FY 2003 Request for Studies proposal 200305700

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:

A strength of this proposal is that it looks at the early lifestage of the steelhead. They are proposing in Phase I to see if kelts can be reconditioned and produce offspring approximately equal to a virgin spawner in a controlled environment. Phase II will only be conducted if Phase I is successful. Methods for design or analysis of Phase II are not given. The very brief discussion of work to potentially follow Phase I and II may be the most unique part of the study, namely comparison of the reproductive viability of gametes and progeny from reconditioned spawners (i.e., those retained in a hatchery environment) relative to naturally returning repeat spawners. Reviewers also assessed a lower rank to this investigation as it may not constitute an adequate test of gamete viability when tested only within the controlled environments. Reproductive success may be as much a function of spawning behavior, synchrony of gamete development, and local stresses, which cannot be naturally controlled in the laboratory environment.

Following fitness of the various crosses to F2 and F3 is not mentioned. Are control streams needed to follow fitness over time without hatchery and reconditioned steelhead?

Why pool milt—is intent to examine variability of potency? H s W?

RFS Review Criteria: Will the study determine the relative reproductive success of reconditioned steelhead kelts spawning in the wild compared to natural-origin adults, hatchery-origin adults, and cross matings of these three variants, in one or more populations?

Yes, if Phase I to recondition kelts seems to be working. Directly studies components of fertility of reconditioned kelts; studies reproductive success as well at maturity of offspring.

Does the proposal employ the use of microsatellite DNA analysis in order to ascertain the pedigree of resulting progeny and subsequent returning adult steelhead. If not does the method proposed provide quantification of reproductive success of equal of better power than microsatellite DNA analysis?

Yes.

Does the study include analysis of the potential genetic consequences of repeat-spawning steelhead on small populations?

No.

Other research topics, which should be addressed in the proposed study if possible, include:

• How increasing iteroparity might increase inbreeding in the target population, particularly if it is small?

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

This is a good, thorough response to the ISRP questions. Question 1 refers again to following fitness in F2 and F3 generations and use of controls. In terms of the immediate value of the work, the F1 is the critical first step (we agree with the project sponsors) and then fitness can be tracked the over time. At this longer timeframe, the use of controls does become appropriate as the temporal effects become more important to the evaluation. However in the short-term, the important question is the effectiveness of repeat spawners and their reproductive success in the open natural environment.

Their reply on pooling milt is incorrect. There have been two detailed studies comparing pooling milt and spawning females with individual males. The motility of sperm is variable and pooling milt generally results in a couple of males fertilizing all females … the opposite of what the proposers seem to be saying. The performance of males varied between groups that were pooled. To conduct the study on female re-conditioning, the proposers should conduct matrix spawning of females with multiple males … but use the same males over several females. Pooling males does not protect against “differences in sperm motility or viability of individual males”.

The response to the assessment of low priority due to lack of direct application to an ESU is persuasive in arguing that this research would generate information about how processes of reconditioning work, and that this process information would generalize to all ESUs. The question seems to be on the interpretation of “directly applicability” to the named ESU’s: does it mean only projects occurring in an ESU or does it allow scope (as does RPA 182) for studies not occurring in an ESU but having clear applicability? The response provides reasonable justifications for the laboratory work and for the benefits of the natural conditions of Kalama River steelhead, particularly in improving the power of statistical tests.

Regarding the second point presented by H/H group, we strongly disagree with their point, and agree with the proposal authors.