FY 2000 proposal 199800703

Additional documents

199800703 Narrative Narrative
199800703 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleFacility O&M and Program M&E for Grande Ronde Spring Chinook Salmon
Proposal ID199800703
OrganizationConfederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameGary James
Mailing addressP.O. Box 638 Pendleton, OR 97801
Phone / email5412764109 / jaburke@ucinet.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinBlue Mountain / Grande Ronde
Short descriptionDevelop, implement, and evaluate integrated conventional and captive brood hatchery projects to prevent extinction, and stabilize populations of threatened spring chinook salmon populations in the Grande Ronde River.
Target speciesSnake River spring chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Project location
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)



Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

1997 Preliminary NEPA evaluation completed.
1997 Completed designs for adult collection and juvenile acclimation facilities at all three stream locations
1997 Installation/operation of adult collection facilities
1998 Final NEPA evaluation completed.
1998 Completed ESA Section 10 permit applications with comanagers.
1998 Completed comprehensive management plan for the Grande Ronde River basin with comanagers integrating conventional and captive brood.
1998 Installation/operation of adult collection facilities
1998 Collected 1997 brood year juveniles from Catherine Creek, Lostine and Upper Grande Ronde Rivers
1998 Preserved gametes and spawned fish at Bonneville and Manchester.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9604400 Grande Ronde Spring Chinook Program-Captive Broodstock- Construction This is capital construction associated with implementing 9801001.
9801001 Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock O&M/M&E/Fish Health Captive brood component . Embryos form the project become the responsibility of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan and will be acclimated at at tributary of origin.
9800701 Grande Ronde Spring Chinook Program-Construction Construction of juvenile acclimation and adult trapping facilities for the Program.
9800702 Grand Ronde Supplementation -O&M/M&E/Nez Perce Tribe Operation, maintenance, monitoring and evaluation for conventional component of the Program for the Nez Perce Tribe.
9801006 Captive Broodstock Artificial Propagation Captive brood component of the Program (Nez Perce Tribe): planning, implementation and evaluation.
9800704 Grande Ronde Spring Chinook Program-Conventional-O&M/M&E/ODFW Operation, maintenance, monitoring and evaluation for ODFW: includes transportation and hatchery operations.
9703800 Listed Chinook Salmon Gamete Preservation Cryopreserve semen from chinook salmon for use in Grande Ronde Spring Chinook Salmon Program
9403900 Wallowa Basin Project Planning Coordination between various stakeholders (Nez Perce Tribe).
9702500 Implement the Wallowa County/Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Recovery Plan Coordinate to implement recovery plan.
9202604 Spring Chinook Salmon Early Life History This project's life history and trapping data will be used to evaluate the success of the Program.
8909600 Monitor, Evaluate Genetic Characteristics of Supplemented Salmon This project will monitor genetics of chinook salmon populations in the targeted tributaries.
8402500 Grande Ronde Habitat Enhancement (ODFW) Improved habitat increases likelihood of Program success.
9608300 Upper Grande Ronde Habitat Enhancement (CTUIR) Improved habitat increases likelihood of Program success.
9403300 Fish Passage Center Juvenile hatchery and natural salmon resulting from the Program will provide release and migration data for in-river information on migration timing and survival.
9600800 PATH - Participation by State and Tribal Agencies Naturally-produced juveniles will provide data for life cycle model
9402700 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Habitat Projects Juveniles produced by Program will provide information on habitat utilization and juvenile production
9405400 Bull Trout Genetics, Habitat Needs, L.H., etc. in Central and NE Oregon 9800703 incidentally collects bull trout for tagging, demographic and recapture data.
9202604 Early Life History - ODFW
9800702 Grande Ronde Supplementation - O&M/M&E - NPT
9800701 Grande Ronde Supplementation - CTUIR
9606700 Captive Broodstock Program NMFS - Manchester Marine Laboratory
9801007 Listed Stock Gamete Preservation - NPT
9800704 Northeast Oregon Hatchery Master Plan - ODFW
8805301 Northeast Oregon Hatchery Master Plan - NPT
20556 Grande Ronde Endemic Spring Chinook Supplementation Program
9801001 Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program - ODFW
9703800 Captive Broodstock Artificial Propagation - NPT

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel 2.25 FTE Biologists, 1.5 FTE Facility Operators, 1 FTE Fish Technician, Administration <0.5 FTE $198,297
Fringe 28% $55,523
Supplies Mostly facility operation equipment $31,580
Operating Activities, permits $58,420
Capital One trailer ($20K), one pickup ($22K) $42,000
PIT tags 4,000 $12,000
Travel Includes training, vehicle expenses $33,992
Indirect 34% $132,536
Subcontractor ODFW office support, genetic analysis $33,168
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$597,516
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$597,516
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Juvenile facility operation depends upon availability of juveniles. Completion of construction of satellite facilities. Construction of adequate adult holding, incubation, trough, and rearing facilities, if necessary.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Delay Funding
Jun 15, 1999


Recommendation: Delay funding until the sponsors provide detail on the data collection and statistical methods to analyze the data. Also, the travel budget needs to be reviewed and justified before funding. As noted for 9800702, the proposers need to report annually on their results.

Comments: This proposal is for operation and maintenance associated with the spring chinook salmon supplementation program in the Grande Ronde River. This proposal gives testable hypotheses and evaluation targets. It demonstrates understanding of the issues of supplementation - i.e., captive and conventional approaches, the reasons for each, and the use of a sliding scale to apportion each method. The project does not have a specific habitat component, but it is linked to habitat programs that are being implemented by the co-managers.

The hypotheses are numerous and provide a framework for evaluating aspects of the project, however, there is no explanation of how these hypotheses will be tested. For instance, what statistical tests will be used to determine if sample sizes are adequate, which tests will be used to do the comparisons, and what will be the basis for rejecting hypotheses. Experimental methods also are vague. For instance, why feed maintenance rations rather than growth rations? Effluent will be tested, but how and for what? How will effects of weirs on migration be estimated? The sampling design for spawning ground surveys is not given: is it to be a complete survey or a stratified design? If stratified, how? How will stream temperature and flow be monitored? The project is listed as I&M, but it also includes a component that is apparently R&M. The R&M portion of the proposal is weak. The proposal lacks detail on the statistical aspect of monitoring and evaluation. Adaptive management is integrated among the program co-managers, but the proposal lacks information on how the knowledge gained from monitoring will be used to adjust and improve operations. The proposers should closely review the other supplementation projects that they acknowledge are not successful.

The proposal suggests some problems of coordination that should be improved. First, to which umbrella does this project belong? The proposal says 20556, but 20556 does not list this proposal, while 20531 does. Also, both this project and 9800702 take responsibility for capturing the 27 adult fish from the Lostine River in 1997. These proposers said they kept 6 for spawning; the other group said they kept 7. Also, the proposal mentions bull trout and steelhead in passing. Isn't there more of an opportunity to do something useful with these species as part of a project like this. For instance, how many get captured in the weirs; what kinds of information might be obtained from them; what of possibilities for collaboration with others working specifically on bull trout and steelhead? There should be a coordinated effort to standardize the collection of data across species.

This and other related proposals acknowledge that threats to adult survival, particularly habitat and passage, must be solved for the broodstock programs to be a successful conservation or recovery strategy. To fund these hatcheries without concomitant emphasis of solving the root problems seems financially foolish and futile. The reliance on captive broodstock to preserve ESU's can be regarded only as a short-term and temporary solution to the threat of extinction of these salmon stocks. Captive broodstock programs offer many risks, including domestication, poor breeding success or survival, and increased disease sensitivity. The approach also is costly and is probably intractable as a tool for preserving all Basin ESU's. It would be hard to imagine a species with a more complicated life history, one more difficult to replicate in culture, than those of anadromous Pacific salmon. To retain these animals in culture is likely to alter selective pressures and to lose some of the coadapted genomes 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 they would be as captive brood taken from the wild. Recent studies and reviews in conservation biology are recommending that captive broodstock be a last-resort strategy and that they follow only after careful field studies and a determination that preferable alternatives are not available and that captive breeding is necessary for short-term survival.

Aug 20, 1999


Aug 20, 1999


Technical Criteria 1: Met? Yes -

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? No - Objectives do not meet definition.

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? Yes -

Resource Criteria 4: Met? Yes -

Aug 20, 1999


Reduced Objectives 2 and 3, dropped genetic analysis, some personnel & travel+ drop trailer. Potential duplicative efforts were reduced and/or coordination was improved. General reduction in the scope of the project.
Delay Funding
Oct 29, 1999


Delay funding until the sponsor provides an adequate detailed study design to BPA such as that the sponsors identify as being in their companion project 9801001. The response focused on justifying the program, but that was not the ISRP's primary concern.

This proposal received a generally positive review, but was lacking in adequate presentation of many methods for collecting data, analyzing data, and drawing conclusions about the progress and outcome of the project. Until that information is presented, the project does not have a sound scientific monitoring and evaluation program. The ISRP's primary concern was with the study design, specifically data collection and statistical methods, but the sponsor did not provide the information requested. The proposers do state that they are following procedures in their companion proposal 9801001. Thus, it should be straightforward for them to provide the information needed to allow scientific evaluation of their methods and their monitoring protocols. However, much needed information has not been provided at all and some provided in the response is not adequate. For instance, according to information provided to date, procedures for evaluating the effects of the weir on fish migration are not quantitative, and there is no evidence that they will provide reliable estimates.

Although it is obvious that the short-term costs of a captive broodstock program are acceptable compared to the long-term costs of extinctions, loss of genetic diversity, and reintroduction from other sources, the sponsors have not stated how they will address the factors that are causing the decline and extirpation of spring chinook salmon in the Grande Ronde River basin (e.g., passage mortality and harvest rates). Unless these factors are identified and rectified, it is doubtful that any type of hatchery program will have long-term success in the restoration of native anadromous fishes.

Delay funding
Nov 8, 1999


Fund pending compliance
Mar 1, 2000


[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]; Fund pending compliance with ISRP Comments through BPA's Contract Process
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$684,454 $684,454 $684,454

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website