FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 198740100

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

Reason for change in estimated budget

The budget will increase incrementally during the projected period as tasks outlined in the proposed objectives are addressed based on the previous years results. Because of the asynchrony of the spring chinook life history with the funding process, and the uncertainty of permit review timelines, the first major experiment would begin with spawning in the fall of 2003. The major juvenile sampling periods will be in the spring 2004 and 2005, with analysis during the summer and fall. However, during the early implementation period in 2003, genetic information will be gathered, locations for instream smolt sampling will be determined, and coordination with juvenile tagging and adult monitoring programs will be finalized.

Reason for change in scope

The on-going project objectives allow response to manager needs on an as-need basis. New regional priorities, based on the NWPPC Fish and Wildlife Program, and the All-H goal to meet recovery standards have suggested additional project objectives. Based on our 15-year project research, monitoring and evaluation experience with hatchery and wild stocks, we have developed new objectives to address specific RPAs related to differential reproductive success between wild and hatchery-origin fish over the entire life-cycle. Our project expertise is smolt physiology; therefore we are focusing on the long-term effects of the early rearing environment on condition, smoltification and emigration as measures of reproductive success. We will implement associated genetic testing only if that information is not available from other projects, and will coordinate with existing tagging and spawning evaluation projects to insure full life-history data for the proposed work..

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

The new topic is to "determine if basic water chemistry and background levels of natural immunostimulants in rearing water sources affect early development of immune response, disease resistance, and long-term survival of eggs, fry, and smolts in relation to adult returns." If during early development, biotic and abiotic characteristics of the aquatic rearing environment determine immune competence and disease resistance, then this innovative research could be very important to the basin. However, it is not possible to assess the research proposed from this proposal. The method isn't well described here--a preliminary study design is given, but no data from that study are presented. No design for statistical analysis is presented. The intention and value of the genetic screening are not clear.

Annual ongoing tasks concerning smolt condition should be clearly identified in a separate proposal. It should be designed to directly assist facility managers throughout the program.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

The research topic is interesting and the researchers have a long history of working with smolt monitoring in the basin. They are well qualified to conduct this research but the descriptions of methods and tasks are inadequate. This proposal is putatively developed from a continuing task in the basin, but appears largely to be about developing a new research topic.

It is worth noting that the CBFWA reviewers raised many of the same concerns as the ISRP about whether this represented evolving ongoing work, or a new proposal.

CBFWA: There appears to be a significant change in scope for this ongoing project. There was some question whether this project should be viewed as a new proposal, rather than an ongoing, planned study as originally proposed. The proposal is taking on a new path in developing its own study design and research plan. The ISRP has raised significant concerns regarding the study design. Some of the CBFWA reviewers agree with their concerns and will provide additional comment.

Comment:

Comments
The proposal clearly lacks rigor in the description of the experimental design. The different treatments are fairly well presented, but the response variables are not well-defined. First, what are the specific physiological and immunological tests to be performed? This may be the most easily-obtained information from the study, but the proposal provides no details. The most glaring weakness is the lack of any statistical design. For instance, “long-term survival” is mentioned several times as a response variable but never clearly defined. Because of this, no power analysis was conducted to determine sample sizes. If one of the goals is to assess delayed mortality, then it is clear that adult return rate will need to be measured. To distinguish among treatments, thousands of fish will need to be tagged per treatment. Is this the scale the researchers envisioned? Also, it is doubtful if enough wild fish will be available to extend the analysis to wild populations. Finally, the statement that the survival of hatchery fish is suppressed relative to wild stocks is not necessarily true. In recent years, smolt-to-adult return rates of hatchery and wild PIT-tagged fish have been nearly equivalent.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

Comments:

Comment: