FY 2003 Request for Studies proposal 200305500

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:

Models of how interbreeding with hatchery-origin fish may reduce fitness of natural-origin fish aren’t developed and the research isn’t proposed in context of such models. The hypotheses stated in objectives 2 and 3 are simplistic statistical hypotheses. Mechanistic hypotheses posing possible causal relationships would be more useful and more interesting. For example, what phenotypic traits would be expected from each type of cross, how would they affect fitness, and why would they be expected. If these kinds of hypotheses are not proposed, the applicants should explain why.

In objective 2 the applicants propose to estimate fry and parr survival. How would this be accomplished? If egg-fry survival is to be estimated, how will spawner density and egg production from each type of cross be determined? If the purpose is only to estimate fry produced by each type of cross (fry/spawner), the number of spawners must be determined. How will this determination be made?

“After the third year of the project, we will be able to assign parentage to the adults returning to the weir” –How will strays into the Chinook River be accounted for? Will there be substantial numbers of unidentifiable coho? Will they be prohibited from entering the River?

In general the methods for several of the sub-objectives of objective three are not well explained. For example, how will heritability be estimated (objective a4), why is heritability an important parameter, how will objective a6 be accomplished, what are the direct and indirect methods proposed in objective a7? Objective 3, task a3 contains two different parts -- determining whether random mating occurs and determining whether the different crosses have offspring with similar survival rates. The two Parts of the objective should be dealt with separately. The methods for accomplishing objective a10, which apparently attempts to address evaluation criterion 3, need to be explained in far greater detail.

The methods call for collection and genotyping of “Approximately 2000 offspring produced by each set of potential parents”; the number of potential parents apparently numbers in the hundreds and the number of sets of parents would be very large, so this would be in aggregate an intractable task.

Is this a suitable site for this study if the planned estuary restoration projects (e.g. removal of tidegates) are implemented? How would this impact the study design?

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?

Yes

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 – there would be evaluations of reproductive success at several life stages.

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;

No, but the results would be directly applicable to the Lower Columbia River Southwest Washington coho ESU which are a Candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act and which the recent report by the Biological Review Team categorized as endangered and the project would address are significant and address important uncertainties for other 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 - the study could be extended.

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

Yes, but the proposal does not respond explicitly to this question.

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

Yes – the project could commit to a long term study.

Overall cost effectiveness

Relatively inexpensive compared to other proposed projects, benefits from collaboration of different groups and from other related projects.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment: