< Back to list of FY 2007-2009 projects

200001900 - Tucannon River Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program

Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)

Budgets: FY07: $125,000 | FY08: $102,000 | FY09: $58,000

Short description: Conduct the final years of the Tucannon River Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program to spawn remaining adult captive broodstock and rear and mark progeny. Release progeny (smolts) into the Tucannon River to help rebuild the run and prevent extinction.

view full proposal

Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Expense

Recommended budgets: FY07: $125,000 | FY08: $102,000 | FY09: $58,000


ISRP final recommendation: Fundable


Sponsors of the Tucannon captive propagation proposal are in the final stages of this effort and requesting funding only for rearing and release of the final cohort and monitoring the returns from several years of releases. On this basis, the ISRP concluded in their preliminary review that funding was appropriate contingent upon responding to a number of questions raised in reviewing the proposal. The sponsors responded with adequate information for the ISRP to recommend the project as fundable. 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.

Response loop edit

See the sponsor's revised proposal from the response loop. You'll be taken to CBFWA's proposal system in Section 10 where most sponsors uploaded revised narratives or other responses to the ISRP comments.

State/province recommendation: Washington

Review group: Washington list

Recommended budgets: FY07: (n/a) | FY08: (n/a) | FY09: (n/a)

Comment: See Washington guidance