FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200303400

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:

Our suggested enhancements to the study include:

1. DNA sampling the original parr collected so that genetic variation in the source population is known
2. Maintaining the families in individual rearing tanks until they are large enough to tag (CWT and/or PIT tags), sample families before pooling
3. PIT tag at least 100 individuals per family before pooling in the raceways, this will facilitate studying family responses to culture (variation of growth--task 1.d.-- cannot be observed from observations of mean size of experimental groups.)
4. Do not fin clip the fish as electronic sampling for blank wire will avoid the mortality associated with these fin clips
5. Incorporate culture regimens (diet, ration, schedules, etc.) that achieve natural growth trajectories of parr and pre-smolts rather than regimens that " Maximize...growth rate and minimize the variance in growth rate"--task 1.e. of the proposal. Physiological research on fitness of smolts (by Dickhoff and others) suggests that traditional growth-maximizing regimens may be inappropriate for supplementation programs.
6. Sample phenotypic traits of the PIT tagged fish as they are being released from the raceways as smolts including physiological assessments such as those proposed for coho smolts (task 3.c.).
7. Use the barrier fence to divert all adult steelhead through the facility and to electronically sample for CWT and PIT tagged fish.
8. Incorporate truly randomized mate-assignment protocols (task 2.a.) (Quinn and others at Forks Cr Hatchery have shown that apparently random mate assignments in steelhead broodstocks are not random with respect to phenotypic characters)
9. Consider how to sample and/or use kelts that will be produced and how to manage the barrier fence when the kelts are moving downstream.

The ISRP is taking this unusual step of providing detailed suggestions as this is the third time we have considered this proposal and each time have supported it. We also note that there is a strong cost sharing aspect to the program as WDFW will provide three rotary screw traps, and USFWS is proposing to recruit additional staff and has the facilities. The design as proposed would require a substantial investment in funds, facilities, and effort but, in our opinion, would not fully investigate the objectives presented.

We also note that the proposal has four components: the steelhead brood stock study, rearing of coho salmon in the hatchery to reduce over-winter mortality, replacement of the electronic fence in Abernathy Creek, and the development of a Tier 3 Monitoring and Evaluation Site (NMFS RPA No. 183) for Lower Columbia and Southwest Washington ESUs of steelhead, coho salmon, chinook salmon, and coastal cutthroat trout.

In our assessment, the recommended priority of these activities should be:

1. Establishment of a Tier 3 Monitoring and Evaluation program complete with participation of WDFW, and replacement of the Abernathy fence through this submission. (High priority)
2. Conducting the steelhead broodstock study as expanded in the attached flow chart (with amended budget). (High-Medium priority), and
3. Conducting the coho over-wintering study (Low priority) What is the justification for the coho approach? Has overwinter instream survival of coho juveniles been identified as a limiting factor in the Abernathy Creek coho population?

Outline of Steelhead Research program for Project #35027 USFWS (figure)



Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:

HARVEST AND HATCHERY SUBGROUP -- Address critical element of RPA? Relevant to RPA 182, 184. With respect to RPA 184, the steelhead aspect of the proposal may provide a viable alternative to "broodstock mining" and genetic bottlenecks for conservation hatchery programs seeking to obtain and utilize local stocks (the thrust of many reforms).

Scope? [ESU's covered, Transferability, Species covered] Targeted species are as follows. Steelhead: Southwest Washington ESU, Coho salmon: Lower Columbia River, Southwest Washington coast ESU, Chinook salmon: Lower Columbia River ESU (naturalized population in Abernathy Creek). Proposal includes more than one listed species and ESU, and may have transferability to many others. As a side benefit, this technique, if successful, might have direct application to SNAPP (RPA 175)

Study design adequate, as is, or as may be modified? Well designed and written.

ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:

The ISRP generally agrees, but has some questions and suggestions regarding the study design.

---

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation
Recommendation:
Urgent
Date:
Oct 24, 2002

Comment:

The project sponsor is dropping the coho portion of the proposal in order to add additional tasks on steelhead in response the ISRP comments. The project sponsor will submit a revised budget that represents the proposed modifications. If this project and Project Number 35060 are funded, cost efficiencies will be available. Is there a data gap in knowledge for raising steelhead in captivity? It is the understanding of several of the reviewers that the underpinnings of captive broodstock technology was based on developing steelhead protocols.

---

REVIEW:
CBFWA FY03 Budget Review Comments
Recommendation:
Urgent
Date:
Oct 24, 2002

Comment:

A revised budget was requested for #35027 by itself because of the recommendations of the ISRP, which resulted in deleting one Objective (#3) and adding a new Objective (new Objective #3) to address the potential genetic effects of culture. Overall, this reduced slightly the FY03 budget. The project sponsor received a commitment from USFWS for funds to replace the outdated electric weir with a new electric barrier system. These new funds reduce the cost of their proposed budget (Project Number 35027 or 35027/35060 combined) by $64,233 in FY2003 and by approximately $500,000 in FY2004. Funds requested in FY2003 were for surveying, permitting, and design. Funds requested in FY2004 were for construction. The majority of funds requested under our reduced budget are now personnel related. We sincerely hope this new commitment of USFWS funds will greatly improve the chances of BPA funding for our proposed RME studies under Project Numbers 35027 and 35060. The proposed budget presented here is for 35027 alone, see the full response to CBFWA for combining this project with 35060.

---

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-14)
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Nov 5, 2002

Comment:

Fundable. We agree with the CBFWA review, budget reductions, and Urgent ranking. This is a strong proposal that the ISRP has reviewed twice prior to the Mainstem / Systemwide provincial review. Each time we have supported it, as we do now. The proposal has four components: the steelhead brood stock study, rearing of coho salmon in the hatchery to reduce over-winter mortality, replacement of the electronic fence in Abernathy Creek, and the development of a Tier 3 Monitoring and Evaluation Site (NMFS RPA No. 183) for Lower Columbia and Southwest Washington ESUs of steelhead, coho salmon, chinook salmon, and coastal cutthroat trout.

The authors' propose to assess the use of juveniles, rather than adults, to initiate local brood stocks for supplementation programs. Removing juveniles would impose less of a demographic loss on a depressed population and may reduce the risk of a Ryman-Laikre effect on the genetic composition of the population (i.e. the expansion of a small sample of the population into a much larger portion of the supplemented population with associated changes in genetic variation).

In our preliminary comments, the ISRP took the unusual step of providing detailed suggestions on study design modifications to the project sponsor, as this is the third time we have considered this proposal. The project sponsor's response to the ISRP preliminary concerns was adequate and demonstrated full consideration of the ISRP comments. The sponsors modified the proposed design to address ISRP concerns so that the proposed monitoring now includes both natural and cultured populations.

We also note that there is a strong cost sharing aspect to the program as WDFW will provide three rotary screw traps, and USFWS is proposing to recruit additional staff and has the facilities to conduct the proposed work. If funded, this project should be coordinated with other monitoring projects to ensure compatibility of objectives, common methods, and protocols. This coordination could be accomplished under the favorably reviewed CBFWA proposal #35033.

---

REVIEW:
NMFS Review
Recommendation:

Date:
Jan 21, 2003

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit
Indirect. Investigate two hatchery methodologies that can potentially assist with recovery of naturally spawning populations of steelhead and coho.

Comments
The proposal is of biological relevance to ESA-listed species. Specifically, the steelhead aspect of the proposal may provide a viable alternative to "broodstock mining" and addresses genetic bottlenecks for conservation hatchery programs that will be seeking to obtain and utilize local stocks (the thrust of many hatchery reforms). The proposal targets ESUs for listed species as follows: Steelhead: Southwest Washington ESU, Coho Salmon: Lower Columbia River, Southwest Washington coast ESU, Chinook Salmon: Lower Columbia River ESU (naturalized population in Abernathy Creek). The proposal includes more than one listed species and ESU, and may have transferability to many others. As a side benefit, this technique, if successful, might have direct application to Safety Net Artificial Propagation Programs. The study design is adequate and the proposal is well written.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

---

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 2, 2003

Comment:

NPCC tier 3

---

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund (Tier 3)
Date:
Jun 11, 2003

Comment:

Category:
3. Other projects not recommended by staff

Comments:


---