FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200303900
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
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 35041 Narrative | Narrative |
| 35041 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| 35041 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Monitoring the reproductive success of naturally spawning hatchery and natural spring chinook salmon in the Wenatchee, Tucannon, and Kalama Rivers |
| Proposal ID | 200303900 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service (WDFW/NMFS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Michael Ford |
| Mailing address | Northwest Fisheries Science Center Seattle, WA 98112 |
| Phone / email | 2068605612 / mike.ford@noaa.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | Michael Ford (NMFS) and Todd Pearsons (WDFW) |
| Review cycle | Mainstem/Systemwide |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / |
| Short description | Evaluate the relative fitness (mating success and progeny survival) of hatchery and wild spring chinook that spawn naturally in rivers |
| Target species | Chinook salmon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 47.456 | -120.3156 | Wenatchee River |
| 46.5575 | -118.174 | Tucannon River |
| 46.0338 | -122.8746 | Kalama River |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| 182 |
| 184 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 182 | NMFS | The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within regional priorities and congressional appropriations processes to establish and provide the appropriate level of FCRPS funding for studies to determine the reproductive success of hatchery fish relative to wild fish. At a minimum, two to four studies shall be conducted in each ESU. The Action Agencies shall work with the Technical Recovery Teams to identify the most appropriate populations or stocks for these studies no later than 2002. Studies will begin no later than 2003. |
| NMFS/BPA | Action 182 | NMFS | The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within regional priorities and congressional appropriations processes to establish and provide the appropriate level of FCRPS funding for studies to determine the reproductive success of hatchery fish relative to wild fish. At a minimum, two to four studies shall be conducted in each ESU. The Action Agencies shall work with the Technical Recovery Teams to identify the most appropriate populations or stocks for these studies no later than 2002. Studies will begin no later than 2003. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| Not applicable - this is a new study |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Estimate relative spawning success and survival of naturally and hatchery produced fish | a. Collect DNA tissues from all or an adequate sample of adults (W=$149,842, T=$28,511, K=$24,839) | 10 | $203,192 | |
| b. Collect DNA tissues from a representative sample of naturally produced juveniles (W=$143,595, T=$115,910, K=$106,269) | 10 | $365,774 | ||
| c. Molecular data collection (W = $72,198; T and K = $27568) | 10 | $99,766 | ||
| d. Data analysis (W = $25,200; T and K = $43,354) | 10 | $68,554 | ||
| 2. Determine the degree to which differences in fitness between hatchery and natural chinook salmon can be explained by measurable biological traits that differ between hatchery and natural fish | a. Estimate selection gradients on biological traits using genetic markers (W = $25,200; T and K = $16,321) | 10 | $41,521 | |
| b. Count the number of anadromous hatchery and naturally produced, and non-anadromous hatchery and naturally produced (precocial) adults on redds (W=$48,267, T=$15,918, K=$25,850) | 10 | $90,035 | ||
| c. Measure the habitat characteristics of redds created by hatchery and naturally produced salmon (W=$33,159, T=$17,042, K=$31,171) | 10 | $81,372 | ||
| d. Collect carcasses to determine egg retention, and prespawning mortality (W=$23,325, T=$15,288, K=$18,350) | 10 | $56,963 | ||
| e. Determine relative fish size, sex ratio, number of eggs/female length, and egg size of hatchery and natural fish (W=$5,818, T=$17,483, K=$12,048) | 10 | $35,349 | ||
| 3. Determine if patterns of relative reproductive success of hatchery and natural chinook salmon are consistent across diverse natural populations and hatchery programs | a. Compare estimates of hatchery and natural chinook salmon reproductive success across the three systems, and with results from other ongoing studies (W = $12,600; T and K = $8160) (TP=$15,852) | 10 | $36,614 | |
| 4. Estimate the relative fitness of hatchery-lineage chinook salmon after they have experienced an entire generation in the natural environment | a. Estimate the rate of relative spawning success and survival of hatchery origin fish after one full generation of readaptation to the natural environment | 10 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Estimate relative spawning success and survival of naturally and hatchery produced fish (W=$1,009,695, T=$466,922, K=$359,094, WG = $384,495, TKG = $641,186) | 2004 | 2007 | $2,861,392 |
| 2. Determine the degree to which differences in fitness between hatchery and natural chinook salmon can be explained by measurable biological traits (W=$437,814, T=$273,480, K=$328,823, WG =$104,000; TKG = $147,818 ) | 2004 | 2007 | $1,291,935 |
| 3. Determine if patterns of relative reproductive success of hatchery and natural chinook salmon are consistent across diverse natural populations and hatchery programs (TP=$67,869; WG = $52,000; TKG = $58,359) | 2004 | 2007 | $178,228 |
| 4. Estimate the relative fitness of hatchery-lineage chinook salmon after they have experienced an entire generation in the natural environment (WG = $90,815; TKG = $118,075) | 2007 | 2007 | $208,890 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1,206,528 | $1,082,991 | $1,108,323 | $1,142,603 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: W=5, T=2.58, K=2.083 (W=$172,180, T=$85,539, K=$82,966, TP=$10,532) WG = $78,668; TGK = $40,872 | $470,757 |
| Fringe | W=$50,342, T=$25,688, K=$22,033, TP=$2130; TKG = $9876 | $110,068 |
| Supplies | W=$45,010, T=$29,260, K=$38,550; WG = $23,973; TGK = $9479 | $146,272 |
| Travel | W=$19,945, T=$1,300, K=$2,000 | $23,245 |
| Indirect | W=$75,279, T=$36,864, K=$36,678, TP=$3,190; WG = $9,558; TKG = $15,177 | $176,748 |
| Capital | W=$30,000, T=$27,000, K=$36,300; WG = $23,000; TKG = $20,000 | $136,300 |
| PIT tags | # of tags: 7000 | $15,750 |
| $1,079,140 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $1,079,140 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $1,079,140 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| WDFW | Collect carcasses to determine egg retention, and prespawning mortality | $33,000 | in-kind |
| Chelan PUD (estimated) | Collect carcasses to determine egg retention and prespawning mortality | $33,000 | in-kind |
| WDFW | Determine relative fish size, sex ratio, number of eggs/female length, egg size of hatchery and wild fish | $15,000 | in-kind |
| NMFS and WDFW | Laboratory space and equipment | $0 | in-kind |
| NMFS | Supervise and coordinate genetic research in Wenatchee River system; aid in coordination of analysis among systems (0.25 FTE's) | $25,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Aug 2, 2002
Comment:
Fundable, but could be funded in part if Provincial funds are limiting. The proposal will evaluate the relative fitness (mating success and progeny survival) of hatchery and wild spring chinook that spawn naturally in rivers using DNA analyses proposed in several other projects as well. The proposal is well written and appropriate background is presented. The reviewers question whether there is any redundancy between this proposed work and the ongoing Moran and Waples work on steelhead?The reviewers also note that the proposal is costly (10 years @ $1M per) due to conducting studies of juveniles and adults in three river systems. While we acknowledge the value of replicate studies and long-term monitoring to assess reproductive value, we question that each site is equally valuable and whether the researchers can complete the required work on all three. As the authors note, each of the sites has different attributes but the logistics of sampling is quite different in them. The Wenatchee system seems well suited to the sampling; the other two are less so.
We also question the author's comments on precocial male Chinook. "Age 1+ precocials may migrate downstream, but generally do not reach the ocean. These fish are undesirable because of the potential for negative ecological and genetic impacts to natural fish, and because they are an undesirable fishery product." (Page 17, Section 9). There is no doubt that hatchery rearing of spring chinook results in an abnormally high incidence of precocial development but precocity is likely associated with growth rates and an alternative male life history strategy. We strongly agree with the author's proposal to study this issue but would caution against concluding that the trait is "undesirable". It may simply be a cost associated with intensive culture of spring chinook that are grown at unnatural rates. Reviewers are also unaware of any evidence that precocial males"do not reach the ocean". This could be true, but what is the basis of this statement?
Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:
HARVEST AND HATCHERY SUBGROUP -- Address critical element of RPA? Designed to directly address RPA 182. It is a direct examination of reproductive success hatchery fish relative to wild fish. This project has high likelihood of shedding light, based on empirical evidence using latest genetic analytical tools, on relative spawning effectiveness of hatchery fish vs. natural fish.
The proposal may relate to a topic under RPA 184, i.e. conservation hatcheries. The issue of whether conservation hatcheries contribute to recovery depends, in part, on the reproductive success of hatchery F1s, and their progeny, spawning in the wild.
Scope? [ESU's covered, Transferability, Species covered] Mainstem/systemwide spring chinook. Transferability is good due to diverse experimental locations.
Study design adequate, as is, or as may be modified? Good. Biological traits are suitable as surrogates for "fitness". The inability to capture fish at Tucannon weir may weaken design for this captive stock. Significant precocious fish contribution would dilute ability to attribute progeny to hatchery or natural adult spawners. We may want to discuss with investigators ways to improve the ability to carry comparison over into the success of progeny and other possible explanations for survival differences between hatchery and wild fish.
ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:
The ISRP agrees with the RME Group that this proposal is a close fit with RPA 182. The critical uncertainty about differences in fitness between wild and hatchery-produced fish lies at the heart of most of the ongoing and proposed research into captive brood and supplementation technology, and seemingly at the core of RPA 182 also. Indeed, understanding differences in fitness between the two groups, and whether conservation-oriented hatcheries can produce fish that can integrate into natural populations and lead to long-term sustainability (i.e., the fitness question) is the $64 million question around which much of the present recovery plan hinges.
Comment:
Fundable, but could be funded in part if Provincial funds are limiting. The proposal will evaluate the relative fitness (mating success and progeny survival) of hatchery and wild spring chinook that spawn naturally in rivers using DNA analyses proposed in several other projects as well. The proposal is well written and appropriate background is presented. The reviewers question whether there is any redundancy between this proposed work and the ongoing Moran and Waples work on steelhead?The reviewers also note that the proposal is costly (10 years @ $1M per) due to conducting studies of juveniles and adults in three river systems. While we acknowledge the value of replicate studies and long-term monitoring to assess reproductive value, we question that each site is equally valuable and whether the researchers can complete the required work on all three. As the authors note, each of the sites has different attributes but the logistics of sampling is quite different in them. The Wenatchee system seems well suited to the sampling; the other two are less so.
We also question the author’s comments on precocial male Chinook. “Age 1+ precocials may migrate downstream, but generally do not reach the ocean. These fish are undesirable because of the potential for negative ecological and genetic impacts to natural fish, and because they are an undesirable fishery product.” (Page 17, Section 9). There is no doubt that hatchery rearing of spring chinook results in an abnormally high incidence of precocial development but precocity is likely associated with growth rates and an alternative male life history strategy. We strongly agree with the author’s proposal to study this issue but would caution against concluding that the trait is “undesirable”. It may simply be a cost associated with intensive culture of spring chinook that are grown at unnatural rates. Reviewers are also unaware of any evidence that precocial males “do not reach the ocean”. This could be true, but what is the basis of this statement?
