FY 2000 proposal 199005200
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Performance/Stock Productivity Impacts of Hatchery Supplementation |
| Proposal ID | 199005200 |
| Organization | Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey (formerly National Biological Survey) (BRD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Reg Reisenbichler |
| Mailing address | Western Fisheries Research Center, 6505 NE 65th St Seattle, WA 98115 |
| Phone / email | 2065266282 / reg_reisenbichler@ |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Measure genetic effects from artificial propagation of steelhead and spring chinook to provide increased understanding of the reputed failure of steelhead supplementation in Idaho's Clearwater River and an improved basis for planning, conducting, and eval |
| Target species | Steelhead and (spring) chinook salmon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 1995 |
Publication: Reisenbichler, R.R., and G.S. Brown. 1995. Is Genetic Change From Hatchery Rearing of Anadromous Fish Really a Problem? Pages 578-579 in H.L. Schramm, Jr., & R.G. Piper [eds] Uses and Effects of Cultured Fishes in Aquatic Ecosystems. America |
| 1996 |
Publication: Reisenbichler, R.R. 1996. Effects of supplementation with hatchery fish on carrying capacity and productivity of naturally spawning populations of steelhead. Pages 81-92 in G.E. Johnson, D.A. Neitzel, and W.V. Mavros [eds.] Proceedings from |
| 1997 |
Publication: Reisenbichler, R.R.. 1997. Genetic factors contributing to declines of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. Pages 223-244 in D.J. Stouder, P.A. Bisson, and R. J. Naiman [eds.] Pacific Salmon and Their Ecosystems: Status and Future |
| 1998 |
Reisenbichler, R.R. 1998. Questions and partial answers about supplementation--genetic differences between hatchery and wild fish. Pages 29-38 In E.L. Brannon and W.C. Kinsel [eds] Proceedings of the Columbia River anadromous salmonid rehabilitation and p |
| 1998 |
Publication in review: Reisenbichler, R.R., and S.P. Rubin. Genetic changes from artificial propagation of Pacific salmon affect the productivity and viability of supplemented populations. ICES Journal of Marine Science. |
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 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 |
|
$179,726 |
| Fringe |
|
$54,280 |
| Supplies |
|
$9,000 |
| Operating |
|
$24,600 |
| PIT tags |
300 |
$870 |
| Travel |
|
$17,958 |
| Indirect |
|
$116,675 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$92,123 |
| $495,232 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $495,232 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $495,232 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| U.S. Geological Survey |
Personnel & equipment |
$50,200 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Timely or successful completion of objectives 2-5 depend on adequate escapements of hatchery or wild adults.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fund for one year
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund for one year. Subsequent funding should be contingent upon reporting of results to date.
Comments:
This proposal is a continuation of one of only a few programs evaluating the genetic aspects of supplementation. The program has been expanded to include steelhead and spring chinook salmon and relies upon the use of neutral genetic markers to represent Hatchery (H) and Wild (W) brood stock. Any evidence for or against the genetic marks was not presented in the proposal. The program contrasts the growth and survival of HxH, HxW, and WxW genetic groups in both natural and hatchery environments, and tests for maternal, incubation, and cryopreservation effects. Preliminary results on steelhead indicate a significant effect of the stock origin on supplementation rates (see concerns noted below).
The proposal requests continued funding for work that has been ongoing for 7 years and is expensive. Although the proposal addresses questions that are still important, the reporting of results from previous work is inadequate, particularly in peer-reviewed publications and reports. The proposed work for 2000 and subsequent years is very ambitious. Unfortunately, the limited reporting of previous work makes it very difficult to evaluate the value of continuing this project. It is recommended that this project be continued but substantially scaled down pending peer review of previous work.
One reviewer, while fully supporting this area of research, provided a series of concerns that should be relayed to the principal investigator (PI). These were:
The PI appears to be convinced, in advance, that hatcheries produce rapid domestication effects. The proposal would be stronger if it this kind of bias were eliminated from the text.
For Objective I.1, the PI fails to provide details of the origin of the Dworshak steelhead stock as compared to the Selway River stock. As Dworshak is located on the mainstream Clearwater, it would be nice to know if the two stock types were originally essentially the same. If not, then the comparison is not necessarily hatchery vs wild but stock A vs stock B (of unknown origin?).
The relevance of the cryopreservation experiments was not adequately demonstrated. It seems an "add-on" and could be deleted to reduce costs.
For Objective II.1, the comparison with the Carson spring chinook stock would be useful and the PI should consider deleting that stock. One could just as reasonably replace the Carson hatchery stock with some out-of-basin or distant wild stock. The Warm Springs wild vs hatchery is a fine contrast by itself.
There is a disappointingly lack of description of mating protocols for proposed experiments. Will there be enough parents so that differences between hatchery and wild will not instead reflect differences in parental attributes?
The budget is poorly described, although justified (in particular the $90+k subcontract for an unidentified task).
This project has several experimental components, some are well constructed, and others are questionable. The Warm Springs stock experiment looks good. The choice of the Carson stock is not well justified.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? no - Question the need to continue conducting the study.Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? yes -
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? yes -
Resource Criteria 4: Met? yes -
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Proposed budget does not show reductions for objectives that are coming to conclusion (e.g. Objective 7). As tasks are completed, this budget should be reducing each year to zero in FY03. FY99 proposal showed outyear costs winding down in FY00, yet overall proposal has increased in FY00.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]