FY 2002 Innovative proposal 34002
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 |
|---|---|
| 34002 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate Spawning Protocols and the Reproductive Success of Salmonids in Hatcheries |
| Proposal ID | 34002 |
| Organization | School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington (UW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Thomas P. Quinn |
| Mailing address | Box 355020, University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 |
| Phone / email | 2065439042 / tquinn@u.washington.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | David Armstrong |
| Review cycle | FY 2002 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Develop better protocols for spawning salmonids in hatcheries, and assess reproductive success of individual fish in hatcheries. |
| Target species | All salmonids, with steelhead as an example |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Columbia Basin, and North America |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 184 | NMFS | The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within regional prioritization and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the appropriate level of FCRPS funding for a hatchery research, monitoring, and evaluation program consisting of studies to determine whether hatchery reforms reduce the risk of extinction for Columbia River basin salmonids and whether conservation hatcheries contribute to recovery. |
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 2002 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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | survey scientific literature and poll agencies | 12 | $100,850 | |
| 2 | extract and process DNA samples | 12 | $46,521 | Yes |
| 3 | synthesize results and write reports | 6 | $50,428 |
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 2002 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 2002 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 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 2 faculty (1.5 mon & 1mon) 1 staff biologist 18 mons @ 50%, 1 grad research asst (18 mons) | $74,130 |
| Fringe | 21.3% faculty, 23.2 % staff, 10.3% grad student | $13,714 |
| Supplies | PC, software, misc supplies | $2,500 |
| Travel | scientific meeting | $2,000 |
| Indirect | 51.6% on-campus research | $60,034 |
| Capital | none | $0 |
| PIT tags | # of tags: none | $0 |
| NEPA | none | $0 |
| Subcontractor | Dalhousie University | $33,621 |
| Other | grad student operating fee, ld phone, report prep | $11,800 |
| $197,799 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $197,799 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $197,799 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This sixth ranked proposal is fundable particularly for Part 2, the most innovative portion. Part 1.A. might be best limited to a regional survey. Part 2 will examine, through direct observation (parentage analysis) of a steelhead broodstock, the effect of hatchery artificial spawning practices on the genetic structure of a cultured population. Further, through comparison with structures resulting from natural patterns of mate selection, the sponsors propose to design and recommend hatchery practices that will result in more natural structures. This line of research may suggest changes from current best practices (which recommend random mating), but it is unlikely that many salmon hatcheries could produce matings consistent with the range of mating structures seen in nature. Furthermore it is likely that the reproductive success of families will differ between generations, reflecting different environmental conditions, and that the patterns of reproductive success of different mating systems will not be consistent from generation to generation. The samples from Forks steelhead adults will demonstrate the amount of variation in survival between families generated from current hatchery practices, an important innovation, but it won't be clear whether differential survival occurs during hatchery culture (domestication selection) or after release. The proposed review of artificial spawning protocols and policies as a basis for comparing natural patterns of mate selection, Part 1, is arguably not innovative in and of itself and to the extent that the review would extend beyond the Basin it would be only marginally pertinent to restoration.Comment:
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological BenefitUncertain benefits. Research/Hatchery project to assess differential reproductive success of individuals in a hatchery population. Question addressed is: what is the appropriate breeding protocol for salmon in hatcheries to minimize divergence from wild populations?
Comments
The proposal has RPA relevance due to potentially broad applicability to hatchery programs throughout the Basin.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
Yes
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUUncertain benefits. Research/Hatchery project to assess differential reproductive success of individuals in a hatchery population. Question addressed is : what is the appropriate breeding protocol for salmon in hatcheries to minimize divergence from wild populations?
Comments
The proposal has RPA relevance due to potentially broad applicability to hatchery programs throughout Basin.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Do not recommend. This work does not now seem to be a Biological Opinion priority. Majority of project budget is devoted to a literature search and the applicability of research portion to Columbia Basin hatcheries is questionable.