Comment:
The reviewers recommend a less aggressive study design to include fewer initial sampling streams due to cost considerations. The project sponsors will provide a revised study design and budget to reflect a scaled back approach.Comment:
We have gone over our proposed budget in detail, looking for areas where cost savings could be made without substantially impacting the objectives of the project. We have also taken to heart CBFWA's recommendation to consider reducing the scope of the project in order to gain additional savings. In doing so, we have focused on ways of achieving greater efficiency within each stream system in the study, rather than eliminating an entire stream from the study. We believe that studying hatchery fish reproductive success in multiple streams is essential for achieving NMFS's conservation goals (specifically RPA's 182 and 184 in the hydrosystem biological opinion), and therefore the BPA and the NWPPC should have the opportunity to evaluate the full three-stream proposal. It is urgent to conduct this work in multiple streams throughout the Columbia River Basin at this time, because the information obtained by these experiments will be of immediate and critical relevance to fishery managers. Nonetheless, we appreciate the CBFWA's concern that given the limiting funding available it is essential to address urgent questions as efficiently as possible. We are gratified, therefore, that we were able to substantially reduce our budget by eliminating some desirable but not absolutely essential tasks. These reductions were nearly entirely made in the tasks related to the collection of juvenile samples, which was the most labor intensive and expensive part of our proposal. By placing a greater reliance on existing juvenile sampling infrastructure and eliminating baseline smolt trapping in 2003 in all three streams, we have succeed in reducing our 2003 budget request to $830,474 from $1,079,140. Reductions in the 2004 and 2005 budgets are somewhat less because of necessary smolt trapping in those years, but are also substantial (see Table 1). We describe the specific budgets adjustments in more detail below. Tucannon: We can achieve cost savings by conducting all of the juvenile trapping at the existing (lower river) smolt trap in the lower river. This trap is in a less optimal location than the new trap we originally proposed for the study, and using it will result in a reduction in statistical power compared to our original design. However, if costs saving are essential, we are confident that the goals of the project can be achieved with the existing trap. Kalama: In the Kalama we were able to achieve considerable cost saving by putting a greater reliance on cost sharing with other projects, thereby reducing travel and personnel expenses. We also eliminated some tagging equipment that would be useful, but not absolutely essential, for our proposed study. Wenatchee: In the Wenatchee we achieved cost savings by placing a greater reliance on cost sharing with other projects, thereby reducing travel, service, and personnel costs. As in the original proposal, our revised budget request for 2004 remains higher than our request for 2003. There are two reasons for the high budget requirements in 2004. First, the smolt sampling, a major expense, is not scheduled to begin until FY2004. Second, in 2004 we will need to purchase an additional DNA genotyper in order to process the high number of samples necessary to conduct the study.Comment:
Fundable. We agree with the CBFWA review and Urgent ranking. The proposal will evaluate the relative fitness (mating success and progeny survival) of hatchery and wild spring chinook that spawn naturally in rivers using DNA analyses proposed in several other projects as well. The proposal is well written and appropriate background is presented. The critical uncertainty about differences in fitness between wild and hatchery-produced fish lies at the heart of most of the ongoing and proposed research into captive brood and supplementation technology, and seemingly at the core of RPA 182 also. Indeed, understanding differences in fitness between the two groups, and whether conservation-oriented hatcheries and hatchery practices can produce fish that can integrate into natural populations and lead to long-term sustainability (i.e., the fitness question) is the primary question around which much of the present recovery plan hinges.Project sponsors provided thoughtful and adequate responses to the ISRP preliminary questions, including discussion of the expected research contributions from each of the three proposed study sites, the Wenatchee, Tucannon, and Kalama Rivers. The Wenatchee system seems well suited to the sampling; the other two are less so, as the sponsors acknowledge.
If funded, this project should be coordinated with other monitoring projects to ensure compatibility of objectives, common methods, and protocols. This coordination could be accomplished under the favorably reviewed CBFWA proposal #35033.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological BenefitIndirect. Will measure the relative reproductive success of hatchery and natural-origin chinook salmon This data could help make hatchery supplementation of wild stocks more effective.
Comments
NMFS proposal. Inappropriate to comment.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
Yes
Comment:
NPCC Tier 3 [i.e., do not fund]Comment:
Category:3. Other projects not recommended by staff
Comments:
Comment:
This is the only project addressing the effectiveness of Upper Columbia River Chinook ESU spawning in the wild (RPA Action 182)NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $448,728 | $448,728 | $448,728 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website