FY 2003 Request for Studies proposal 200306300

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleNatural Reproductive Success and Demographic Effects of Hatchery-Origin Steelhead in Abernathy Creek, Washington
Proposal ID200306300
OrganizationU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameDonald E. Campton
Mailing addressAbernathy Fish Technology Center, 1440 Abernathy Creek Road Longview, WA 98632
Phone / email3604256072 / Don_Campton@fws.gov
Manager authorizing this projectDonald E. Campton
Review cycleFY 2003 Request for Studies
Province / SubbasinColumbia Estuary / Elochoman
Short descriptionWe will investigate the natural reproductive success of hatchery-origin (HOR) and natural-origin (NOR) steelhead in Abernathy Creek (Cowlitz County), Washington. The long-term goal of this work is to assess whether captive rearing of NOR juveniles is a vi
Target speciesSteelhead
Project location
46.1884 -123.1679 Abernathy Creek
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)



Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments


Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2003 cost
Personnel $183,681
Capital $19,000
Subcontractor WDFW $70,000
Subcontractor NMFS $20,000
Supplies $19,950
Other $15,200
Indirect 21.5% $70,484
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost$398,315
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2003 budget request$398,315
FY 2003 forecast from 2002$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Fundable if response is adequate.
Apr 25, 2003


Fundable, contingent on an adequate response to the ISRP’s questions. The proposed research (favorably reviewed by ISRP after submission in three earlier contexts) would investigate a novel method for developing native broodstocks of steelhead as required by the NMFS BiOp on Artificial Propagation, i.e. rearing captured parr to maturity as a source of broodstock rather than taking eggs from mature native fish. Thus, even though the research is not directly on one of the listed ESU’s, its results will be directly applicable to recovery of listed steelhead. It is noteworthy that, unlike other research on the reproductive success of hatchery origin (HOR) and natural origin (NOR) salmon, in this study the productivity of natural origin fish will be observed in control streams, without the presence of hatchery origin fish; most of the other projects would compare reproductive success of natural origin and hatchery origin fish, but only in the presence of each other. The Deschutes River study, proposal 1, also has controls.

Questions arising in the present review include one concerning the putatively native fish in Abernathy Creek—how influenced has this population been by hatchery production in the past, from other populations? Secondly—how will straying of steelhead into the control streams influence their comparison of productivity in the supplemented Abernathy Creek population to productivity in the control streams? Is there inter-breeding with resident trout and if so, how is it accounted for in the analyses?

Does the study address the following RFS questions:

Are there statistically significant differences in reproductive success between natural-origin and hatchery-origin fish when measured at the second generation (F2)? Do F1 progeny with HxW parents differ from F1 progeny with HxH parents in the production of F2 progeny?


What are possible hypotheses to explain this difference? For example, can the difference be attributed to reduced genetic fitness of hatchery-origin compared to natural-origin fish? Are differences more significant during any specific life history stages?

Yes – the research would evaluate reproductive success, survival of offspring, during the freshwater phase of the life history, as smolts emigrating from Abernathy Creek, and as mature adults. Mechanistic hypotheses relating parentage of fish to survival at sequential life stages aren’t addressed explicitly in the proposal, but are implicit and will be susceptible to testing with the data gathered.

What is the likely effect of any difference, in terms of population growth, population recovery, and genetic diversity/fitness in subsequent generations according to the Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) criteria?

The project has the potential to address whether the population grows and how genetic diversity and fitness are affected by hatchery origin spawners, but the proposal does not address the question directly.

Does the proposal address the additional criteria for selecting among well-designed and responsive proposals include:

The degree to which studies are directly applicable to one or more of the following listed ESUs (for which there are currently no reproductive success studies underway): Upper Columbia steelhead, Mid-Columbia steelhead; Snake River fall chinook; and Columbia River chum. Studies not occurring in those ESUs, but with clear applicability to those ESUs will also be considered;

Yes – this study will not occur in a listed ESU but is designed to produce results applicable to listed ESU’s.

The degree to which the study is designed (or is capable of being extended) to address whether and to what extent any difference in reproductive success of hatchery spawners persists in subsequent generations (beyond F2);

Yes - study design will allow determination of whether statistically significant differences in reproductive success exist between NOR and HOR in generations beyond F1 (to F3). It contains a good selection of treatment and control sites.

The degree to which proposals may provide information more broadly applicable to multiple species/ESUs identified above;

Yes - the rationale is that this is a model system for developing supplementation strategies for upper and mid Columbia steelhead.

Potential to commit to a long-term study (beyond F2); and


Overall cost effectiveness

The proposed research would build on and the requested funds would be leveraged by other ongoing work. Methods are well established and reliable.

Fundable - response required
May 14, 2003


Fundable - response required
May 14, 2003


Jun 27, 2003


Fundable. This is a proof-of-principle study that cuts across the RPAs and the broader needs of the BiOp. The responses reasonably address the ISRP’s questions as well as issues related to RPAs 182 and 184. The ISRP agrees with their prelude to specific comments. It could potentially fail because the questions posed in the RFS are too narrow, thus causing this study to lack some appropriate contents. That should not doom it. As the proponents stress, it is a research project that has systemwide application. The proponents do not attempt to cloak it in a garb that is not intended.

The authors have responded well to each question: past hatchery effects, measurements in F2 and F3, use of controls and impacts of out-of-basin effects, impact of resident rainbows, etc. The monitoring system in this proposal is sound and extensive sampling (for DNA etc.) can be maintained over time. There are two control streams to compare with and to measure out-of-basin effects. The issue of resident fish is much less in this system due to its location. This is a scientifically sound proposal.

The response is a little weak on the QA/QC question. They describe capability of managing data, but do not elaborate on quality control aspects.

The comment from the H/H group is uninformed, but the proposers provided a lengthy response. Why the H/H would refer to this as captive brood (as in the sense used elsewhere), the ISRP did not understand, but the methods developed in this proposal could definitely be used elsewhere in the basin.

Oct 2, 2003


NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$386,850 $391,422 $391,422

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website