FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding

Proposal 200305400: Repro Of Steelhead In Hood Riv

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
January 10, 2006 Finalized Michael Blouin

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 200305400
Proposal Name: Repro Of Steelhead In Hood Riv
BPA Project Manager: Tracy Hauser
Agency, Institution or Organization: Oregon State University
Short Description: We will continue estimating the fitness of fish from traditional and from supplementation hatcheries (relative to the fitness of natural-origin fish) when breeding in the wild. New data to include F2 offspring and 2nd supplementation stock.
Information Transfer: Publication in peer reviewed scientific literature. Reports to BPA.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Michael Blouin Oregon State Univ. Dept. Zoology, Cordley 3029
Corvallis, OR 97331-2914
Ph: 541-737-2362
Fax: 541-737-0501
Email: blouinm@science.oregonstate.edu
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Michael Blouin Oregon State Univ. Dept. Zoology, Cordley 3029
Corvallis, OR 97331-2914
Ph: 541-737-2362
Fax: 541-737-0501
Email: blouinm@science.oregonstate.edu
Form Submitter

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Mainstem/Systemwide ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Systemwide ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
Hood River , None Selected No
45.5075 -121.6738 [none] Enter project or location description here Hood River, Oregon Hood No

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Steelhead Lower Columbia River ESU

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 Completed genotyping and analysis of fitness data, as promised. This was the second of a multi-year collection effort. See narrative for final results
2004 Completed genotyping and preliminary analysis of fitness data, as promised. This was the first of a multi-year collection effort. See narrative for final results.

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source) There are no projects related to this proposal.

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
Estimate fitness of summer supplementation stock Estimate fitness of the first two run years (2001 and 2002) of the summer supplemtation (Hsupp) stock. Specific work: genotype summer Hsupp passed upstream beginning in 2001, and their offspring that returned through run year 2008. None This project was identified as being applicable systemwide [Pg no blank]
Estimate fitness of winter fish run yrs 99 to 2001 Estimate fitnesses of winter run fish from run years 1999 to 2001. These will be of three types: wild, supplementation hatchery stock, and of mixed ancestry (ancestry to be determined after parentage analysis). Specific work: genotype offspring identified as having been born in brood years 2000 to 2002, and identify their parents. Analyze fitness as function of % hatchery background in each fish. None This project was identified as being applicable systemwide. [Pg no blank]
Finish estimating the fitness of summer old stocks Finish estimating the fitness of summer run old hatchery stock (Htrad) fish. Compare fitness of wild vs. Htrad in all five brood years from the early 1990’s. Specific work: finish genotyping backlog of summer run Htrad samples from early 1990’s. None This project was identified as being applicable systemwide. [Pg no blank]

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
Manage and Administer Projects Project supervision [Work Element Description Not Entered] 10/1/2006 10/1/2009 $124,522
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Annual Report Annual Report [Work Element Description Not Entered] 10/1/2006 10/1/2009 $2,129
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Analyze/Interpret Data Data Analysis [Work Element Description Not Entered] 10/1/2006 10/1/2009 $340,573
Biological Objectives Metrics
Primary R, M, and E Type: uncertainties research

Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Genotyping [Work Element Description Not Entered] 10/1/2006 10/1/2009 $585,359
Biological Objectives Metrics
Primary R, M, and E Type: uncertainties research

Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results Communicate results [Work Element Description Not Entered] 10/1/2006 10/1/2009 $11,707
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
Personnel tech, postdoc, student, PI summer $116,868 $121,543 $126,404
Fringe Benefits [blank] $52,314 $54,407 $56,583
Other grad student tuition, 1yr $9,523 $9,904 $10,300
Supplies [blank] $60,300 $62,712 $65,220
Travel scientific meetings, travel for project $3,770 $3,920 $4,078
Overhead 41.5% total costs except tuition $96,800 $100,671 $108,973
Totals $339,575 $353,157 $371,558

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$1,064,290
Total Work Element budget$1,064,290

Cost sharing
Funding Source or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$386,420 $401,877 rough guess based on 4% per year increases
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
 
Termination Date Comments
2010? Depends on when Powerdale dam is removed. I believe it is currently scheduled for removal at the end of the decade, at which point our collections will cease and we will have about one more year of work analyzing samples.
 
Final Deliverables
Annotated data, published manuscripts, reports.

