support from Fred Utter was persuasive as well.

The responses for this proposal highlight what is analogous to a “positive control,” that is, having effects strong enough that they can be seen. The ISRP agrees with the proponents that it does little good to study something so close to reality that it is impossible to see any real differences for reasons of experimental design or sampling capabilities. Close genetic stocks pose the risk of a Type 2 error. This aspect of their proposal should increase interest in it, not disqualify it. The temporal control that they have is valuable. A spatial one would be good, especially if fish numbers are the main objective, but it is not crucial for the genetic discriminations that are sought.

The ISRP agrees with the sponsor that coordination among projects would add significantly to the work funded by BPA and that annual workshops should be funded by BPA to facilitate this process.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website