FY 2003 Request for Studies proposal 200306200

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:

They propose to apply kelt reconditioning methods developed by project 2000-017 with geographic replication for evaluation of fitness of various crosses across all ESUs of interest in the Request for Studies. Replication over space is highly desirable, however it is unclear if they are replicating each stream in time. They mention following the 2004 spawning class for reproductive success, but what about 2005 and beyond. Resident trout are included, a study component mentioned in many of the proposals.

The theoretical risk associated with the kelt reconditioning projects is of increasing inbreeding by using the reconditioned kelts in a small population. The implicit argument is a demographic boost is needed to a greater extent than the potential risk of inbreeding depression. The CRITFC kelt proposals seem be overly optimistic about the potential benefits of kelt reconditioning. The streams chosen are primarily upstream of many dams and will likely need to be continually propped up as the kelts will likely not naturally be successful given the migratory conditions. This proposal would start a fairly aggressive program before the benefits and risks are determined. The proposal seems to place little emphasis on examining possible risks of kelt reconditioning. Consequently, we recommend that the number of streams need to be scaled-back to less than five to reflect the fact that this a research project. This seems to be an effort to drastically expand the implementation of kelt reconditioning, without first evaluating the possible undesirable consequences, as called for in the RFP.

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? The study should pay more attention to gamete quality. Where are the controls in the study?

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, with replications. Cross matings are not mentioned, but we assume they would be studied.

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. Not specifically addressed.

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?

• How reconditioning kelts might increase domestication selection in the target population? And

• How the reconditioning program might alter age structure and life history structure in the target population.

Does the research site(s) offer the ability to capture and sample sufficient outmigrating offspring and all, or nearly all, returning adult steelhead.

This is a criterion for site selection.

Is the proposed study directly applicable to one or more of the following listed ESUs: Upper Columbia, Mid-Columbia, and Snake River steelhead.

Yes, in all three.

Cost-effectiveness (e.g., the ability to take advantage of existing fish production, research, monitoring or evaluation activities) will be an important consideration in the proposal selection process.

No, at ~$1,017K for year one, this is one of the more expensive proposals. However, the study allows for replication in 5 streams, or about $200K per stream, the standard budget.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

This is a thorough response that addresses both the general and specific ISRP review comments. A revised sampling scheme is presented that makes explicit the methods, time line, and numbers of fish sampled. The work is both scaled back (as recommended) and “expanded” in the sense of adding temporal and spatial controls. The proposers have specified sites, as requested, and these sites seem appropriate. They seem to know what they are doing, and have thought through the complexities of enhancing second spawning after reconditioning in a hatchery environment. The ESUs are relevant. Controls have been introduced.

CRITFC obviously considered the ISRP comments thoroughly and responded in kind demonstrating a more in-depth consideration of kelt reconditioning and our past discussions.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website