FY 2000 proposal 199801006

Additional documents

199801006 Narrative Narrative
199801006 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleCaptive Broodstock Artificial Propagation
Proposal ID199801006
OrganizationNez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJames R. Harbeck
Mailing address612 SW 2nd St. Enterprise, OR 97828
Phone / email5414263198 / jimh@nezperce.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinBlue Mountain / Grande Ronde
Short descriptionImplement the captive broodstock project through the collection of juvenile salmon from the wild and maintaining them in captivity. The founding generation is spawned at maturity and the resulting F1 generation is released back to the parental stream.
Target speciesSpring chinook salmon
Project location
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)



Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

1995 Cooperatively developed the Section 10 Permit for the collection of chinook parr from the Lostine, Catherine Creek, and upper Grande Ronde Rivers
1996 Participated in CONSPOT and captive broodstock management plan meetings
1998 Acquired funding for full NPT participation in the captive brood program
1998 Collected 501 wild parr from the Lostine River
1998 Collected biological data from juvenile captives at LGH
1998 Implanted VI tags and collected biological data from maturing captives at BOH and MML
1998 Spawned 317 captive brood fish (122 females)
1998 Aquired baseline data on remnant population of wild chinook in the Lostine River
1998 Summarizing and evaluating data collected from captive and wild chinook populations

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9801001 Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program Depends on project 9801001 to rear smolt-to-adult at Bonneville Hatchery (freshwater strategy).
9606700 Manchester Captive Brood O&M Depends on project 9606700 to rear smolt-to-adult at Manchester Marine Laboratory (saltwater strategy).
9305600 Assessment of Captive Broodstock Technology Depends on project 9305600 for NMFS assessment of captive broodstock technology.
9703800 Listed Stock Chinook Salmon Gamete Preservation Depends on project 9703800 for the use of cryopreserved semen in spawning protocols in order to enhance genetic diversity of captive brood populations.
9800702 Grand Ronde Supplementation Project O&M/M&E Is integrated with the activities of project 9800702
8805301 Northeast Oregon Hatcheries Will be integrated with the activities of project 8805301
Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Hatchery Program Depends on LSRCP for parr-to-smolt rearing at Lookingglass Hatchery
20556 Grande Ronde Endemic Spring Chinook Supplementation Program
9801001 Grande Ronde Captive Broodstock - ODFW
9801007 Captive Broodstock Artifical 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 0.5 Project Leader, 0.5 Biologist, Administrative support $52,178
Fringe 27% regular employees $13,028
Supplies Field supplies $2,500
Operating Offices services, rent , training $11,337
PIT tags 500 $1,450
Travel Bonneville and Manchester Hatcheries $14,188
Indirect @22.9% $21,350
Subcontractor Genetic Analysis $30,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$146,031
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$146,031
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Annual abundance of juvenile chinook salmon in the Grand Ronde subbasin, unsynchronized adult salmon maturation schedules, hatchery catastrophe, management decision to utilize a conventional hatchery program exclusively, and funding constraints.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Fund for one year
Jun 15, 1999


Recommendation: Fund for one year as part of the Grande Ronde spring chinook supplementation and conservation experimental program. Subsequent funding contingent on the project actively reporting data and undergoing annual review with in-depth evaluation of year-to-year results. The proposers do not adequately address the risks inherent in captive broodstock (see comments for related proposals 20056, 9800702, 9800703).

Comments: This is proposal associated with the spring chinook salmon supplementation program in the Grande Ronde was well written but has some shortcomings. Monitoring and evaluation are integral to the project. However freshwater habitat and marine conditions are completely ignored as variables that influence abundance of salmon in the basin. Information concerning the project history is limited to the number of fish incorporated into the captive brood stock and the amount of money spent for monitoring and evaluation, but no data were presented to summarize the results of the program and variations among the three source areas used to collect brood stock. No statistical design was provided for most of the testing of hypotheses. No criteria are provided for evaluation of the results. Proposers should carefully consider and address whether the hatchery practices would select for any particular traits, as conservation of genotypic and phenotypic variation is their goal. Also, the proposers need to show how they plan to integrate their results into future work. See comments on captive broodstock programs in programmatic section and for related proposals 20056, 9800702, 9800703.

Additionally, this proposal has activities that overlap with those under 9800702. Is there duplication? The 2 proposals should make clear the overlap, the unique and distinct contributions, and the coordination. This project (Objective 3) appears to overlap with 9800703 (Objective 3) in comparing results of treatment of groups at the various facilities. It also overlaps with 9800702 in monitoring adult migration into Lostine River.

Aug 20, 1999


Aug 20, 1999


Criteria all: Met? Yes -
Aug 20, 1999


reduce Objective 2. Potential duplicative efforts were reduced and/or coordination was improved. General reduction in the scope of the project.
Fund at current levels
Mar 1, 2000


(d) captive propagation - (Projects 9009300, 9107200, 9204000, 9305600, 9606700, 9801001, and 9801006 - various sponsors)

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:

Mar 1, 2000


[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]; Funding level determination for BPA
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:
$175,620 $175,620 $175,620

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website