FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22003
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 |
|---|---|
| 22003 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate Reproductive Status of Salmon & Sturgeon Using Noninvasive Techniques |
| Proposal ID | 22003 |
| Organization | Washington State University (WSU) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Katherine M. Byrne |
| Mailing address | PO Box 646310, Department of Animal Sciences Pullman, WA 99164-6310 |
| Phone / email | 5093351182 / kbyrne@wsu.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | Dir OGRD 335-9661 fax 509-335-1082 ogrd@wsu.edu |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Develop ultra sound & endoscopy techniques to measure reproductive status in salmon & sturgeon. |
| Target species | (Acipenser transmontaus) and (Oncorhynchus sp.) |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 0.4, 1.0 | $67,340 |
| Fringe | $18,182 | |
| Supplies | $3,000 | |
| Travel | $2,000 | |
| Indirect | $43,435 | |
| Capital | Ultrasound Endoscopy | $273,363 |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | $0 | |
| Other | $6,000 | |
| $413,320 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $413,320 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $413,320 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dworshak Fisheries Complex | Salmon, Facilities | $5,000 | in-kind |
| Nez Perce Tribal Hatcheries | Salmon Sturgeon Facilities, Transport Personel | $20,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Although ultrasound is currently used in the Columbia basin (e.g., for steelhead smolts by the Yakama Nation), aspects of the techniques proposed are innovative. However, the proposal is not convincing that the work will be sufficiently valuable to restoration of salmon or sturgeon. The proposed budget is excessively devoted to equipment purchases. The investigators' roles are not clearly defined and they do not present evidence (publications) of their qualifying experience. There are concerns about the proposers' justification for the research. They suggest that the high proportion of salmon males in hatchery populations is a barrier to restoration, referring to the danger and burden of 'extra males'. However, the objective of a supplementation hatchery is to maintain effective breeding number as high as possible, to maximize variance/inbreeding effective population size, which means never excluding a member of the population, male or female, from breeding. Artificial manipulation of sex ratios might have profound deleterious effects on fitness of wild populations in communication with hatchery populations. The proposers assume away these issues without considering them; they cite a paper by Fleming dated 1993, but do not give the full citation so it's hard to know what justification they may be guided by. They also suggest that reducing the number of males in supplemental hatchery releases would ameliorate density dependent ecological effects on wild salmon. There would be no need to screen sexes to ameliorate that effect as amelioration can be accomplished simply by reducing the number of smolts released. Preferring females in smolts at release would exacerbate one form of density dependent interaction, that of competition in space and time among females for redd sites—the most well known form of density dependent interactions in Pacific salmon. There are also concerns about the likely success of the proposed technique. The proposers' suggestion that ultrasound imaging could distinguish testes from ovaries in immature smolts is not convincingly argued. Perhaps the maturing testes of jacks of some species would be distinguishable. The proposers do not describe their own dissections of smolts and do not give us a basis for comparison of sizes of testes and ovaries for judging their proposal that ultrasound techniques would be able to distinguish the two structures. They suggest that the technique can 'image' the heart valve of a mouse but don't tell us whether that valve is smaller than the diameter of a smolt's gonad.Comment:
This project is high priority for white sturgeon culture/enhancement. Scope should only focus on white sturgeon and budget should be subsequently reduced to below $400,000.Comment:
This project is high priority for white sturgeon culture/enhancement. Scope should only focus on white sturgeon and budget should be subsequently reduced to below $400,000.