| Proposal title | Tucannon River Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program |
| Proposal ID | 20020 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Joseph D. Bumgarner |
| Mailing address | 401 S. Cottonwood Dayton, WA 99328 |
| Phone / email | 5093824755 / snakeriv@dfw.wa.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Tucannon |
| Short description | Modify existing facilities at Lyons Ferry and Tucannon hatcheries to implement a captive broodstock program for Tucannon River spring chinook. Rear and spawn broodstock, raise their progeny and release approximately 120-140 thousand smolts in the Tucanno |
| Target species | Snake River Spring Chinook (Tucannon River stock) |
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 9401806 |
Tucannon Model Watershed Program |
Provide habitat improvements which may increase in-river survival and aid in recovery of the stock. |
| 8805301 |
Northeast Oregon Hatchery Master Plan |
NEOH is linked with Grande Ronde Basin captive broodstock programs, NEOH co-managers support captive broodstock plans for the Tucannon River and will assist in planning and coordination |
| 8805305 |
NE Oregon Hatchery Master Plan and Facilities - ODFW |
NEOH is linked with Grande Ronde Basin captive broodstock programs |
| 9604400 |
Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program |
Provide expertise and advice in captive broodstock rearing, and assist in overall recovery of Snake River spring chinook salmon. |
| 9801006 |
Captive Broodstock Artificial Propagation |
Provide expertise and advice in captive broodstock rearing. |
| 9305600 |
Assessment of Captive Broodstock Technology |
Provide expertise and advice in captive broodstock rearing. |
| 9801002 |
Captive Rearing Initiative for Salmon River Chinook Salmon - M & E |
Provide expertise and advice in captive broodstock rearing, and assist in overall recovery of Snake River spring chinook salmon |
| 9606700 |
Manchester Spring Chinook Broodstock Project |
Provide expertise and advice in captive broodstock rearing techniques. |
| 9801001 |
Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program |
Provide expertise and advice in captive broodstock rearing, and assist in overall recovery of Snake River spring chinook salmon |
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
Hatchery Spec. 30 (6 months), Hatchery Spec. 4 (2 months), Hatchery Complex Manager (1 month) Fish B |
$36,700 |
| Fringe |
Fringe benefits at 28.5% of personnel |
$10,460 |
| Supplies |
Pond covers, feed, pond crowding screens, fencing, tools, CWT and VI tags, plumbing pipes and valves |
$36,300 |
| Operating |
Additional well water pumping costs |
$3,000 |
| Capital |
Circular ponds (10), open pole building |
$73,000 |
| Construction |
Site preparation, water hookup |
$70,000 |
| Travel |
Attend meetings with other agencies regarding captive broodstocks |
$2,000 |
| Indirect |
Overhead at 22.5% |
$52,078 |
| $283,538 |
Schedule Constraints: Depending on when funding is provided (or if funds can be borrowed from the Northeast Oregon Hatchery (NEOH) hatchery production facility and then paid back through this proposal), site design and construction may be delayed because of weather limitations. Other constraints may come from the manufacture of large rearing ponds. It may not be possible for the manufacturer to produce all of the needed ponds in the specified time, and construction costs may be higher than anticipated. If not all ponds can be secured during the contract period, then additional money will be required the following year to complete pond purchases. Objective #2 schedules have already been affected because of our delay in acquiring funding for the project. WDFW has made interim plans to hold the 1997 brood year fish in another location at Lyons Ferry Hatchery until large rearing ponds can be in place. This location is not preferred; we anticipate additional mortalities than what would be expected if we had circular rearing ponds. Further delays into the following brood year will further jeopardize the fish.
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comments:
This is a new proposal to implement a captive broodstock program in the Lower Tucannon River basin, where the proposers argue that the chinook population is "genetically distinct" from other Snake River populations. The proposal is reasonably specific and well-formulated. One shortcoming of the proposal is its failure to address the question of whether deleterious interactions with juvenile wild fish occur. Nonetheless, the panel felt this was one of the better proposals in the general category of captive brood proposals. However, all captive brood projects these need to be reviewed at a programmatic level. The main question is whether committing to raise more "museum fish" really makes sense. In the absence of habitat improvements (mentioned in various other proposals under the same umbrella), it does not appear that the Lower Tucannon is currently capable of supporting a wild population – notwithstanding (or perhaps because of) its apparent ability to sustain a hatchery population. Lacking an approach that addresses the wild population in the context of the hatchery population, this project may not be viable. On the other hand, after the first year, it is relatively cheap. But, the panel was quite concerned that FWP is not addressing habitat and captive brood projects in an integrated manner.