FY 2000 proposal 199801001

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: None

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This proposal is from ODFW to continue the implementation and evaluation of the captive broodstock program for spring chinook in the Grande Ronde basin. It is a focused proposal with a good description of the experimental protocol and the reasoning behind it. This project is listed under implementation, but it appears to be more closely associated with research and monitoring. This is a very comprehensive monitoring program that will assess how different hatchery and broodstock protocols affect survival to spawning. Monitoring of disease and infectious agents in the hatchery and of effectiveness of therapeutic treatments are important components of the program. The program includes data that will be needed to evaluate the spring chinook program in the Grande Ronde Basin.

The proposal also has some weaknesses. The objectives listed on page 16 are more tasks than objectives; the objectives listed in the abstract are better. The project would be strengthened by more direct reference to these objectives and the desired outcomes they represent, rather than to "process." The methods are reasonable, but statistical protocols are not given.

In addition, the ISRP noted that the reliance on captive broodstock to preserve stock 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 threats, including domestication, poor breeding success or survival, increased disease sensitivity. It also is extremely costly and seems intractable as a tool for preserving all Basin strains. 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. Even though the proposal acknowledges that threats to adult survival, particularly habitat and passage, must be solved for the broodstock programs to be successful conservation or mitigation tools, to fund these captive broodstock programs without concomitant emphasis on solving the root problems seems financially foolish and futile.

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