FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200307600

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
35015 Narrative	Narrative
35015 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation
35015 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Replicated stream system for the evaluation of hatchery and wild juvenile salmonid interaction and development of innovative culture technologies
Proposal ID	200307600
Organization	University of Idaho/Columbia River Inter Tribal Fisheries Commission (UI/CRITFC)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	David L. Smith
Mailing address	University of Idaho Aquaculture Research Institute Moscow, ID 83844-2260
Phone / email	2088857860 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	Ernie Brannon
Review cycle	Mainstem/Systemwide
Province / Subbasin	Mainstem/Systemwide /
Short description	Develop sixteen independent streams using spring water at the University of Idaho Hagerman Research Station with the goal of providing a research facility for investigating interaction between wild and hatchery salmonids and rearing technique development.
Target species	fall chinook

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
42.8073	-114.8842	University of Idaho Hagerman Research Station Collaborative Center for Applied Fish Science

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
184
169

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
	This is a new project

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
200104600	Collaborative Center for Applied Fish Science	support
199105500	NATURES	support

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1 Coordinate with others	a. hold scooping meetings	1	$197,007
2. Project design and engineering	a. Develop construction drawings	1	$103,107	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Maintain coordination and plan experimets	2004	2005	$180,750
2. Maintain coordination and plan experiments	2005	2006	$49,000
3. Maintain coordination and plan experimets	2006	2007	$54,750
4. Maintain coordination and plan experiments	2007	2008	$56,280

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$180,750	$49,000	$54,750	$56,280

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
No construction.			$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
construction	2004	2005	$663,046
	2005	2006	$0
	2006	2007	$0
	2007	2008	$0

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2004
$663,046

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
			$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
. Sediment removal and habitat development to support experiments	2004	2005	$0
2. Sediment removal and habitat development to support experiments	2005	2006	$142,000
3.Sediment removal and habitat development to support experiments	2006	2007	$149,100
4. Sediment removal and habitat development to support experiments	2007	2008	$156,555

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$142,000	$149,100	$156,555

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
Continue to monitor experiments	2004	2005	$0
	2005	2006	$203,409
	2006	2007	$213,579
	2007	2008	$224,257

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$203,409	$213,579	$224,257

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2003 cost
Personnel	FTE: 5.7	$94,140
Fringe	@34.5 and 28.5%	$26,952
Supplies	substrate, wet suits, etc	$10,300
Travel	regional coordination	$6,420
Indirect	@31.5% on personel. supplies, travel	$59,195
Capital	0	$0
NEPA	0	$0
PIT tags	# of tags: 0	$0
Subcontractor	Fishpro and Rivermasters	$103,107
Other		$0
		$300,114

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 cost	$300,114
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2003 budget request	$300,114
FY 2003 forecast from 2002	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2002-13)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Aug 2, 2002

Comment:

Response required. There is an important opportunity for a unique research facility, but we question the proposed initial use. While we agree that replication and use of controls could advance research on issues concerning hatchery-wild interactions in streams, the proposal does not address whether 16"streams" could truly be constructed as replicates and what the experience in other such studies have been. Have there been ecological studies that truly accomplished replication of environments? If so reference to them would have substantially aided in the presentation of this proposal. The author did comment on the issue of scale in ecological studies and that issue would be of consideration in this application, but if scale alone were the concern, then presumably the design could be modified to compensate. What is the origin of the proposed design of 16 replicate streams? Task 1 requests substantial funding for consultation but the design and choice of species is already proposed. Will these consultations lead to new research proposals? What is the basis of fall chinook use and why would these fish come from Hanford? What fish transfer and fish disease protocols would be implemented to protect investment in the facility and the local environment?

We see little value in immediately undertaking such a demanding construction program. It would be reasonable to undertake the initial improvements as described and to distribute information on this facility; there may be substantial interest from other organizations with funds to support independent research. Unless the technical capability of constructing several replicates can be addressed more strongly (through support from the literature, etc.) and strong regional support for such an investment is provided, the ISRP does not support the immediate construction of these 16"stream sections". We would favorably review a proposal to develop this research opportunity but leaving the construction aspects to the needs of the chosen research program that eventually is provided access to this facility. Such programs may only want a few larger stream sections or, in an alternative use, may require construction of a few spawning reaches to experiment with the re-introduction of captive brood parents into a semi-natural (and protected) stream environment.

The budget presentation should provide more information for review. For example, what does 5.7 FTE but only $94,000 actually mean?

Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:

HARVEST AND HATCHERY SUBGROUP -- Address critical element of RPA? No. Proposal itself is not directly responsive to either RPA. Proposal is for design and construction of 16 experimental stream channels. There is a possibility that the experimental stream facility proposed in this project could be used to investigate issues of relevance to RPA 184.

Scope? ESU's covered, Transferability, Species covered] Future research at the proposed facility would target fall chinook. No evidence in proposal of transferability to other populations, ESU's, or species.

Study design adequate, as is, or as may be modified? No comment at this time.

ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:

The ISRP generally agrees with the RME group comments, but the ISRP can see potentially valuable uses for the facility other than those proposed that may have significant value for endangered ESU's.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Oct 24, 2002

Comment:

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-14)

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Nov 5, 2002

Comment:

Do Not Fund. We disagree with the CBFWA ranking of high priority. The proposal focuses on an important opportunity for a unique aquaculture research facility in southern Idaho at the University of Idaho's Hagerman Experimental station and a new acquisition on the nearby Billingsley Creek. However, we do not support the proposed initial use: construction of a series of replicated streams on the Billingsley Creek site. While the project sponsor provided a detailed response to the ISRP preliminary review comments, we continue to have a fundamental problem with building a research facility without identifying the research to be conducted. The ISRP recognizes the potential value of this site, understands that the facility is under the care and ownership of the University of Idaho, and believes the site offers potential as a regional aquaculture research facility. It seems logical therefore, to regionally solicit input and identify aquaculture and conservation research needs and interest on the part of potential participants and funding agencies before proposing construction of a specific aquaculture facility design.

The requested evidence of regional support for the facility (three letters attached to the response) acknowledged the potential value of such a facility, but the letters were certainly not extensive responses, nor convincing in arguments. Further, despite the ISRP's suggestion, the response did not present a more basic research proposal.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jan 21, 2003

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit
Indirect. Set up a facility consisting of 16 experimental stream channels. As a first experiment in the channels, isolate the interactions between wild and hatchery fish.

Comments
The proposal is basically for the construction of experimental facilities and does not have any direct relevance to ESA-listed species. However, there is a possibility that the 16 experimental stream facilities proposed in this project could be used to investigate issues of relevance to listed species, but the proposal does not spell this out. Future research at the proposed facility would target fall chinook, but there is no evidence in the proposal of transferability to other populations, ESUs or species. The use of control streams could advance research on issues concerning hatchery-wild interactions in streams but the proposal does not address whether 16 "streams" could truly be constructed as replicates and what the experience in other such studies has been. The proposal does not justify the origin of the proposed design of 16 replicate streams. It is not clear in the proposal why fall chinook will be used and why these fish would come from Hanford.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
No

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund (Tier 3)

Date:
Jun 11, 2003

Comment:

Category:
3. Other projects not recommended by staff

Comments: