FY 2003 Request for Studies proposal 200305200

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

ISRP Review Comments:

The Tucannon situation is directly applicable to a listed ESU and presents an important opportunity for satisfying the requirements of the RFP even given the difficult sampling problem of finding offspring of wild fish with which to estimate reproductive success. The project geneticist is well qualified. However, the questions about genetic consequences in the RFP aren’t addressed in the proposal. The proposal does not describe a plan to answer the questions or address the potential long-term genetic risk of kelt reconditioning. A smolt trap would be a better approach, although they are already likely getting some of their sampling with ongoing monitoring via electrofishing.

The proposal is not thoroughly written, is a bit disorganized, and seems to place little emphasis on examining possible risks of kelt reconditioning. “After spawning, fish will be PIT tagged for unique identification and transported to a 20’ circular rearing tank at LFH, and the reconditioning process will begin.” Shouldn’t the fish be marked and identified earlier so that fitness of their offspring reared in the hatchery can be compare to the offspring produced from the reconditioned adults? Maybe they are doing this but it is not clear. Will each individual female be incubated separately at LFH the first year so that results can be compared to results after reconditioning.

Are tissue samples needed from both the juveniles (Task 2b) and smolts (Task 2c- costs are not included because the trap is proposed in another study and may or may not be funded) if the smolt trap is funded. Which is best?

“Task 2d. Collect DNA tissues from all natural origin returning adults at the TFH adult trap from study year fish to conduct pedigree analysis from adult to adult.” Shouldn’t they also collect DNA tissues from hatchery produced adults that are allowed to spawn naturally?

Following fitness of the various crosses to F2 and F3 is not mentioned. Are control streams needed to follow fitness over time without hatchery and reconditioned steelhead?

RFS Review Criteria:

Will the study determine the relative reproductive success of reconditioned steelhead kelts spawning in the wild compared to natural-origin adults, hatchery-origin adults, and cross matings of these three variants, in one or more populations?

Yes, in the Tucannon River population of steelhead, if successful in each of several components—reconditioning kelts, sampling offspring successfully (will a representative sample of natural-origin parr be obtained from eight ‘Index Sites’ in the Tucannon R? How will additional sites be chosen? The proposal is a bit vague. For example, on whether or not funds have been included for DNA tissue analysis from the parents of the hatchery origin adults – or, is this a good idea?

Does the proposal employ the use of microsatellite DNA analysis in order to ascertain the pedigree of resulting progeny and subsequent returning adult steelhead. If not does the method proposed provide quantification of reproductive success of equal of better power than microsatellite DNA analysis?

Yes

Does the study include analysis of the potential genetic consequences of repeat-spawning steelhead on small populations?

Not included in this proposal.

Other research topics, which should be addressed in the proposed study if possible, include:

• How increasing iteroparity might increase inbreeding in the target population, particularly if it is small?

• How reconditioning kelts might increase domestication selection in the target population?

• How the reconditioning program might alter age structure and life history structure in the target population.

• Does the research site(s) offer the ability to capture and sample sufficient outmigrating offspring and all, or nearly all, returning adult steelhead.

• Is the proposed study directly applicable to one or more of the following listed ESUs: Upper Columbia, Mid-Columbia, and Snake River steelhead.

• Cost-effectiveness (e.g., the ability to take advantage of existing fish production, research, monitoring or evaluation activities) will be an important consideration in the proposal selection process.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

The sponsor’s reply concerning the smolt trap was reasonable, and their comments on costs for DNA analysis are worth keeping in mind. The remainder of their comments to questions were reasonable, including our questions concerning measurements in F2 and F3 generations and use of controls. The appropriate measure of reproductive success should be within their natal environment and competing with these local fish. The use of controls is more associated with longer-term studies and they are investigating the use of Asotin Creek.