Local or MSRT Comments: See Washington guidance

The sponsors identified six items in the ISRP review and provided answers to them:

1. Who and what projects are analyzing the genetic data sponsors are collecting as part of their monitoring program?

The sponsors identified the genetics laboratory and staff performing the analysis and provided titles of two initial reports. These reports should be made available to the Columbia River Basin scientific and management community electronically to foster information transfer. There appear to be two goals for the genotyping effort. One is to evaluate the natural spawning reproductive success of the smolts produced from captive-reared parents, the second to evaluate whether the captive program has influenced the genetic diversity in the natural population. Conducting the analysis for the first objective is straightforward. Conducting the analysis for the second objective was not explained, and it is not clear how the planned sampling will be used to complete this task. The geneticists and laboratory are well suited to execute the investigations. The ISRP understands that only tissue collections, not genotyping or analysis, are being conducted under this project at this time.

2. How does this project interface with each of the projects listed under Relationship to other Projects?

The sponsors identified two groups of projects that interface this project: other Columbia River Basin captive propagation projects and Tucannon subbasin habitat restoration projects. The brief response to this query was not particularly informative. The captive propagation projects meet regularly under the auspices of the BPA Captive Brood Technical Oversight Committee. It would have been beneficial to identify for the ISRP some guidance and adaptive changes in the captive propagation approaches as a consequences of this interaction. The sponsors for this project interact with habitat projects in the Tucannon for subbasin planning processes, and acknowledge the necessity of environmental conditions for the success of spring Chinook restoration. Unfortunately, no examples of how either effort has informed the decisions of the other are provided.

3. No mention is made of the number of smolts retained to produce the captive stock, or the actual survival of the stock…

The sponsors provided a suitable reply.

4. Captive brood derived smolts should have started returning in 2005. This data was not in the proposal and should be included in a response to the ISRP…

The sponsors provide the data, and indicate that returns appeared low. It would have been helpful if the sponsors had indicated the projected range of adult returns that they had anticipated.

5. The fish that return must also spawn successfully and produce parr and smolts for the program to benefit the species. This concept of objectives beyond production of smolts and return of hatchery adults should be reflected in an overarching project-level objective…

The sponsors identify that they are using the objectives established in the Three-Step Review. That acknowledged; they should ensure that their objectives embrace the successful production of natural fish from the smolts produced by captive broodstock.

6. Monitoring and evaluation methods need to be in greater detail…

The sponsors provide a suitable reply. The analysis will provide a comparison of captive brood, supplementation, and natural fish. Since a reference location is not identified, the analysis is unlikely to answer the question of whether a demographic benefit accrued from the captive brood program.

Technical and scientific background: The background presented in the technical and scientific section of the proposal is mostly a recounting of the historical development of the project, rather than a careful review of technical and scientific issues associated with captive breeding projects in general or the Tucannon project in specific. As such, much of the technical background was citation of programmatic language from subbasin, fish and wildlife program, and other co-manager management plans that authorize using artificial production as a policy matter. The final page of this section does provide evidence of poor adult returns and depressed smolt numbers as the rationale for using a captive rearing program. Sponsors also provide an estimate of the number of adults they would like to return from release of smolts produced by the captive broodstock.

Relationships to other projects: The project sponsors indicate they are participating in the BPA Captive Broodstock Technical Oversight Committee – this should be encouraged and continue. The most significant deficiency in this portion of the proposal was a lack of indication of who and what projects were analyzing the genetic data sponsors are collecting as part of their monitoring program. This should be clarified and elaborated on – i.e., what are they measuring or monitoring – in a response to the ISRP. Also, how exactly does each of the projects listed actually interfaces with 200001900.

Project history: Well-described including the domestication effects of artificial propagation on captive brood and supplementation stocks as shown in Figures 2 and 3 on female fecundity and egg morality. These are important results to present to the Columbia River Basin community.

The project sponsors identify strengths - higher than expected survival of retained smolts to captive adults - and weaknesses - lower than expected fecundities of females and lower than expected egg survival compared to wild/natural or anadromous hatchery females. The summary provided is however quite sparse. No mention is made of the number of smolts retained to produce the captive stock, or the actual survival of the stock. These should be provided in a response.

If the timeline in the proposal is correct, adult returns from the first release of captive brood derived smolts should have started returning in 2005. This data was not in the proposal and should be included in a response to the ISRP

Objectives: The primary objective - to use captive broodstock technology to increase the run size of ESA listed Tucannon River spring Chinook – is a necessary, but insufficient objective. The fish that return must also spawn successfully and produce parr and smolts for the program to benefit the species. This concept of objectives beyond production of smolts and return of hatchery adults should be reflected in an overarching project-level objective. It seems the primary objective is to use these technologies to prevent extirpation of the Tucannon independent population of spring-run Chinook during periods of near demographic collapse. Results-to-date relevant to this larger goal should be presented in the proposal.

Tasks (work elements) and methods: Adequate, if not rather lightly presented. Sponsors may be relying on ISRP familiarity with the details of the project from previous reviews, rather than presenting a more full explanation of methods. Presentation of methods was inadequate for reviewers not already familiar with the Tucannon project. The methods are a fairly simplistic listing of task definitions, and require more detail to understand and evaluate the methods and expected outcomes.

Monitoring and evaluation: Similarly, monitoring and evaluation is insufficiently identified and explained in the work elements and methods. Presentation of M&E methods was inadequate for reviewers not already familiar with the Tucannon project.

Facilities, equipment, and personnel: Adequate given the history of the project. No new facilities or special needs exist beyond the Lower Snake Comp and WDFW hatchery facilities and equipment used for conventional and supplementation production for several decades.

Information transfer: Adequate plans.

Benefits to focal and non-focal species: Focal species expected outcomes were addressed adequately for the short term. Results from the program could provide a basis for future decisions on using captive broodstock technology on an emergency basis.