FY07-09 proposal 200729900

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Deschutes

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs: Project will continue through 2015 at a cost of about $450,000 anually

Termination date: 2017
Comments: Last adult progeny from fifth year of parents that spawn in 2011(five years of treatment and control) are expected to return in 2016 and we will take into 2017 to complete analyses and publish results.

Final deliverables: Reports and manuscripts including strategies to reduce risk and impacts of stray steelhead in the Deschutes River subbasin steelhead populations.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: This project is a basic monitoring project intended to investigate the extent and consequences of steelhead straying into the Deschutes subbasin. Out of subbasin straying of steelhead is a growing issue with the increase in hatchery production throughout the basin. The technical background is extensive. The table with values of strays into the Deschutes is convincing that there is need to explore the impact to wild fish (2X wild in some years and locations). Also, the proposal presents a solid of the potential issues, including likelihood of introgression with wild fish where hatchery fish have purposely been excluded from release. The proposed work, including the expected work in the out-years, addresses a fundamental uncertainty regarding the extent and effects of out-of-subbasin strays on wild steelhead populations. The project has four objectives that relate specifically to high priority issues identified in the Deschutes Subbasin Plan for steelhead. The work should be applicable to other situations and other species as well. The project is specifically related to other projects (especially M&E projects) and will share resources to accomplish tasks. While the project will focus on a single treatment and a single control stream within the subbasin, results should have at least a modicum of "range finding" value to other situations in the larger basin. We reviewed a number of proposals aimed at undertaking parentage analysis. The description of the work is relatively thin and implies there is a standard set of protocols and experimental design for such work (which ISRP does not judge to be the case). This fact points to a general basinwide need to begin coordinating such work among groups, with other parentage studies, and with steelhead microsatellite work group for standard sampling and lab protocols. The sponsors could enhance the robustness of the sampling if multiple treatment and control reaches were included (recognizing this would incur larger costs and effort). Sponsors should at least address this issue as a limitation in its broader applicability. The ISRP’s fundable recommendation is qualified because the proposal would be improved if the following items were clarified (the ISRP is not asking to review a response): How feasible/possible is it to "remove all hatchery fish from Bakeoven Creek"? Juveniles (parr?) are to be examined to assess reproductive success. Might not smolt recruits be a more robust response variable? Are there prior experiences or attempts that can guide the efficacy of the approach? How feasible are the proposed field sampling protocols? How do we know that the adult and smolt traps are going to work at the desired efficiencies in BakeOven Creek, for example. Are there prior experiences or attempts that can guide the efficacy of the approach? How feasible are the adult steelhead traps? Are there prior experiences or attempts that can guide the efficacy of the approach? There is some vagueness in analytical approach in Objective 3. For example, "...will apply appropriate parametric and non-parametric statistical tests," might be strengthened to include the basic approach (e.g., compare means, variance, covariance, etc. – although not necessarily the "specific" test).

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: This project is a basic monitoring project intended to investigate the extent and consequences of steelhead straying into the Deschutes subbasin. Out of subbasin straying of steelhead is a growing issue with the increase in hatchery production throughout the basin. The technical background is extensive. The table with values of strays into the Deschutes is convincing that there is need to explore the impact to wild fish (2X wild in some years and locations). Also, the proposal presents a solid of the potential issues, including likelihood of introgression with wild fish where hatchery fish have purposely been excluded from release. The proposed work, including the expected work in the out-years, addresses a fundamental uncertainty regarding the extent and effects of out-of-subbasin strays on wild steelhead populations. The project has four objectives that relate specifically to high priority issues identified in the Deschutes Subbasin Plan for steelhead. The work should be applicable to other situations and other species as well. The project is specifically related to other projects (especially M&E projects) and will share resources to accomplish tasks. While the project will focus on a single treatment and a single control stream within the subbasin, results should have at least a modicum of "range finding" value to other situations in the larger basin. We reviewed a number of proposals aimed at undertaking parentage analysis. The description of the work is relatively thin and implies there is a standard set of protocols and experimental design for such work (which ISRP does not judge to be the case). This fact points to a general basinwide need to begin coordinating such work among groups, with other parentage studies, and with steelhead microsatellite work group for standard sampling and lab protocols. The sponsors could enhance the robustness of the sampling if multiple treatment and control reaches were included (recognizing this would incur larger costs and effort). Sponsors should at least address this issue as a limitation in its broader applicability. The ISRP’s fundable recommendation is qualified because the proposal would be improved if the following items were clarified (the ISRP is not asking to review a response): How feasible/possible is it to "remove all hatchery fish from Bakeoven Creek"? Juveniles (parr?) are to be examined to assess reproductive success. Might not smolt recruits be a more robust response variable? Are there prior experiences or attempts that can guide the efficacy of the approach? How feasible are the proposed field sampling protocols? How do we know that the adult and smolt traps are going to work at the desired efficiencies in BakeOven Creek, for example. Are there prior experiences or attempts that can guide the efficacy of the approach? How feasible are the adult steelhead traps? Are there prior experiences or attempts that can guide the efficacy of the approach? There is some vagueness in analytical approach in Objective 3. For example, "...will apply appropriate parametric and non-parametric statistical tests," might be strengthened to include the basic approach (e.g., compare means, variance, covariance, etc. – although not necessarily the "specific" test).