FY 2000 proposal 20080
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 |
---|---|
20080 Narrative | Narrative |
20080 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Evaluate a Modified Feeding Strategy to Reduce Residualism and Promote Smolting of Dworshak Juvenile Steelhead in the Clearwater River in Idaho |
Proposal ID | 20080 |
Organization | Idaho Fishery Resource Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (IFRO/USFWS) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Ray N. Jones |
Mailing address | P.O. Box 18 Ahsahka, ID 83521 |
Phone / email | 2084767242 / Ray_Jones@fws.gov |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 2000 |
Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
Short description | Reduce residualism and improve smoltification of steelhead using a modified feeding strategy designed to stimulate smoltification, reduce residualism, increase emigration success, reduce interactions with wild fish, and increase adult returns. |
Target species | Summer Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) |
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 |
---|---|
Completed unfunded pilot study* |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
Characterize and Quantify Residual Steelhead in the Clearwater River, Idaho | Not dependent but very closely related in that both projects are attempting to address the issue of residualism of juvenile steelhead at Dworshak NFH. Fish released by this project can contribute additional data to Project 99-018-00. Collections of our | |
20542 | Biological Monitoring of Columbia Basin Salmonids | |
8740100 | Assessment of Smolt Condition: Biological and Environmental Interactions |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | $38,800 | |
Fringe | $7,900 | |
Supplies | Field equipment, lab and office supplies | $10,000 |
Operating | Coded-wire and PIT tagging | $16,000 |
Capital | Laptop computer and software, digital camera | $3,500 |
PIT tags | 4000 | $11,600 |
Travel | $7,500 | |
Indirect | $21,000 | |
Subcontractor | USGS-BRD Salaries, Benefits, etc. | $51,750 |
$168,050 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost | $168,050 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2000 budget request | $168,050 |
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Flow conditions in the spring may have an effect on PIT-tag detection rates at Lower Snake and Columbia River dams.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fund, technically inadequate. More attention needs to be paid to experimental design.Comments: This project is directed to the problem that some steelhead released at Dworshak Hatchery do not emigrate. The hypothesis is that manipulation of steelhead feeding levels during the winter prior to release will result in a greater proportion of the population leaving the system after release. The authors propose to test the prospect that their treatment groups (which are not identified) will experience differing capabilities for adaptation to saltwater. If that is a valid possibility, it should be tested before undertaking the expensive marking and release experiments included as part of the proposal.
The authors can expect a troublesome management problem associated with changing densities in the rearing ponds. They neglect to describe how they will prevent rearing density from becoming an uncontrolled variable. Preliminary experiments should be conducted at the hatchery and laboratory to address the saltwater adaptation problem, and to explore methods for dealing with density and other variables such as pond location. If and when a modified proposal is prepared, it should include data from preliminary trials (some suggested above).
The proposal is inadequate in that it seeks a dietary, hence physiological, solution to a problem that may be primarily behavioral, and ignoring behavioral matters that would confound the experiments. In their research design, the proponents appear to ignore important material cited in their own narrative in Section 8a (Tech. Sci Background), which brings up behavioral aspects. For example (p. 10, lines 6-10): "Hatchery practices can have a significant influence on the parr-smolt transformation process [refs], and need to be developed based on knowledge of how they directly influence the growth, physiology, and behavior of steelhead leading up to and during smoltification." They go on to state (p. 10, lines 24-27) that "a review of the literature indicates that high variability in size (length) within a juvenile steelhead population is in part a product of social interactions, and the establishment of dominant and subordinate individuals, where dominants grow faster than subordinates. . ." But the proposal addresses merely the overall growth rate of the population, not its variability, and therefore misses the point. Moreover, the sponsors do not acknowledge in their design that growth, physiology, and behavior are not independent of each other. The proposal is written as if growth rate could be manipulated in isolation.
The authors ignore the traditional hatchery procedure of occasional "grading" (sorting by size with simple, sieving jigs) to separate socially dominant, faster growing fish from the "runts," which results in faster growth of the latter. They fail to consider that this alone might solve the problem, obviating elaborate and possibly much more costly dietary manipulations in hatchery practice and physiological measurements in the proposed research. Even more importantly, they fail to consider that manipulating diet without grading the fish may be futile.
The proponents are "promoting the idea," as they put it, "that the real need is to. . ." (page 10, lines 14-15). This suggests a preconception, which may rule out consideration of the full spectrum of reasonable possibilities. This runs counter to the unbiased inquiry that is necessary in experiments.
The Methods section neglects to describe the need for buying a digital camera or laptop computer and software, nor is the need explained in the narrative on budget. The travel allotment of $7,500 is not justified. For all these reasons, the reviewers judge that the proposal is not based on sound science.
Comment:
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? Yes -Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? No - Tasks do not address Objectives 2-4
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? No - Is meeting objectives really feasible?
Resource Criteria 4: Met? Yes -
Comment:
This is a good project, however, it does not address more urgent management priorities in this area. We recommend funding at a reduced rate. The recommended budget allocation was derived by dropping Objective 3.Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting];