FY 2000 proposal 20556

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

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This umbrella proposal describes a comprehensive program to implement a spring chinook salmon supplementation program in the Grande Ronde basin. This plan includes extensive monitoring of fish reared in captive and conventional brood production; however, it did not describe how the components of the umbrella fit together or give a time line for the actions.. This proposal highlights a shift in the chinook salmon program in the Grande Ronde River away from mitigation and toward conservation. Despite the acknowledgment that overharvest and habitat degradation associated with dam construction and operation, timber harvest, agriculture, and urban development have played a major role in the observed declines in spring chinook salmon abundance and distribution, there is no strong integrated habitat protection and enhancement component under this umbrella proposal. Otherwise the umbrella provided background and justification for the program, with numerous references, and gave a good description of the relationship of this program to overall Fish and Wildlife Program goals and recommendations.

The use of captive broodstock raises specific concerns; its value seems to be overstated, and its risks understated. The approach is in effect a placebo, as it does not address the factors that are causing fish stocks to be at very low densities. The proposal needs to develop a rationale and plan for how captive broodstock programs fit into overall current recovery efforts, dam configurations, ecosystem health, etc. The reliance on captive broodstock to preserve populations can be regarded only as a short-term and temporary solution to the threat of extinction. Captive broodstock programs offer many threats, including domestication, poor breeding success or survival, and increased disease sensitivity. They also are extremely costly and seem intractable as a tool for preserving all or even many Basin populations. Additionally, it would be hard to imagine species with more complicated life histories, more difficult to replicate in culture, than anadromous Pacific salmon. To retain these animals in culture is surely to alter selective pressures and lose both environmentally and genetically based traits of wild fish, no matter how much hatcheries become more natural. It is quite possible that small wild populations are more viable in the wild than are the captive brood they may produce after capture.. Recent studies and reviews in conservation biology are recommending captive broodstock be a last-resort strategy and be preceded by careful field studies, a determination that other preferable alternatives are not available, and clear demonstration that captive breeding is necessary for short-term survival. The proposals covered by this umbrella acknowledge that threats to adult survival, particularly habitat and passage, must be solved for the broodstock programs to be effective in fish recovery. To fund these programs without concomitant emphasis on solving the root problems seems financially foolish and futile. Additionally, reviewers wondered whether it might not be a good idea to develop preserved genomes now, using cryopreservation perhaps, for populations that are not yet critically low. Collection from such populations might not have the same potential for damage and could result in better preservation of genetic diversity. Any such alternative to captive broodstock techniques would entail the same reliance on habitat restoration.

Comment:

Comment: