FY 2003 Request for Studies proposal 200305900
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
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Comparative Reproductive Success of Wild & Hatchery Origin Sp/Sum Chinook Salmon that Spawn Naturally in the Pahsimeroi & Upper Salmon Rivers |
| Proposal ID | 200305900 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish & Game (IDFG) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Matt Campbell |
| Mailing address | Eagle Fish Genetics Laboratory, 1800 Trout Rd. Eagle, ID 83616 |
| Phone / email | / |
| Manager authorizing this project | Matt Campbell |
| Review cycle | FY 2003 Request for Studies |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | We propose a multiphase, comprehensive evaluation project to measure reproductive success and influence of hatchery origin salmonids upon wild fractions of the same population. |
| Target species | chinook |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 44.6923 | -114.0485 | Pahsimeroi River |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| 182 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 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 2003 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 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $103,794 | |
| Supplies | $85,958 | |
| Capital | $13,000 | |
| Indirect | 20.9% | $39,658 |
| $242,410 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $242,410 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $242,410 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable if response is adequate.
Apr 25, 2003
Comment:
Fundable contingent upon adequate response to the ISRP’s questions and comments. This proposal is of low rank. The proposal is responsive to two of the three evaluation criteria posed in the RFS. It appears to duplicate other studies in this ESU. The ESU is not one of the four listed ESUs. The applicants are unsure as to whether their results will be applicable to the ESUs specified in the additional criteria in the RFS. The work will not extend beyond the F2 generation. The proposal should be strengthened by the addition of control streams.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?
The applicants propose to sample multiple juvenile life stages and the study has the potential to detect allelic and genotypic changes for juveniles.
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?
No
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;
This is not one of the four priority ESUs listed in the RFS, but the work would have application to other spring/summer chinook populations.
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);
The applicants did not propose to extend the study beyond the F2 generation.
The degree to which proposals may provide information more broadly applicable to multiple species/ESUs identified above;
The applicants are unsure as to whether their results will be applicable to the ESUs specified in the additional criteria in the RFS.
Potential to commit to a long-term study (beyond F2); and
The applicants did not propose to extend the study beyond the F2 generation.
Overall cost effectiveness
The costs seem reasonable and are in line with other proposals
The applicants propose to compare reproductive success of wild and hatchery origin fish in two Idaho rivers. The work builds on research and data collection undertaken by the Idaho Supplementation Study.
The proposal is a least partially responsive to two of the three evaluation criteria posed in the RFS. As acknowledged by the applicants, the proposed work does not address possible causes for differences in reproductive success between hatchery and wild salmon. The proposal also does not address differences in demographic parameters recommended by VSP. The applicants are unsure as to whether their results will be applicable to the ESUs specified in the additional criteria of the RFS. Releases of hatchery adults will cease in 2007 and consequently the research will not assess effects beyond the F2 generation. The budget seems reasonable for the work proposed.
Adding “control” streams from the ISS to the study and extension to evaluate fitness of F2 and F3 progeny would be beneficial. This study would add significant value to the interpretation of information from the ISS. Potential useful and unique results could be obtained, but the applicants did not emphasize the extra benefit that this project would add that the others do not have. Namely, what happens to the productivity of F2 and F3 progeny in wild by wild crosses after supplementation is stopped for both supplemented and control streams? That is, when supplementation is stopped, how does the reproduction (fitness) of WxW crosses compare with reproduction of WxW crosses on formerly supplemented streams at the F2 and F3 levels?
Comment:
Comment:
Comment:
Fundable, but low priority. The response was adequate but did not elevate the proposal above a low priority. They propose additional work to examine possible causes of differences in wild/hatchery fish reproductive success, but do not tie that proposed work to results or ideas gleaned from their extensive and long-standing ISS project. It is not clear what the budget will be for the additional objectives. Some of the methods proposed are questionable.An extensive portion of the reply deals with the ISRP comment regarding “possible causes for differences…”. There seems to have been some misunderstanding about the need for this in every proposal. The text introducing the kelt reconditioning proposals differentiates between reproductive success and reproductive fitness (the latter meaning a more long-term measure). These statements are true, but it is a leap to conclude that every proposal needs to measure fitness over 2 to 3 generations and to explain all differences. As the ISAB just stated in the Supplementation report: everything that can be measured does not need to be measured. Projects should measure the vital statistics, and the explanatory variables as possible or needed.
In this case, the extensive addition of methods generates more concerns for procedures. To do much of what they propose, they would have to be able to identify supplemented or hatchery fish from wild fish. For example, they propose to use Peterson disc tags put on at the fences. These spring/summer chinooks may be in the stream for a prolonged period of time. If so, then weight loss may lead to tag loss (as the tag loosens), this could lead to confusion between marked fish. The proponent should definitely watch for this problem. Under ‘Relative Spawning Success” … observed spawning activity will be a measure of “spawning success” … an assumption and highly questionable.
The responses to the remainder of the questions were appropriate. They are very straightforward in response to ISRP queries about control streams and truly wild fish. Neither probably exist any longer in the project area. The specific ESU question is nearly always going to be a problem. The work is proof of principle, not specific to the ESUs of interest to the RFS.