FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200309100

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:

The experiment would be initiated in one spawning year and the second generation selected within lines and age-class. However, in the F2, generation selection at age-3 and then age-4 will generate two separate lines; this generates a risk of causing a bottleneck within the original selection lines (-ve, control, +ve lines). Further, unless there was good survival and maturity at ages 3 and 4, to produce sufficient numbers of progeny for the next generation only a very limited selection pressure and differential may be possible. This is a diagram of our understanding of the proposed selection experiment:

1. Initiate each line with adequate numbers of families/individuals to minimize this risk (this would be very dependent upon the freshwater facilities available)
2. Select only one age-class for selection in the second generation, but this would have a significant effect on the desire to study correlated traits also, or
3. Initiate the study during 2 or 3 years and determine how to conduct the selection during the second generation. How would a selection differential be determined with over-lapping brood years?

The proposal also refers to using DNA analysis to monitor inbreeding in the lines. While it is not stated, we presume that the "pedigrees" refer to will not be used during the selection process and only used in tracking the change of inbreeding over time. If the potential effect of domestication is to be studied, then pedigrees should not be used to direct any of the matings.

Domestication is a real concern in the use of artificial propagation and is deserving of experimental measurement and selection on return timing/spawn timing is known to be a source of domestication selection. While it's understandable to want to observe correlated changes in maturation age in selected chinook, the difficulty of this experiment and the impractically long time commitment required by the experiment suggests that an experiment on a less complex, shorter lived, salmon, e.g. coho, would be more informative and could provide useful results within ten years. Studies of correlated responses could still be conducted on other traits (e.g. size at maturity, growth rate, fecundity). Further, the space required for these species maybe more consistent with that available, and if coho salmon were used their survival rate would likely be sufficient to maintain a reasonable selection differential in the selected lines.

Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:

HARVEST AND HATCHERY SUBGROUP -- Address critical element of RPA? Although this proposal does not directly address either RPA 182 or 184, it may have some relevance to both.

With respect to RPA 184, this proposal relates to hatchery reforms aimed at lessening domestication selection. The comparison of levels of domestication selection between supplementation programs and captive brood programs might provide insight on which types of conservation hatcheries have the potential to contribute to recovery, compared to their respective domestication risks

Opposing view. Of some relevance to RPA 184. Basic research, but not directly linked to what hatchery operators could apply in the real world to reform hatcheries. The problem already is "addressed," albeit imperfectly, by measures designed to minimize domestication selection.

With respect to RPA 182, a study of domestication may provide information on a potential genetic risk of hatchery fish spawning in the wild, i.e. outbreeding depression. Likewise, the inadvertent selection for altered run timing, and the transmission of those traits to wild fish via hatchery fish spawning in the wild, may be a valid biological concern.

Scope? [ESU's covered, Transferability, Species covered] Puget Sound Chinook ESU. Single species/ESU. Uncertain transferability.

Study design adequate, as is, or as may be modified? Important basic research. The data from this proposal concerning levels of inbreeding, however, might have limited , i.e. site specific, application, since the experimental populations at the UW have been under culture for several generations.

ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:

The ISRP generally agrees with the RME group comments but has stronger concerns about the design of the research.

Comment:

Comment:

The proposal involves a 3-generation directional selection experiment to study the response to selection for run timing and correlated traits in chinook salmon. Three independent lines of Chinook would be initiated from a single starting population (early timing, late timing, and control lines) and each line would be subjected to captive rearing (sea pen rearing to maturity) and released to the wild (i.e., similar to a hatchery supplementation program). The ISRP initially identified three concerns about the design; these included the choice of the species used, a potential bottleneck in the expected returns of age-3 chinook, and the ability to identify families within lines. The authors' responded to each, but the ISRP continues to have concerns for the first two items. The third involving family identification was adequately clarified (through the use of DNA sampling and coded-wire tags).

The response to using chinook salmon involved their objective to study correlated changes in maturation rates at age in lines selected based on run timing. The ISRP accepts this response, but notes that using chinook presents difficulties in the experimental design (authors' provided a detailed diagram of the experiment) and a long time period for completion of the study. Less complex designs with shorter-lived salmon (coho or pink salmon) could be as informative and provide useful results within ten years. Studies of correlated responses could still be conducted on other traits (e.g. size at maturity, growth rate, fecundity). Further, the space required for these species may be more consistent with that available, and if coho salmon were used their survival rate would likely be sufficient to maintain a reasonable selection differential in the selected lines.

An associated concern about using chinook salmon may simply be unavoidable. The issue involves the development of the selected lines in the second-generation returns. Given the expected survival rate and maturation rate of the chinook stock used, there will likely be a limited number of Age-3 mature chinook returning from the line released to the wild. The authors also acknowledged this concern. However, if a substantial bottleneck did occur, then the DNA sampling would provide a good sampling tool to monitor the impact and additional insight could result. Further, even if this problem resulted in a loss of an age-selection line, there would be substantial returns of Age-4 chinook to maintain the selection line without compromising the main objective of the study. The ISRP also discussed the relative risk of this happening versus the value of undertaking such experiments. We strongly support undertaking these studies and accepting the risk of the Age-3 bottleneck issue.

The ISRP also considered further the comments of the NMFS RME groups, and would suggest that they significantly underestimate the potential value of such quantitative genetics research. Many of the issues that people have speculated about concerning hatchery domestication and impacts on fitness continue due to the lack of direct investigation. Only through the use of quantitative genetic studies and/or DNA analyses (or both) can these issues be truly investigated. The addition of this research facility and the development of the University of Idaho/CRITFC facility are essential and much needed additions to the Fish and Wildlife Program!

Comment:

Comments
Though valuable research, useable results will be a long time coming.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
No

Comment:

Comments:

Comment: