FY 2000 proposal 199700100

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
199700100 Narrative	Narrative
199700100 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Captive Rearing Initiative for Salmon River Chinook Salmon
Proposal ID	199700100
Organization	Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Peter F. Hassemer
Mailing address	1414 East Locust Lane Nampa, ID 83686
Phone / email	2084658404 / phasseme@idfg.state.id.us
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 2000
Province / Subbasin	Mountain Snake / Salmon
Short description	Develop captive rearing techniques for chinook salmon and evaluate the success and utility of captive rearing for maintaining stock structure and minimum number of adult spawners in three drainages.
Target species	Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
1995	Collection of brood year 1994 spring chinook salmon parr from the Lemhi River, East Fork Salmon River, and West Fork Yankee Fork Salmon River.
1996	Collection of brood year 1995 spring chinook salmon parr from the Lemhi River.
1996	Less than 6% male maturation in brood year 1994 stocks (age 2).
1997	Less than 30% male maturation in brood year 1994 stocks (age 3).
1997	Successful outplanting of up to four, brood year 1994, three-year-old male chinook salmon to source streams. Movement and behavior documented.
1997	Milt from brood year 1994 East Fork Salmon River and West Fork Yankee Fork Salmon River male chinook salmon cryopreserved.
1997	Less than 6% male maturation in brood year 1995 Lemhi River chinook salmon (age 2).
1997	Collection of brood year 1996 spring chinook salmon parr from the Lemhi River and West Fork Yankee Fork Salmon River.
1998	Age 4 maturation in East Fork Salmon River (59%), West Fork Yankee Fork Salmon River (93%), and Lemhi River (74%) brood year 1994 stocks.
1998	Less than 26% male maturation in brood year 1995 Lemhi River stock (age 3).
1998	Less than 5% male maturation in brood year 1996 stocks (age 2).
1998	Successful outplanting of maturing, brood year 1994 (four-year-old) and brood year 1995 (three-year-old Lemhi River males) chinook salmon to source streams.
1998	Documentation of 25, and 4 redds (constructed by captive program chinook) in the Lemhi River system and West Fork Yankee Fork Salmon River, respectively.
1998	Milt from brood year 1994, 1995, and 1996 captive chinook cryopreserved.
1998	Successful hatchery pilot investigation of gamete quality and survival to the eyed-egg stage for spawn products produced by Lemhi River (brood year 1994, 1995), East Fork Salmon River (brood year 1994), and West Fork Yankee Fork Salmon River (brood year
1998	Collection of brood year 1997 spring chinook salmon parr from the Lemhi River and West Fork Yankee Fork Salmon River.
1998

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
9606700	Manchester Captive Brood Stock O&M	Saltwater rearing at NMFS Manchester, WA facility for greater than one-half of fish in program.
9305600	Assessment of Captive Brood Stock Techniques	NMFS guidance for the refinement and use of captive brood stock technology for Pacific salmon.
8909600	Genetic Monitoring and Evaluation of Snake River Salmon and Steelhead	NMFS genetic analysis of brood stock and wild chinook salmon.
9107200	Redfish Lake Sockeye Salmon Captive Brood Stock Program	IDFG program at Eagle Fish Hatchery to establish captive brood stocks of Redfish Lake sockeye salmon.
9604400	Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program	ODFW captive broodstock program for three stocks of spring chinook salmon in the Grande Ronde River basin.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2000 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2000 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2000 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2000 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2000 cost
Personnel	2.83 FTE permanent, 2.5 FTE temporary	$136,807
Fringe		$46,010
Supplies		$20,710
Operating		$89,520
Capital	Facility maintenance at Eagle Hatchery; fish transport vehicle replacement	$49,500
PIT tags	1000	$2,900
Travel		$10,250
Indirect	23% of costs, excluding capital	$90,688
Other	Population Status/Viability Assessment and Engineering Assessment for future program implementation	$100,000
		$546,385

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 cost	$546,385
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2000 budget request	$546,385
FY 2000 forecast from 1999	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: No known constraints.

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 99-2)

Recommendation:
Fund in Part

Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Fund in part, at a base level, to meet production objectives; do not fund research component of proposal because of technical inadequacies. There should be quality research associated with this project, designed with suitable methods and testable hypotheses to address recognized uncertainties associated with captive brood technology.

Comments: The proposal appears to have as its basic assumption that captive reared fish are the same ecologically, behaviorally, and genetically as the native stock; however, this assumption should be tested as the project's major null hypothesis, rather than serving as its primary assumption.

Captive rearing may be a reasonable (but last-ditch) effort in the current situation; reviewers assume that policy has been formally reviewed and approved in the region. No cost sharing is indicated in the proposal, and that seems unexpected. Progress on the project in 1997-98 is only superficially described, but it appears that results from captive-reared fish that were released in 1998 will be very important. The FY2000 budget, a major increase from previous years, is justified (by the authors) by the apparent need to hire an additional biologist and expand facilities.

The proposal's stated objectives seem reasonable at first glance, but the tasks described in the methods section will not meet the objectives, so the proposal is unsound from scientific standpoints. For example, Objective 1 is to produce chinook having morphological, physiological, and behavioral characteristics similar (how similar?) to those of naturally-produced fish. However, no morphological, physiological, or behavioral tests are described for comparing the artificially-raised fish against wild counterparts, except that under Objective 2 it will merely be observed whether or not the hatchery products "spawn in the wild." Where are the genuine morphological, physiological, and behavioral measurements, what is the statistical design, and where are the wild "control" animals?

Objective 2 is to "evaluate spawning behavior and success of outplanted (captive-reared) adults." The primary measure of spawning success should be the production of offspring that are as fit as wild counterparts, i.e., that survive as well to the spawning stage as do wild fish, and that produce offspring that are as viable as those of wild fish. The methods include (1) observation of spawning behavior in a wiered section of a stream and (2) "snorkel surveys to quantify juvenile production." This experiment is not replicated, and it is not stated what method will be used to convert raw counts of juveniles into an estimate of the actual number produced. Neither is it stated how the snorkelers will know which juveniles are offspring of the subject spawners and which are immigrants from elsewhere.

Objective 3 is to "assess population viability and develop conservation management plan" (bottom of p. 14). Under that statement it says there are "no testable hypotheses." If the applicant believes no testable hypothesis exists for assessing population viability, then population viability cannot be assessed. Therefore, the objective should not exist. The proposal contains no description of methods for Objective 3.

In the past-accomplishments table (Section 4, p. 3), the following 1997 item is shown: "Successful outplanting of up to four, brood year 1994, three-year-old male chinook salmon to source streams. Movement and behavior documented. Reviewers wonder if this is a misprint.

The proposal indicates (p. 16, end of first paragraph under Obj. 2) that "a framework" is still being developed for the FY2000 methods. Because the applicant does not yet know what the methods will really be, and the logic of the proposal is so faulty, this proposal should not be funded.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Nonwatershed Technical Group Comments

Recommendation:

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Technical Criteria 1: Met? Yes -

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? Yes - A bit vague

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? Yes - Questionable at best; how is this really going to happen?

Resource Criteria 4: Met? Yes -

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments

Recommendation:

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Move to Capital Funding source ($546,385). Current capital and outyear capital expense justifies moving the funding from the ID NW SRT funding base.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 99-4)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Oct 29, 1999

Comment:

Fund. The responses are to the point and adequately address the ISRP concerns. The sponsor obviously took considerable pains to develop thoughtful responses.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Nov 8, 1999

Comment:

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation (NWPPC 2000-6)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting];

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$509,000	$509,000	$509,000

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website