FY 2003 Request for Studies proposal 200306300

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:

Questions arising in the present review include one concerning the putatively native fish in Abernathy Creek—how influenced has this population been by hatchery production in the past, from other populations? Secondly—how will straying of steelhead into the control streams influence their comparison of productivity in the supplemented Abernathy Creek population to productivity in the control streams? 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 – the research would evaluate reproductive success, survival of offspring, during the freshwater phase of the life history, as smolts emigrating from Abernathy Creek, and as mature adults. Mechanistic hypotheses relating parentage of fish to survival at sequential life stages aren’t addressed explicitly in the proposal, but are implicit and will be susceptible to testing with the data gathered.

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?

The project has the potential to address whether the population grows and how genetic diversity and fitness are affected by hatchery origin spawners, but the proposal does not address the question directly.

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;

Yes – this study will not occur in a listed ESU but is designed to produce results applicable to listed ESU’s.

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 - study design will allow determination of whether statistically significant differences in reproductive success exist between NOR and HOR in generations beyond F1 (to F3). It contains a good selection of treatment and control sites.

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

Yes - the rationale is that this is a model system for developing supplementation strategies for upper and mid Columbia steelhead.

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

Yes

Overall cost effectiveness

The proposed research would build on and the requested funds would be leveraged by other ongoing work. Methods are well established and reliable.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

The authors have responded well to each question: past hatchery effects, measurements in F₂ and F₃, use of controls and impacts of out-of-basin effects, impact of resident rainbows, etc. The monitoring system in this proposal is sound and extensive sampling (for DNA etc.) can be maintained over time. There are two control streams to compare with and to measure out-of-basin effects. The issue of resident fish is much less in this system due to its location. This is a scientifically sound proposal.

The response is a little weak on the QA/QC question. They describe capability of managing data, but do not elaborate on quality control aspects.

The comment from the H/H group is uninformed, but the proposers provided a lengthy response. Why the H/H would refer to this as captive brood (as in the sense used elsewhere), the ISRP did not understand, but the methods developed in this proposal could definitely be used elsewhere in the basin.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website