FY 2000 proposal 20545

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

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: The continued decline of spring/summer chinook salmon returning to Idaho result in insufficient adult returns to provide target supplementation treatments.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: Neither this umbrella proposal, nor the set of linked proposals in it, adequately summarize past results. Given the long funding duration of many of the proposals, it is disconcerting that the set of proposals, and the umbrella proposal, do not identify the strengths, weaknesses, and uncertainties of the supplementation program in the context of progress made thus far.

These studies should be producing results by now, but few are described. Any meaningful review to serve as a basis for continuing the work must include examination of the results to date in light of the original objectives. Low run strength was acknowledged to be a problem for the studies, but no assessment is provided of its impact on progress even though runs continue to decline. The proposals continue to include a commitment to genetic studies for assessing changes in the supplemented populations. Existing literature includes reports describing genetic change in supplemented populations and loss of productivity (smolts per egg, or other similar survival index). The relevant questions now concern significance of the loss, or ways to overcome productivity losses rather than further demonstrations of change. The study design should be recast to address these questions. Additionally, to facilitate better coordination of the projects and consistent reporting, someone, perhaps a population geneticist, should act as a coordinator between the projects.

Perhaps a symposium similar to the recent Lower Snake Compensation Plan symposium (February 1998) could be used for project sponsors to present and discuss their results and assess programmatic level progress. The results of the studies and such a symposium could offer valuable regionally relevant information.

Are the projects scientifically sound? The studies make more sense now than they did at the outset. Because the Council approved supplementation to "save" populations threatened with extinction, supplementation stocking now has two goals: protection of endemic fish and increasing fish abundance. Many elements of the studies are directed to finding appropriate brood sources for restoring extinct runs and for minimizing impacts on endemic fish in remnant stocks. Initial assumptions included increasing instead of decreasing survival, so numbers of fish may not be sufficient to make the necessary assessments required by the study design. Further, the presumption was that summer parr count was a viable assessment tool, but that presumptions did not hold, so some modifications or adjustments must have been made, but none are discussed. The absence of any analysis to date makes it impossible to vouch for continuing scientific soundness of the work.

Will the work benefit fish? Supplementation should produce more smolts and thus more returning adults unless spawning and rearing areas are limiting size of a supplemented population. The Council has approved the use of supplementation to help protect runs that are threatened with extinction. That approval is a decision to proceed even though supplementation increases risk for endemic genotypes. The risk of losing at least some of these populations is so great, however, that the Council's perception is that the only chance to perpetuate these populations is via supplementation. Altered gene pools, increased mortality for endemics, and reduced productivity (measured, e.g., as smolts per 1000 eggs) are likely associated outcomes once a decision to supplement is made. Even though benefits are subsequently redefined to include protection of endemic genotypes as well as increased fish abundance; a result of high egg and fry survival in a hatchery, successful protection of endemic genotypes may decline in time if the life of the program is extended.

The supplementation effort in the Snake River Basin needs to be subjected to a programmatic review similar to the Lower Snake Compensation Plan symposium of February 1998.

Comment:

Comment: