FY 2000 proposal 199105500
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | N a T U R E S [Formerly Supplemental Fish Quality (Yakima)] |
| Proposal ID | 199105500 |
| Organization | National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Thomas A. Flagg |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 130 Manchester, WA 98353 |
| Phone / email | 2065534208 / T. [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Develop and evaluate fish culture techniques (seminatural raceway habitat, predator avoidance training, exercise, live food diets, etc.) for a natural rearing enhancement system that increases the postrelease survival of artificially propogated salmon. |
| Target species | chinook salmon, sockeye salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 1992 |
Completed Literature Review. |
| 1992 |
On a laboratory scale demonstrated that full term rearing of fall chinook salmon in seminatural raceway habitat increases instream postrelease survival. |
| 1994 |
On a laboratory scale demonstrated that acclimation rearing of spring chinook salmon in seminatural raceway habitat increases instream postrelease survival. |
| 1994 |
On a pilot scale demonstrated that full term rearing of fall chinook salmon in seminatural raceway habitat increases instream postrelease survival. |
| 1997 |
Completed design and physical evaluation of seminatural raceway habitat using resin rock pavers for production scale raceways. |
| 1998 |
On a production scale demonstrated that full term rearing of fall chinook salmon in seminatural raceway habitat with resin rock paver substrate increases instream survival. |
| 1995 |
Completed design and physical evaluation of automatic subsurface feed delivery system. |
| 1995 |
On a pilot scale demonstrated that automatic subsurface feed delivery systems do not affect fall chinook salmon behavior. |
| 1992 |
With laboratory trials demonstrated that live food supplemented diets improve fall chinook salmon foraging success. |
| 1997 |
With field trials demonstrated live food diets improve fall chinook salmon foraging success. |
| 1998 |
Completed design of an oval exercise system that can be retrofitted to production raceways to exercise fish in a cost-effective manner. |
| 1997 |
Demonstrated chinook salmon instream postrelease survival is increased by being exposed to a diverse array of live predators during culture pilot scale raceways. |
| 1997 |
Demonstrated chinook salmon can be conditioned to respond to the scent of a predator. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 9701300 |
Yakima Cle Elum Hatchery O & M |
Strategies being developed under NATURES are being implemented in YKFP test of supplementation. |
| 833500 |
Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery O & M |
Strategies being developed under NATURES will be used in the Nez Perce fish culture facilities |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$154,000 |
| Fringe |
|
$28,000 |
| Supplies |
|
$60,600 |
| Operating |
|
$28,000 |
| Capital |
|
$57,000 |
| PIT tags |
6000 |
$17,400 |
| Travel |
|
$18,000 |
| Indirect |
|
$54,000 |
| Subcontractor |
PSMFC contractual services |
$83,000 |
| $500,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $500,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $500,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| NMFS |
Personnel, Equipment, Supplies, and O & M |
$255,000 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: The schedule may be modified when new ideas offering solutions to problems arise. The main constraint that may cause schedule changes is the level of funding and the accessability of production scale facilities to evaluate smolt-adult survival.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund. Review again in FY2003. The investigators are encouraged to include assessments of interactions of NATURES fish and wild salmon. The investigators are asked to submit their results to peer review and publication in the primary research literature.
Comments:
The proposal for this ongoing project contains objectives for all years, not just for FY2000. It is not clear what is to be done in FY2000. It presents the results of treatments, but needs a more interpretive discussion regarding the results of combining treatment effects and the meaning of results in the larger context. The rationale of the proposed research is that if hatchery presmolts were reared in a semi-natural culture system, which would produce wild-like fish, they would survive better. This would reduce the effects of hatchery-produced salmon on wild salmon. The logic of this rationale is obscure and could be more clearly explained. Reviewers question that if hatchery salmon now displace wild salmon to their detriment, how could enhancing the fitness of hatchery salmon not exacerbate the problem? There may be an implicit belief that a semi-natural rearing system will reduce domestication selection (because future interbreeding of hatchery and wild salmon is inevitable) and this reduction will reduce the genetic difference between hatchery and wild salmon and therefore the detrimental effect of their future interbreeding. This isn't explicitly stated, and would be a speculative claim. But otherwise it is not clear what's meant by "use high survival NATURES-reared fish to reduce ...impact on wild populations" (p.12). It may be the same rationale as that of Project 9202200, which is that by enhancing fitness of hatchery salmon, fewer will be needed to supplement wild populations.
There is no analysis of this or any other potential benefit. Would enhanced fitness offset reduced release numbers? What would be the effect of applying the techniques to supplementation hatcheries?
Progress. The project has been underway since '92. It has proceeded by looking for ideas about how to make smolts more wild-like, testing the ideas in lab, pilot, and production scale experiments. The 'ideas' that have been tested are 'semi-natural raceway', which is a vaguely specified system that is unlike usual raceways because it has overhead cover, plant structure, and something like a rough bottom. Reviewers note that apparently none of these features have been tested in isolation from others. Other 'ideas' that have been tested are 'live food', 'predator training', and 'exercise water velocities'. A new idea in this proposal is 'underwater food'. Apparently none of the tests have proceeded to production scale.
It's hard to evaluate progress as little or nothing has been published in the primary literature. It is disturbing that such large amounts have been spent on so much research with very little peer-review of the work. Very little of this work has been published in the primary literature. The proponents should give some summary of the supporting data.
Methods. Lab means culture in replicated 400 liter tanks, pilot means culture in 6000 liter tanks coupled with 'instream survival' tests (standardized experiments releasing marked fish upstream from a trap where they're observed), and production means culture in 25 kilter raceways coupled with evaluation of CWT release groups. Evaluation apparently does not entail any measure of interaction of "NATURES" fish with wild fish. Reviewers strongly believe that it should.
It's hard to envision the 'semi-natural raceway'. A diagram would help. There is no information on densities per raceway compared to traditional practice, such as, what would be the smolt production from a 'semi-natural raceway'? . What kind of power do proposers expect from production scale experiments? How realistic are their expectations of return rates? What are their expectations of return rate? Will this produce meaningful results? Why aren't the physiological indexes of FWP Project 9202200 being employed in lab, pilot experiments? It seems that both projects have similar rationales and that the investigators would want to cooperate with one another. Because the methods are so cursorily described, the proposers are asking reviewers to trust that their methods are reliable. Reviewers, however, need the help of peer review, i.e. publication of progress in the primary literature. It's reassuring that the key personnel are qualified by education & experience, which means they probably understand the requirements of meaningful experimentation. Evidence that their work to date can pass peer-review and be published would be much more reassuring.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Criteria all: Met? yes -
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
We would like to see more discussion of Objectives 6 and 7. These are new objectives their need more justification and rationale of their need. We also question why Objectives 2 and 5 are listed in the proposal as being completed, yet 20% of the budget has been assigned to these objectives. Innovative project.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]