FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 199801001
Contents
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 |
|---|---|
| 199801001 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199801001 and 199801006 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Blue Mountain: Grande Ronde Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Blue Mountain: Grande Ronde Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program |
| Proposal ID | 199801001 |
| Organization | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Richard W. Carmichael |
| Mailing address | 211 Inlow Hall, Eastern Oregon University La Grande, OR 97850 |
| Phone / email | 5419623777 / rcarmich@eou.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | Richard W. Carmichael |
| Review cycle | Blue Mountain |
| Province / Subbasin | Blue Mountain / Grande Ronde |
| Short description | Rapidly increase numbers of chinook salmon in the Grande Ronde Basin while protecting genetic diversity, and develop and evaluate methodologies for captive broodstock programs. |
| Target species | Spring Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.5 | -117.75 | Grande Ronde River Basin, Oregon |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Hatchery RPA Action 176 |
| Hatchery RPA Action 169 |
| Hatchery RPA Action 170 |
| RM&E RPA Action 182 |
| RM&E RPA Action 185 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS/BPA | Action 177 | NMFS | In 2002, BPA shall begin to implement and sustain NMFS-approved, safety-net projects. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1995 | Collected 1994 brood juveniles from from Catherine, Grande Ronde River and Lostine River. |
| 1996 | Completed long-term management plan for captive broodstock program and obtained an ESA permit. |
| 1996 | Transferred 1994 brood juveniles to Bonneville and Manchester hatcheries. |
| 1996 | Collected 1995 brood juveniles from Catherine Creek and Lostine River. |
| 1996 | Cryopreserved semen from 89 mature 1994 brood males. |
| 1997 | Completed designs for new facilities for captive brood at Bonneville Fish Hatchery and Manchester Marine Lab. Completed NPPC review process and received approval for funding and construction. Began construction. |
| 1997 | Transferred 1995 brood juveniles to Bonneville and Manchester hatcheries. |
| 1997 | Collected 1996 brood juveniles from Catherine, Grande Ronde River and Lostine River. |
| 1997 | Cryopreserved semen from 287 mature 1994 and 1995 brood males. |
| 1998 | Completed construction of Bonneville and Manchester Captive Broodstock facilities. |
| 1998 | Transferred 1996 brood to Bonneville and Manchester hatcheries. |
| 1998 | Collected 1997 brood juveniles from Catherine Creek, Grande Ronde River and Lostine River. |
| 1998 | Sorted mature females and males at Bonneville and Manchester hatcheries and collected gametes (spawned or cryopreserved semen) from 120 females and 302 males. |
| 1998 | Transferred 1998 F1 cohort embryos to Irrigon Hatchery for incubation. |
| 1999 | Transferred 1997 brood to Bonneville and Manchester hatcheries. |
| 1999 | Transferred 1998 F1 cohort to Lookingglass Fish Hatchery for rearing to smolt stage. |
| 1999 | Collected 1998 brood juveniles from Catherine Creek, Grande Ronde River and Lostine River. |
| 1999 | Sorted mature females and males at Bonneville and Manchester hatcheries and collected gametes (spawned or cryopreserved semen) from 307 females and 565 males. |
| 1999 | Transferred 1999 F1 cohort embryos to Irrigon Hatchery for incubation. |
| 2000 | Transferred 1998 F1 cohort to acclimation sites and released 74,374 smolts. |
| 2000 | Transferred 1999 F1 cohort to Lookingglass Fish Hatchery for rearing to smolt stage. |
| 2000 | Transferred 1998 brood to Bonneville and Manchester hatcheries. |
| 2000 | Collected 1999 brood juveniles from Catherine Creek, Grande Ronde River and Lostine River. |
| 2000 | 1998 and 1999 cohort juveniles vaccinated with bacterial kidney disease vaccine - mortality rate due to BKD was reduced. |
| 2000 | Sorted mature females and males at Bonneville and Manchester hatcheries and collected gametes (spawned or cryopreserved semen) from 460 females and 664 males. Transferred embryos to Oxbow and Irrigon hatcheries for incubation. |
| 2000 | Transferred 2000 F1 cohort embryos to Oxbow and Irrigon hatcheries for incubation. |
| 2001 | Transferred 1999 F1 cohort to acclimation sites and released 272,226 smolts. |
| 2001 | Transferred 1999 brood to Bonneville and Manchester hatcheries. |
| 2001 | Transferred 2000 cohort of F1 generation to Lookingglass Fish Hatchery for rearing to smolt stage (estimated release will be 554,624 smolts). |
| 2001 | Sorted mature males and females from Bonneville and Manshester hatcheries. Tested use of ultrasound and near infrared spectroscopy for earlier determination of maturity. |
| 2001 | Age 3 jacks of 1998 F1 cohort returning to Catherine Creek and Grande Ronde and Lostine rivers. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9202604 | Early Life History of Spring Chinook Salmon in the Grande Ronde Basin. | We utilize migration timing information from this project to determine when to collect juveniles for captive broodstock. Life history information will also be used to access the success of supplementation programs and smolt migration success. |
| 8805301 | NE Oregon Hatcheries - ODFW, CTUIR, and NPT. | Captive broodstock program will be directly integrated into the NE Oregon Hatcheries program as it will be providing the broodstock and eggs that will be utilized for NEOH. |
