FY 2000 proposal 199305600

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: Rationale. Captive broodstocks may/will be needed to preserve threatened chinook stocks until they can be reintroduced. There are several difficulties inherent in the strategy of using captive broodstocks for the temporary preservation of species, some of which are addressed in this multifaceted project. The project is a big one with a long history. It's difficult to follow the proposals Section 4 and Section 5 because the different facets are mixed together.

Objective/Methods. Diet & growth affect age of maturity, smoltification, morphology, and gametes. A problem for culturing captive broodstocks is how to achieve fast growth without younger maturation and without suppressing immune response, which is how to adjust protein/energy ratios in salmon diet. This is a basic issue in salmon biology - understanding the relationship between nutrition, growth, maturation age, smolting would enlighten a lot of conservation decisions. The immediate problem for captive broodstocks is the abnormal tendency of cultured chinook males to mature young as jacks, probably a consequence of abnormal nutritional environment. Health. BK disease is a big threat. Erythromycin antibiotic is the only available and ineffective treatment and id potentially toxic. Alternative azithromycin needs testing. Reintroduction. Fish bred in captivity probably would lack the physical ability to thrive at liberty. They will need exercise conditioning and a diet regimen. Inbreeding. Captive broodstocks necessarily are small, liable to inbreeding depression. It's important to evaluate experimentally inbred fish in order to understand the importance of inbreeding.

It's hard for reviewers to tell which investigator is responsible for each facet of the research, i.e. who is doing what. Some investigators demonstrate continuing peer-review of their work (e.g Hard, Shearer) others (e.g. Harrell) haven't had their work published. So reviewers' ability to judge the quality of work is mixed. The budget includes large contracts for others with unknown functions in the project and their qualifications aren't listed, which makes it more difficult for reviewers to assess the quality of work. What are functions of PMFC, Frank Orth, UW, UI, NWIFC in the project? Probably the methods in use and proposed for use are at least adequate while in some instances creative and innovative. In each area the project's work is pertinent to finding techniques for captive broodstock rearing and for understanding what the effects of the program will be. The diet and health projects are directly related to techniques of rearing; the inbreeding project's dealing with a more subtle problem and requires a long time commitment for meaningful results. But it is a central issue

This on-going FWP project has an impressive list of accomplishments since 1994 and may be one of the better FWP projects in terms of publication of results in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

This project might be better developed as an umbrella with the various components separated into sub-proposals. The "key personnel" and budget description sections need to provide more information. At a minimum, they should provide a CV for the recipients of the large subcontracts. They should better describe their internal organization and the tasks associated with the subcontractors.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Issue: 1) Has NMFS developed a prioritization schedule for captive brood projects as previously requested by the Council, and; 2) if the answer is yes, does the Council find the interim standards for use of captive brood strategies adequately responsive to the Council's concerns that these projects are costly, and the feasibility of the technology is unproven?

Past Council Treatment: In its Fiscal Year 1998 and Fiscal Year 1999 recommendations, the Council expressed several categorical concerns with the captive broodstock projects being proposed for funding: (1) the projects are expensive, (2) they appear to be proliferating, (3) the feasibility of the technology had not been adequately reviewed, and, (4) an underlying question related to the question of whether these projects are primarily "ESA projects" or projects that are consistent with and part of the program funded by Bonneville. In the end, the Council recommended that existing captive broodstock programs be funded, but it called upon NMFS to work with the other anadromous fish managers to develop a set of interim standards for the application of captive broodstock technology. The Council advised that its continued funding support for the NMFS systemwide project was contingent on a set of acceptable standards being developed. The Council also stated that it would not recommend funding for any new captive broodstock projects absent an emergency, without those standards. The Council also stated its intention to require captive broodstock projects to follow the interim 3-step review process for artificial production projects. The Council has also asked that NMFS prioritize captive broodstock projects and provide that schedule to the Council to assist in the review of the budget proposals.

In February of this year, NMFS submitted the interim standards report requested by the Council. The region is using these interim standards as temporary guidance in discussions about captive propagation. The standards were incorporated into the guidelines and performance standards developed in the preservation/conservation purpose of artificial production under the APR process, and are, therefore, consistent with the principles, policies, and purposes as described in the report and recommendations.

Council Recommendation: To date, the Council has not received a prioritization of likely target populations and intervention programs to form a basis for programmatic and budget planning. Therefore, funding levels for existing programs should be held at current levels pending that prioritization. If and when the prioritization is provided, a review of these captive brood programs for consistency with APR report policies and standards must be conducted before additional funds are allocated to these programs or new programs. The Council recommends that projects 9009300, 9107200, 9204000, 9305600, 9606700, 9801001 and 9801006 be funded with the following conditions:

• Funding should be held at levels required to fund these existing programs pending the prioritization that the Council has previously requested from NMFS, and expansion of existing programs should not be permitted. To date, the Council has not received a prioritization of likely target populations and intervention programs to form a basis for programmatic and budget planning.
• The Council should not consider any new funding for this technique until adequate review has been completed, and, if possible, subbasin plans are in place.
• A review of these captive brood programs for consistency with APR report policies and standards should be conducted before additional funds are allocated to these programs or new programs.
• The Council recommends that the Tucannon project (#20020) be permitted to continue into the three-step artificial production review process. The low-cost and short duration attributes of this project and the status of the run being treated mitigate the Council's general concerns with captive propagation projects in this particular instance. NEPA and planning work may be funded with Fiscal Year 2000 funds, and the sponsor and BPA are to work with Council staff in identifying what needs, if any, there are for that work. Funding for implementation of the project will not be approved until three-step review is complete and applicable documents address the NMFS interim standards as well as the policies, purposes and performance standards in the APR report, and until NEPA requirements are satisfied.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website