FY 2000 proposal 199800703

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: 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.

Comment:

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.

Comment:

Comment:

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

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? Yes -

Resource Criteria 4: Met? Yes -

Comment:

Comment:

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.

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website