FY 2003 Request for Studies proposal 200306100
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 | Analytical Approach for Determination of Effects of Hatchery Reform on Extinction Risk and Recovery of Salmon and Steelhead |
| Proposal ID | 200306100 |
| Organization | Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | A.J. Talbot |
| Mailing address | 729 NE Oregon, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97232 |
| Phone / email | / |
| Manager authorizing this project | A.J. Talbot |
| Review cycle | FY 2003 Request for Studies |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | We propose a three-part study, designed to provide information and perspectives that can be directly applied to the operation of hatcheries, and help understand the evolution of salmon in a hatchery. |
| Target species | Salmon & Steelhead |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 47.182 | -120.9798 | Cle Elum Hatchery (aka Supplementation and Research Facility) |
| 46.6304 | -120.5138 | Naches River |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| 184 |
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 | $69,525 | |
| Travel | $4,032 | |
| Supplies | $4,020 | |
| Indirect | 35.9% | $27,850 |
| Subcontractor | University of Idaho | $26,197 |
| Subcontractor | University of Washington | $18,633 |
| Subcontractor | consultants | $17,876 |
| $168,133 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $168,133 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $168,133 |
| 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.
Comment:
Not Fundable. Unfortunately, the region lacks the data needed to successfully implement this project. The work would seem to require information that could only be gathered with a longer-term and larger-scale study than is described or that fits the 9-month timeframe specified in the RFS.Direct answers to RFS questions.
Would the study result in the development of a standardized analytical approach for synthesizing the results and detecting the effects at the population and ESU levels of a myriad of hatchery reforms in terms of their effects on extinction risk and/or recovery?
Unfortunately no, because of the region lacks adequate data.
Will the study provide documentation and/or explanatory text for the analytical approach sufficient to allow other entities to readily use it to evaluate potential effectiveness of hatchery reform measures?
Unfortunately no, because the region lacks adequate data.
Primary Review Comments and Questions for Improvement of the Proposal
The proposal should have a more clear and definite statement of tasks and methods to accomplish the tasks and objectives.
This proposal would take a synthetic approach to assessing the effect of hatchery reforms on risks for wild salmonids. It provides an extensive literature review of the issues related to reproductive success, artificial propagation, conservation goals, risks of hatchery operations, and biological impairment from hatchery wild interbreeding. The idea is to link hatchery practices with variation in traits that determine fitness. The idea of developing a statistical framework to assess these linkages and to use this framework to guide hatchery practices seems like a good one. Unfortunately, empirical work and data would need to be greatly expanded to relate the proposed genetic approach to indexing outcomes of hatchery practices to an assessment of risk at the population or ESA level.
The proposal fails to provide convincing linkage of the small-scale and local measures that will be taken to population- or ESA-level demographic responses. The proposal assumes that simple gene expression, as indexed with arbitrary microarray analyses, will translate simply into population-level fitness and thus can be used to assess risk resulting from hatchery protocols. This is an untested assertion and cannot be assumed to be correct. The proposal needs a strong way to test this assumption.
The short section on their statistical model was unclear on what dependent variables are to be modeled, what independent variables are to be included, and where the data will come from. Examples of the computation conducted on an example using real data (or hypothetical data) would have been helpful.
Comment:
Comment:
Comment:
Not Fundable. A response was not requested. Unfortunately, the region lacks the data needed to successfully implement this project. The work would seem to require information that could only be gathered with a longer-term and larger-scale study than is described or that fits the 9-month timeframe specified in the RFS.