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
No changes were made to this proposal


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$290,850
FY 2008 Budget
$290,850
FY 2009 Budget
$290,850
Total NPCC Rec
$872,550
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:Basinwide
Recommendation:Fund
Comments:


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$290,850
FY 2008 Budget
$290,850
FY 2009 Budget
$290,850
Total NPCC Rec
$872,550
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$290,850
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$290,850
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$290,850
Total MSRT Rec
$872,550
Budget Category:Basinwide
Comments:

Local or MSRT Comments: Due to the limited funding environment, the MSRT recommends sequencing the work within this project to meet FY 2006 funding levels (plus 5% for increased costs) for the next three years.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC Comments: The response addressed the ISRP questions. The ISRP appreciated the effort to address the review in a professional and positive manner with explanatory notes and even figures. The ISRP expects that the principal investigators will consider the ISRP's comments on residualized hatchery fish in subsequent proposals, reports, and reviews.

A thorough response and additional references were provided, for the most part. Clearly, this is important work on the issue of wild and hatchery fish interactions and supplementation. The papers in press, in review, and planned shall become important contributions to fisheries science and particularly to the question of supplementation in the Columbia River Basin. The opportunity to review the papers in press or in review was much appreciated and assisted in confirming or addressing previous ISRP concerns quite adequately.

The question of contribution of residualized hatchery fish to parentage of wild and hatchery returns remains. Htrad may have provided no evidence of a parental contribution to returns since their success in spawning (or of progeny post-spawning) may have been near zero, but Hnew males may be more successful. The implications of reproductive success of residualized Hnew males may be substantial. It seems this could be addressed with more planning and thought, perhaps by sub-sampling residuals directly or by samples from hatchery smolts released at acclimation sites throughout the Hood River. Indeed, the opportunity may be unique to this system. Does "acclimatization" provide a benefit or loss to overall reproductive success of wild fish?

Supplementation was shown here (paper in review) to have no effect on the reproductive success of wild fish. However, does it add anything? In other words, if there is no added benefit when wild fish are seeding habitat to capacity, then what is the point of supplementation?

Ecological effects remain an issue. Regardless, a continuation of this work is highly recommended since it will address important questions on the genetics of salmonids and hatcheries, particularly if more focus is placed on the residual steelhead issue, and success in sampling can continue with the removal of the Powerdale Dam, which seems possible.

Further collaboration should be encouraged - this work should form part of a basinwide study on supplementation, filling gaps not possible in other studies and replicating work elsewhere, thus agreement on standard procedures is necessary, as appears to be unfolding.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC Comments: There is a well-defined issue on the use of hatchery fish to supplement wild steelhead production. This excellent proposal explains the background and published literature from this site. This work really points to the dangers of domestic or out-of-system brood sources, residualism in steelhead, and also provides evidence for the much-improved practice of wild native broodstock (when available) for at least the first generation of returns. There remain concerns about the effective population size of hatchery brood relative to wild, particularly when wild are at low density, and ecological impacts, as well as effects after several generations.

There are two different issues: first, reproductive success of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds (ESA-lambda), and second, the fitness implications as a result of hatchery rearing. The separation of tasks is not clear within the proposal, and should be. This is not a study of fitness effects of hatchery fish (similar to Minter Creek). These are populations that have had long-term hatchery and wild interactions. Advocates and detractors of supplementation have used the results of preliminary work in potentially over-reaching situations. A clear result is required, and should appear in the peer-reviewed literature. This work is to finish the data collection through the F2 generation. Those results need to be reviewed (ISRP, literature) prior to consideration of funding for analysis at the F3 level.

Even though there may be large numbers of hatchery returns, the effective size of the family is only as big as that collected for brood (or less, if some families did not survive). The issue requires further study, i.e., the effective family size and how that can be altered by fish culture, and its impact on the wild population over the long term. Beere and Heggenes (2006) calmed some concerns over the short term, based on results using wild brood at Kitimat when wild numbers were high, but noted caution was required over the longer term and when wild abundance declines to low levels (a potential genetic bottleneck).

On the Hood, where acclimation sites abound (smolts released throughout the watershed), residualism (precocious parr or resident trout from fish that fail to migrate) is a serious issue, for both the river ecology (predators and competitors) and genetic impact. Although most residual parr die after displacing or out-competing smaller wild parr and consuming wild fry, some mature and spawn with wild fish. Spawning (residual) parr also likely confounded the Hood River analysis - both the wild and the hatchery brood and return samples were derived from a population containing residualized hatchery steelhead.

Some evidence of collaboration with similar projects (e.g., Forks Creek, Mintow, Grande Ronde) would be a benefit, but at this level of the investigation and academic qualifications, it can be assumed. Published results should be provided (soon). Nevertheless, sponsors need to tie this work into other work in the basin. What is the connection between this work and that of other agencies (ODFW and NOAA) on supplementation?

A few questions remain:

•Blouin's work and Kostow's papers seem to present different interpretations of the relative success of hatchery fish. This needs to be addressed.

•Power analysis of genetic work? How many loci and alleles are needed?

•Planning for post-Powerdale? How will the work continue or be affected by the removal of the dam, where the key data on adult returns is collected?

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.