| 8905302 | NE Oregon Hatcheries - ODFW, CTUIR, and NPT. | Captive broodstock program will be directly integrated into the NE Oregon Hatcheries program as it will be providing the broodstock and eggs that will be utilitzed for NEOH. |
| 5520700 | Captive Broodstock Artificial Propagation | This is the NPT funding for cooperative evaluation of the Grande Ronde Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program. |
| 8909600 | Genetic Monitoring and Evaluation of Snake River Salmon and Steelhead. | This project provides samples for the genetics montoring program. |
| Fish Passage Center Smolt Montoring Program - Migration Characteristics | During the summer, we PIT-tag parr in Catherine Creek, and the Lostine and Grande Ronde rivers. We collect parr for the captive broodstock when parr PIT-tagging occurs. This project also provides personnel and information to improve efficiencies. | |
| 9606700 | Captive Broodstock Program - Manchester Marine Lab | This is a NMFS project that rears Grande Ronde Captive Broodstock as a part of the program. |
| Spring Chinook Endemic Broodstock Development | This captive broodstock program is integrated with the Grande Ronde Endemic program and will utilize the adult collection facilities to monitor returns and survival of captive broodstock produced returns. | |
| Lower Snake River Compensation Plan | The captive broodstock project is providing embryos for use in the LSRCP supplementation program. Production, release and monitoring and evaluation of captive brood progeny is funded under the LSRCP. | |
| Idaho Captive Broodstock Program | The Idaho and Oregon Captive Broodstock Programs have followed divergent methodologies to reach the same goal. We meet every two months through a Technical Oversight Committee to update and discuss each program. | |
| 176 | Hatchery RPA | The Captive Broodstock Program is an integral part of the Grande Ronde Safety Net program and program personnel will participate extensively. |
| 169 | Hatchery RPA | Much of the data needed for the Grande Ronde chinook salmon HGMP are provided by the Captive Broodstock Program and program personnel will assist in writing the HGMP's. |
| 170 | Hatchery RPA | Improvements are proposed for hatcheries used in the Captive Broodstock Program and we will assist in development of hatchery modification plans and designs. |
| 182 | RME RPA | Progeny from the Captive Broodstock Program will be used for the studies comparing reproductive success of hatchery vs. wild chinook salmon outlined by this RPA. |
| 185 | RME RPA | Progeny from the Captive Broodstock Program will be used for studies of juvenile migrant survival for both transported and nontransported migrants and adult returns outlined by this RPA. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Rear brood parr until they reach smoltification at Lookingglass Fish Hatchery. | a. Provide all facilities, feed and personnel to rear broodstock from capture to smoltification. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $36,955 | |
| b. Provide an adequate quantity and quality of water, and chilling facilities adequate to meet program requirements. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $36,955 | ||
| 2. Safely transport brood fish between Lookingglass Fish Hatchery, Bonneville Fish Hatchery and Manchester Marine Laboratory. | a. Move brood fish from LFH to BOH and MML following smoltification at LFH. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $7,391 | |
| b. Move mature brood fish from MML to BOH for spawning. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $3,695 | ||
| c. Transport fertilized embryos from BOH to LSRCP facilities for incubation. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $3,695 | ||
| 3. Rear brood fish at Bonneville Fish Hatchery from smoltification to maturity. | a. Provide all facilities, feed and personnel to rear all broodstock adults until they are ready to spawn. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $221,728 | |
| 4. Oversee and facilitate the spawning of all ripe fish. | a. Provide all facilities, feed and personnel to spawn all mature broodstock. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $36,955 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Rear brood parr until they reach smoltification at Lookingglass Fish Hatchery. | 2002 | 2006 | $334,486 |
| 2. Safely transport brood fish between Lookingglass Fish Hatchery, Bonneville Fish Hatchery and Manchester Marine Laboratory. | 2002 | 2006 | $66,897 |
| 3. Rear brood fish at Bonneville Fish Hatchery from smoltification to maturity. | 2002 | 2006 | $1,003,459 |
| 4. Oversee and facilitate the spawning of all ripe fish. | 2002 | 2006 | $167,243 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $364,742 | $382,980 | $402,128 | $422,235 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Assess maturation and characterize length, weight, and survival of all three stocks at Manchester Marine Laboratory and at Bonneville Fish Hatchery to assess the success of alternative rearing treatments. | a. Examine brood fish for maturation at BOH and MML. At all sample times, we will inventory each stock and collect lengths and weights from a subsample to assess growth and condition. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $22,173 | |
