FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200303500

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:

There are three issues for response:

1. the tasks associated with the technology transfer do not include "blind" tests of virus that the regional labs would process in order to confirm the accuracy of their work. Since several regional labs would be trained in these needed techniques, provided the necessary equipment, and then expected to contribute to the monitoring and control of the IHN M-clade, we suggest that regular testing for confirmation of methods should be incorporated.
2. The authors suggest that the overall goal of this work is to document the distribution of the M-clade and to control its spread in the Columbia basin. The proposal is not very explicit, however, in how prevention or control of the spread would result. This should be more clearly explained in the proposal.
3. We ask the proponents to consider a more active investigation of the M-clade distribution and control of its spread. The authors make a good case for the importance of this research and monitoring, but if the spread of M-clade is a threat to recovery, why not take an immediate active role in sampling and examination of the current distribution and then management of the virus? The budget could be adjusted appropriately.

We believe each of these points can be readily addressed by the authors and recommend a high priority for this proposal. The budget as presented seems very reasonable given the extent of risk presented by this virus.

Comment:

Comment:

The project sponsors provided an adequate response to the ISRP's preliminary review concerns. The proposers will incorporate repeated blind testing of virus isolates into the protocol without an increased budget. Prevention of virus spread and control of outbreaks will result from educated management decisions enabled by the project. Active control was an intended part of the proposal as submitted and the response convincingly explains that increased effort beyond that budgeted in the proposal will not be needed.

Two remaining issues merit additional consideration: (1) if M-clade IHNV is not in the upper Columbia, why not stop all transportation of fish to that area until all labs are trained and a response plan is developed; and (2) if IHN is transferable through seawater and in any environment with high fish densities, this could certainly be an issue for barged salmon or in holding areas of the river system. This virus likely merits high priority attention until it is better understood.

Comment:

Comments
This project has a strong benefit to listed ESUs in the Columbia River Basin for several reasons. First, this group has provided IHNV clade typing services for a number of hatcheries and in ESU captive broodstock/rearing programs that needed the information for decisions on the fate of infected stocks. Often the decisions involve the release of hatchery fish in areas where they may interact and impact wild, ESA-listed stocks. Funding the proposal will provide the means to continue this critical function in the near-term. Secondly, the proposal will increase the knowledge of M clade IHNV and its geographical distribution which aids in decision-making regarding the disposition or transfer of infected fish. And last, the proposal seeks funding for transfer of the typing technology to regional fish health labs in order to standardize the technology to regional fish health labs, in order to standardize the technology (methodology, equipment, and phylogenetic analysis software) among all of the involved laboratories in the basin.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

Comment:

Comments:
Identified as Bi-op critical