FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 199606700

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

Operation and maintenance costs have been driven up by much shorter than expected equipment life, unanticipated increases in energy and oxygen costs, and seawater delivery system failing to meet origonal designed production.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

This proposal continues the smolt-to-adult seawater rearing of spring and summer chinook salmon brood stocks from Idaho's Salmon River and Oregon's Grande Ronde River subbasins. Adult Chinook are provided for spawning or direct release in recovery programs for ESA-listed stocks. The proposal includes a request for $200,000 capital for improvements to the Manchester saltwater delivery system (cost shared with NMFS). The proposal provides explanation for the increased costs relative to previous projections including the need to improve the saltwater system, but it does not provide any explanation concerning the substantial increasing costs in the operating fund through to 2007.

The proposal is generally well written and includes some data on past performance of the rearing program. The rationale and how the program relates to other Basin programs were good, and the authors are preparing written protocols for all aspects of the captive rearing programs.

However, one omission would seem to be the M&E aspects ... of which there is none. Obviously there is monitoring since growth and survival of the animals in culture is being assessed however in a program with such intensive culture of such small numbers of original animals, reviewers would also be concerned about genotype x environment interactions and the survival of these fish after release into the wild. It does seem surprising that no monitoring of this aspect is being undertaken given that NMFS seems to be measuring DNA in every other salmonid in the Basin. The survival in the culture systems is quite high so people may argue there is no need to conduct such monitoring but there could be significant differences in how certain genotypes respond to the culture system and how they respond to the reintroduction to the wild. Is this being assessed by other programs or should it be implemented?

Secondly, given the difficulties being encountered in reintroducing adults into the Idaho streams (in proposal #199305600) and the known depressed state of production in the Grande Ronde populations, is there a need to complete the "safety net" by maintaining true captive brood stocks (multiple generations) in these remote rearing sites (i.e., should live-gene back programs be established)? Why has this rather obvious step not been undertaken? Its absence suggests that a decision has been made not to do this.

Another uncertainty with the project that concerns reviewers is what are the outcomes of the project with respect to the reproductive performance of the adult fish after they are released back into natal streams for spawning. Another is whether the fish that survive to be outplanted as adults constitute a representative sample of the initial broodstock population with respect to genetics and fitness attributes.

Propagating captive brood stock as a protection measure under ESA cannot be viewed as a long-term strategy. Many problems are inherent in such propagation; a program that is not ultimately consistent with the needs of endangered species. The authors of this proposal seem to be aware of these problems and have included a discussion of several in their proposal.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

This project is designed to develop and maintain captive broodstocks of chinook salmon in saltwater at Manchester, WA. It is needed to support many other projects and to meet ESA requirements on several upper basin listed stocks. The proposal is thorough with respect to hatchery procedures and describes the scientific and technical background of the problem, including a discussion of the potential risks and benefits of captive broodstock techniques. It clearly relates to a regional need and has strong connection to other projects.

This proposal continues the smolt-to-adult seawater rearing of spring and summer chinook salmon brood stocks from Idaho's Salmon River and Oregon's Grande Ronde River subbasins. Adult Chinook are provided for spawning or direct release in recovery programs for ESA-listed stocks. The proposal includes a request for $200,000 capital for improvements to the Manchester saltwater delivery system (cost shared with NMFS). The proposal provides explanation for the increased costs relative to previous projections including the need to improve the saltwater system, but it does not provide any explanation concerning the substantial increasing costs in the operating fund through to 2007.

The proposal is generally well written and includes some data on past performance of the rearing program. The rationale and relationship of the program to other Basin programs were good, and the authors are preparing written protocols for all aspects of the captive rearing programs.

However, one omission would seem to be the M&E ... of which there is none. Obviously there is monitoring since growth and survival of the animals in culture is being assessed; however, in a program with such intensive culture of such small numbers of original animals, reviewers would also be concerned about genotype x environment interactions and the survival of these fish after release into the wild. It does seem surprising that no monitoring of this aspect is being undertaken given that NMFS seems to be measuring DNA in every other salmonid in the Basin. The survival in the culture systems is quite high so people may argue there is no need to conduct such monitoring but there could be significant differences in how certain genotypes respond to the culture system and how they respond to the reintroduction to the wild. Is this being assessed by other programs or should it be implemented?

Secondly, given the difficulties being encountered in reintroducing adults into the Idaho streams (in proposal #199305600) and the known depressed state of production in the Grande Ronde populations, is there a need to complete the "safety net" by maintaining true captive brood stocks (multiple generations) in these remote rearing sites (i.e., should live-gene bank programs be established)? Why has this rather obvious step not been undertaken? Its absence suggests that a decision has been made not to do this.

Another uncertainty with the project that concerns reviewers relates to the outcomes of the project with respect to the reproductive performance of the adult fish after they are released back into natal streams for spawning. Another is whether the fish surviving to be outplanted as adults constitute a representative sample of the initial broodstock population with respect to genetics and fitness attributes.

Propagating captive broodstock as a protection measure under ESA cannot be viewed as a long-term strategy. Many problems are inherent in such propagation -- a program that is not ultimately consistent with the needs of endangered species. The authors of this proposal seem to be aware of these problems and have included a discussion of several in their proposal.

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.

Comment:

Comments
NMFS proposal. Inappropriate to comment.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

Comments:
Link to programmatic captive broodstock issue.

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website