| 2. Monitor the growth, development, and survival of the fish at Lookingglass Fish Hatchery to assess the success of alternative rearing treatments. | a. Measure the length and weight of a sample of fish from each stock on a monthly basis, until March, when final smolt development should begin. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $14,782 | |
| 3. Mark all brood individuals in all three stocks with a secondary mark. | a. Apply VI tags as a secondary mark to all individuals in each stock. The VI tags will provide a backup identification to the PIT tags to ensure that individuals can be identified. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $14,782 | |
| 4. Determine when fish are ready to be transferred to seawater. | a. Transfer ten sentinels from each stock to MML for test of survival and adpatation to saltwater. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $14,782 | |
| 5. Collect brood juveniles from Catherine Creek, Lostine River, and upper Grande Ronde River populations. | a. Collect 500 parr in August and September throughout the rearing area from each population. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $36,955 | |
| 6. Coordinate ESA permit activities and participate in captive broodstock planning and oversight. | a. Continue leadership of the Grande Ronde Chinook Salmon Captive Broodstock Project, Technical Oversight Team and participate in the Chinook Salmon Technical Oversight Committee. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $22,173 | |
| 7. Develop and implement complex matrix spawning protocols. | a. Develop the most appropriate spawning protocols. Sample fish as they are spawned. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $14,782 | |
| 8. Develop and maintain a database on the captive fish. | a. Maintain a database for each individual fish. This database will include PIT and VI tag identification numbers, growth information, information on health, maturation and survival. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $22,173 | |
| 9. Insure that an Annual Operations Plan is developed for the captive broodstock program. | a. Coordinate and oversee the development and implementation of the Annual Operations Plan for the captive broodstock program. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $22,173 | |
| 10. Analyze and summarize data, and prepare and submit an annual report. | a. Write and submit an annual report covering the period of October 1 - September 30. We will also provide an ESA permit report to NMFS on our annual operations. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $29,564 | |
| 11. Determine etiology of captive broodstock morbidity and mortality. | a. Conduct diagnostic examinations using appropriate methods to identify infectious and disease causing agents. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $7,391 | |
| b. Make observations to attempt to identify any other causes of morbidity and mortality. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $7,391 | ||
| c. Complete and distribute diagnostic reports. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $7,391 | ||
| 12. Implement prophylactic erythromycin treatments for bacterial kidney disease under Investigational New Animal Drug (INAD) protocols. | a. Prepare annual protocols and submit to the INAD primary investigator. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $7,391 | |
| b. Coordinate protocols with hatchery personnel. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $7,391 | ||
| c. Complete submission of annual protocols with Efficacy of Treatment forms to the primary investigator. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $7,391 | ||
| 13. Implement theraputic treatments as described in the Section 10 ESA permit. | a. Prepare INAD protocols when required. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $14,782 | |
| b. Evaluate therapy through completion of Efficacy of Treatment forms. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $14,782 | ||
| 14. Monitor fish culture practices and fish handling for situations that may contribute to impaired fish health or exacerbate disease. | a. Maintain liaison with hatchery personnel and others handling the fish to obtain information. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $7,391 | |
| b. Recommend changes to procedures that may contribute to impaired fish health or exacerbate disease. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $7,391 | ||
| c. Prepare a table of findings from diagnostic examinations. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $7,391 | ||
| d. Identify disease treatments required. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $3,695 | ||
| e. Identify any recommended changes to fish culture operations. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $3,695 | ||
| 15. Determine and compare success of alternative rearing profiles including accelerated growth vs. natural growth during juvenile phase and saltwater vs. freshwater during ocean growth phase. | a. Measure and compare survival from collection to spawning. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $7,391 | |
| b. Measure and compare growth rates. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $7,391 | ||
| c. Measure and compare maturation schedule, fecundity, egg size and embryo viability. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $7,391 | ||
| d. Measure and compare embryo-to-smolt survival of F1 generation. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $7,391 | ||
| e. Measure and compare smolt-to-adult survival of F1 generation. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $7,391 | ||
| 16. Assess the effectiveness of captive broodstock programs for use in recovery of salmonids. | a. Analyze fish culture performance data, smolt-to-adult survival and performance of F1 fish to assess effectiveness. | 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 | $36,955 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Assess maturation and characterize length, weight, and survival of all three stocks at Manchester Marine Laboratory and at Bonneville Fish Hatchery to assess the success of alternative rearing treatments. | 2002 | 2006 | $10,346 |
| 2. Monitor the growth, development, and survival of the fish at Lookingglass Fish Hatchery to assess the success of alternative rearing treatments. | 2002 | 2006 | $66,897 |
| 3. Mark all brood individuals in all three stocks with a secondary mark. | 2002 | 2006 | $66,897 |
| 4. Determine when fish are ready to be transferred to seawater. | 2002 | 2006 | $66,897 |
| 5. Collect brood juveniles from Catherine Creek, Lostine River, and upper Grande Ronde River populations. | 2002 | 2006 | $167,243 |
| 6. Coordinate ESA permit activities and participate in captive broodstock planning and oversight. | 2002 | 2006 | $100,346 |
| 7. Develop and implement complex matrix spawning protocols. | 2002 | 2006 | $66,897 |
| 8. Develop and maintain a database on the captive fish. | 2002 | 2006 | $100,346 |
| 9. Insure that an Annual Operations Plan is developed for the captive broodstock program. | 2002 | 2006 | $100,346 |
| 10. Analyze and summarize data, and prepare and submit an annual report. | 2002 | 2006 | $133,794 |
| 11. Determine etiology of captive broodstock morbidity and mortality. | 2002 | 2006 | $100,346 |
| 12. Implement prophylactic erythromycin treatments for bacterial kidney disease under Investigational New Animal Drug (INAD) protocols. | 2002 | 2006 | $100,346 |
| 13. Implement theraputic treatments as described in the Section 10 ESA permit. | 2002 | 2006 | $133,794 |
| 14. Monitor fish culture practices and fish handling for situations that may contribute to impaired fish health or exacerbate disease. | 2002 | 2006 | $133,794 |
| 15. Determine and compare success of alternative rearing profiles including accelerated growth vs. natural growth during juvenile phase and saltwater vs. freshwater during ocean growth phase. | 2002 | 2006 | $167,243 |
| 16. Assess the effectiveness of captive broodstock programs for use in recovery of salmonids. | 2002 | 2006 | $167,243 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $411,305 | $431,871 | $453,464 | $476,137 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 8.875 | $283,441 |
| Fringe | $112,165 | |
| Supplies | $153,274 | |
| Travel | $38,797 | |
| Indirect | $147,819 | |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | # of tags: 1600 | $3,600 |
| Subcontractor | $0 | |
| $739,096 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $739,096 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $739,096 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $706,700 |
| % change from forecast | 4.6% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
Increase in indirect rate from 21% to 25 %.
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.
Recommendation:
Fundable - no response required
Fundable - no response required
Date:
Sep 28, 2001
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
Fundable. No response required. This is a well-written proposal that focuses on research and evaluation of alternative approaches to supplementation through captive broodstock. The proposal presents a thorough technical background that puts the project in context, articulates conditions project success, and lists the operating assumptions behind the experimental captive broodstock program. The rationale and significance to regional programs is detailed and clear. The project is well integrated with numerous other efforts in the Grande Ronde Subbasin. The project history section includes results to date, with interpretation of those results and publications produced.The proposal would be structurally improved if the tasks were associated with specific objectives, rather than presenting a list of 8 objectives with tasks listed under "operation and maintenance" and "monitoring and evaluation." The presentation of methods is thorough.
Some minor comments for consideration are:
- DNA samples are being collected but not processed apparently due to an uncertainty concerning what will be derived from this work. Information could be gained at several levels of detail. Samples of the juveniles collected for grow-out to brood stock could be examined to test whether many sibs were collected in the randomized samples. By sampling the brood adults, these data could be compared with the mature progeny (upon return) to investigate the numbers of parents represented in the population (an important determinant of the genetically effective population size of the natural stock). We would recommend the samples be processed and consultations with a population geneticist.
- There is limited description of the spawning matrix referred to. A reference for more detail should be provided and more detail on the spawning protocols provided.
- The reduced fecundity in the captive brood stock will reduce the F1 progeny produced. The level of reduction is substantial but no response or investigation was proposed? It is not evident in the proposal if the fecundity was reduced due to reduced body size, or is there concern for the nutrition and health of these fish?
- PIT tags are applied to study survival by family and/or treatment, but no indication was presented about how the number of tags applied was determined. This is an important project that merits careful evaluation. The principles should ensure that adequate numbers of tags are being applied in order to assess the questions of interest. A statistical assessment of the number of tags applied should be undertaken and reported.
- This is a unique opportunity to study the genetics of these fish. While the proposal is well prepared, there is an apparently lack of quantitative genetic interest. This aspect of the study may simply be under-stated in the text but if not, then an expert in this field should be consulted to review these procedures and ensure that opportunities re not be lost.
In conclusion, while we endorse this proposal and the need for a captive brood program when it was implemented, it is wise to re-state the advice from the ISRP's last review:
"Even though the proposal acknowledges that threats to adult survival, particularly habitat and passage, must be solved for the broodstock programs to be successful conservation or mitigation tools, to fund these captive broodstock programs without concomitant emphasis on solving the root problems seems financially foolish and futile."This comment is not targeted at this particular proposal but is an on-going consideration for the NEOH Master Plan and the need to balance culture activities with efforts to correct the original causes of the problem.
Comment:
This project is considered BASE by NMFS.Comment:
Fundable. This is a well-written proposal that focuses on research and evaluation of alternative approaches to supplementation through captive broodstock. The proposal presents a thorough technical background that puts the project in context, articulates conditions project success, and lists the operating assumptions behind the experimental captive broodstock program. The rationale and significance to regional programs is detailed and clear. The project is well integrated with numerous other efforts in the Grande Ronde Subbasin. The project history section includes results to date, with interpretation of those results and publications produced.The proposal would be structurally improved if the tasks were associated with specific objectives, rather than presenting a list of 8 objectives with tasks listed under "operation and maintenance" and "monitoring and evaluation." The presentation of methods is thorough.
Some minor comments for consideration are:
- DNA samples are being collected but not processed apparently due to an uncertainty concerning what will be derived from this work. Information could be gained at several levels of detail. Samples of the juveniles collected for grow-out to brood stock could be examined to test whether many sibs were collected in the randomized samples. By sampling the brood adults, these data could be compared with the mature progeny (upon return) to investigate the numbers of parents represented in the population (an important determinant of the genetically effective population size of the natural stock). We would recommend the samples be processed and consultations with a population geneticist.
- There is limited description of the spawning matrix referred to. A reference for more detail should be provided and more detail on the spawning protocols provided.
- The reduced fecundity in the captive brood stock will reduce the F1 progeny produced. The level of reduction is substantial but no response or investigation was proposed? It is not evident in the proposal if the fecundity was reduced due to reduced body size, or is there concern for the nutrition and health of these fish?
- PIT tags are applied to study survival by family and/or treatment, but no indication was presented about how the number of tags applied was determined. This is an important project that merits careful evaluation. The principle investigators should ensure that adequate numbers of tags are being applied in order to assess the questions of interest. A statistical assessment of the number of tags applied should be undertaken and reported.
- This is a unique opportunity to study the genetics of these fish. While the proposal is well prepared, there is an apparently lack of quantitative genetic interest. This aspect of the study may simply be under-stated in the text but if not, then an expert in this field should be consulted to review these procedures and ensure that opportunities will not be lost.
In conclusion, while we endorse this proposal and the need for a captive brood program when it was implemented, it is wise to re-state the advice from the ISRP's last review:
Even though the proposal acknowledges that threats to adult survival, particularly habitat and passage, must be solved for the broodstock programs to be successful conservation or mitigation tools, to fund these captive broodstock programs without concomitant emphasis on solving the root problems seems financially foolish and futile.This comment is not targeted at this particular proposal but is an ongoing consideration for the NEOH Master Plan and the need to balance culture activities with efforts to correct the original causes of the problem.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUReduce short-term extinction or extirpation risks for the Lostine River, Catherine Creek and Upper Grande Ronde River spring chinook.
Comments
Continuing program. Opportunity should be taken to assess monitoring aspects and their relationship to FCRPS Biop. Should benefit from RPA 176.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No
Comment:
Recommend, but agree with NMFS that the project should be reviewed under SNAPP. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
Base
Comment:
Comment:
Fund, but agree with NMFS, that the project should be reviewed under SNAPP.Comment:
Programmatic issue, on captive brood. Oregon spring chinook component of captive brood issue. Will require ISRP review. Grande Ronde issue #9.Comment:
No comment submitted.REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
expense
Date:
May 2005
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $723,718 | $723,718 | $723,718 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website