FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 199305600

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

Reason for change in estimated budget

Small (0.9%) increase in costs associated with greater than expected rate of salary increase

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

This complex multi-faceted proposal represents a disciplined aggressive attack on many of the key uncertainties associated with captive broodstock use. The proposers responded carefully to previous ISRP concerns and review comments. The proposal contains extensive documentation from the general fisheries literature, as well as relevant Columbia River basin grey literature. The proposal also contains substantial methodological detail. This ongoing FWP project has an impressive list of accomplishments since 1994 and may be one of the better FWP projects in terms of publication of results in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Nevertheless, the ISRP has several concerns with this large complex project. While the proposal is a substantial improvement over its predecessor, it is very large and needs clarification or restructuring so that the individual studies can be thoroughly reviewed. The scope of this program and importance of the work to the conservation of these stocks might justify a more in-depth scientific review of this one project alone, not as one of 104 projects in this Provincial review.

This proposal continues the development of technologies to improve genetic integrity, in-culture survival, maturation, and reintroduction success of ESA-listed salmon captive brood stocks. Research is conducted on physiology, behavior, genetics, ecology, microbiology, and nutrition and the captive brood fish and their re-introduction to the natural environments (from authors' short description).

The five objectives of the project are as follows

1. Improve reintroduction success
2. Improve olfactory imprinting and homing
3. Improve physiological development and maturation
4. Improve in-culture survival through prevention and treatment of disease
5. Evaluate effects of inbreeding and inbreeding depression

Each of these is a relevant and necessary aspect of the captive brood technology, and the authors have an excellent scientific record of publication on these works (28 primary publications based on past work).

We are concerned about the idea that adults produced through the captive brood program can be released to reproduce with wild fish in natural streams (Idaho stocks only). Our concern is that as a means to re-introduce these stocks to the natural environment, the approach is far too high risk given the value of these fish and perhaps inappropriate. Given the extent of assessments conducted-to-date and reported in this proposal, we would recommend an immediate stop to this activity (except on a small research scale) until it can be proven that the strategy has any merit. The only merit we can see to this approach is allowing the animals to participate in mate selection and hopefully to interbreed with other conspecifics. However, a much more responsible approach may have been to develop controlled flow environments (artificial or natural sections of streams) where the animals could be protected. Re-introduction of captive brood fish is a major issue associated with this rearing strategy but there should be some minimum standard of care taken given the importance of these fish and the investment made by the Basin!

The other issue is minor and concerns the wording involved in the inbreeding study. The authors refer to "progeny of mates chosen at random - the control". However, our reading of the design would indicate that simply a random selection of returning adults (which would seem to ignore the use of the DNA pedigree data) would include some level of inbreeding accumulating in the control line. Is this correct or did the authors mean that their control would be composed of non-sibling relationships only? In these lines, these may be better described as an out-bred line, which would be an appropriate basis for comparison or control.

Another area where the authors could further contribute to resolving critical uncertainties in the use of captive broodstock and supplementation technology is in the modeling of the timeframe and scale of incurring inbreeding effects via supplementation and captive broodstock programs (decrease in fitness) versus the potentially counterbalancing "cleansing" effect of natural selection on hatchery-produced fish as they become part of a naturally spawning population. Fitness impacts on populations can occur quickly in the hatchery environment (as documented in the literature), however, little information is available on how quickly the accumulated genetic load can be shed by salmon populations as they spawn naturally and local adaptation occurs. The balance between these two processes, including the magnitude of genetic (fitness) change and the timeframes over which they occur, may be the fulcrum upon which the long-term success or failure of these programs hinges. Thus, a major uncertainty is on what timescale can this "readaptation" occur? Is it compatible with our goals for recovery / rebuilding or does the readaptation process occur so slowly that it represents a constraint on how captive brood and supplementation programs can be used?

The budget description is again quite limited and includes two points for clarification: what is the 19% Leave surcharge and why are there costs under Other that again seem to be Indirect charges? The labor charges and cost sharing with NMFS needs clarification as this issue occurs in a few proposals.

Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:

HARVEST AND HATCHERY SUBGROUP -- Address critical element of RPA? It has limited application to RPA 182, since it does not compare hatchery/wild reproductive success. Some of the proposed captive rearing evaluations compare the performance of hatchery fish to wild fish. Other evaluations in the proposal do not.

Proposal is applicable to RPA 184. The use of captive broodstock as a conservation hatchery technique is contemplated in the BiOp. Proposal may be useful to determining the potential of one type of conservation hatchery action to contribute to recovery.

Scope? [ESU's covered, Transferability, Species covered] Proposal will target chinook salmon and sockeye salmon. Results should be broadly applicable to most captive brood programs using these species/ESUs.

Study design adequate, as is, or as may be modified? Yes. Generally, this proposal is for continued development/refinement of captive broodstock technology, focusing on a number of parameters that will ultimately affect success. However, some of the individual studies listed in the proposal do not fit under either RPA.

ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:

While there is no inconsistency between the ISRP's comments on 199305600 and the RME group comments, there is also little relation. The ISRP's comments focus on the technical soundness of the proposed integrated research program toward improving captive broodstock technologies and make several additional comments for further consideration and improvement of the project. The RME group comments note the degree to which the project relates to several RPAs and that the proposed research is likely to have broad application to most captive brood programs. The RME group comments will be useful in documenting the relationship of the project to the RPAs and BiOp.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

This proposal continues the development of technologies to improve genetic integrity, in-culture survival, maturation, and reintroduction success of ESA-listed salmon captive brood stocks. Research is conducted on physiology, behavior, genetics, ecology, microbiology, and nutrition and the captive brood fish and their re-introduction to the natural environments (from authors' short description).

The five objectives of the project are as follows

1. Improve reintroduction success
2. Improve olfactory imprinting and homing
3. Improve physiological development and maturation
4. Improve in-culture survival through prevention and treatment of disease
5. Evaluate effects of inbreeding and inbreeding depression

Nevertheless, the ISRP has several concerns with this large complex project. While the proposal is a substantial improvement over its predecessor, it is very large and needs clarification or restructuring so that the individual studies can be thoroughly reviewed. The scope of this program and importance of the work to the conservation of these stocks might justify a more in-depth scientific review of this one project alone, not as one of 104 projects in this review.

The sponsor's response was adequate to address the ISRP's concerns raised in the preliminary review. However, the response on the release of captive reared fish to breed with wild fish (in Idaho) was in essence that this was a policy decision by the state and tribal managers rather than a decided part of the research project and an action currently being implemented, albeit on a small scale. Thus attention to it as a research component by this project was appropriate. While all of this is logical, it sidesteps the issue of whether this is an appropriate release strategy for these endangered and valuable stocks without significantly more research conducted under controlled conditions first.

If funded, this project should be coordinated with other monitoring projects to ensure compatibility of objectives, common methods, and protocols. This coordination could be accomplished under the favorably reviewed CBFWA proposal #35033.

Comment:

Comments
NMFS proposal. Inappropriate to comment.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

Comments:
Link to programmatic captive broodstock issue.

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website