FY07-09 proposal 200734400
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Lower Columbia River Wild Coho DNA Stock Identification Proposal |
| Proposal ID | 200734400 |
| Organization | Fish Friendly Inc. |
| Short description | Fish Friendly Incorporated (FFI) in cooperation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) proposes to develop a DNA baseline for naturally produced coho salmon in the Lower Columbia River tributaries. |
| Information transfer | ·We propose to provide all data to the BPA Pisces system as it develops the capacity to receive it and to store it. ·Also, we propose to store information in the WDFW genetics database where it can be accessed for future Columbia River. reports. ·The data dictionary will be consistent with any Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) reporting metrics provided to Congress ·All sites will be geo-spatially referenced and available on the Washington natural resourcedata portal at www.swim.wa.gov; |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Bruce Crawford | Fish Friendly Inc. | crawfordb@thurston.com |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Bruce Crawford | Fish Friendly Inc. | crawfordb@thurston.com |
| Bruce Crawford | Fish Friendly Inc. | crawfordb@thurston.com |
| James Shaklee | [organization left blank] | jbsgenetics@direcway.com |
| Greg Volkhardt | Washington Dept Fish and Wildlife | volkhgcv@dfw.wa.gov |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Lower Columbia / None Selected
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abernathy Creek | |||
| Coweeman | |||
| Cowlitz | |||
| EF Lewis | |||
| Elochoman | |||
| Germany | |||
| Grays | |||
| Hamilton Creek | |||
| Kalama | |||
| Mill Creek | |||
| NF Lewis | |||
| NF Toutle | |||
| Rock Creek | |||
| SF Toutle | |||
| Skamokowa | |||
| Washougal | |||
| WInd River |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Coho Lower Columbia River ESUSection 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCSRF - WSRFB | [no entry] | Intensively monitored watersheds | Juvenile sampling of presmolt and smolts is occurring in Abernathy, Mill, and Germany Creeks. Samples of DNA will be coordinated |
| PCSRF - WSRFB | [no entry] | SMolt Monitoring | Juvenile migrants are sampled at Cedar Creek, NF Lewis. Coordination of DN samples will be made. |
| Other: NOAA | [no entry] | Kalama River Research | WDFW Kalama team may be able to assist in obtaining DNA samples of juvenile coho. |
| BPA | 198201301 | Coded Wire Tag - PSMFC | Data obtained will help calibrate CWT information about lower Columbia wild coho |
| BPA | 200306300 | Repro Success Abernathy Creek | Some collection activities associtated with steelhead may be possible since activity will occur in the same stream |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measure baseline genetic diversity of coho | 1. In order to be able to determine the phenotype of Lower Columbia River tributary coho populations, we intend to randomly select locations to sample within each stream in the ESU for a total of fifty sites within the ESU. | Lower Columbia | [7.6.4] Harvest |
| Sample DNA of wild salmon in the fisheries | we propose to place samplers upon cooperating boats in the charter fleet between Cape Falcon and Ledbetter Point and to enlist the assistance of the sport fishing community to help take samples of DNA in the Buoy 10 sport fishery. | Lower Columbia | 7.6.4 Harvest |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Sample wild coho DNA in LCR tributaries | Randomly select locations to sample within each stream in the ESU for a total of fifty sites within the ESU. Collect a minimum of 50 samples of DNA from every major tributary stream within the Lower Columbia River Coho ESU. | 7/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $323,375 |
|
Biological objectives Measure baseline genetic diversity of coho |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Sample wild coho in Lower Columbia fisheries | In order to be able to sample the sport fishery for coho, we propose to place samplers upon cooperating boats in the charter fleet between Cape Falcon and Ledbetter Point and to enlist the assistance of the sport fishing community to help take samples of DNA in the Buoy 10 sport fishery. | 7/1/2009 | 10/31/2009 | $76,057 |
|
Biological objectives Sample DNA of wild salmon in the fisheries |
Metrics Secondary R, M, and E Type: DNA array Secondary R, M, and E Type: Location |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | [blank] | $56,771 | $56,771 | $97,542 |
| Fringe Benefits | [blank] | $11,354 | $11,354 | $27,140 |
| Travel | [blank] | $3,500 | $3,500 | $7,000 |
| Supplies | [blank] | $1,000 | $1,000 | $2,000 |
| Other | Laboratory Work | $31,500 | $31,500 | $45,500 |
| Other | Publications/permits | $500 | $500 | $2,000 |
| Other | Equipment | $7,000 | $1,000 | $1,000 |
| Totals | $111,625 | $105,625 | $182,182 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $399,432 |
| Total work element budget: | $399,432 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Totals | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $76,057 FY 2011 estimated budget: $76,057 |
Comments: Allows completion of sampling of the fishery |
Future O&M costs: None
Termination date: 12/31/2011
Comments: Provides time for analysis and report completions
Final deliverables: Coho DNA baseline profiles for Washington Lower Columbia River tributaries. DNA profile of sport caught wild coho and commercial caught wild coho All data Final Report
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
| Columbia River Wild Coho Genetic Stock | Jul 2006 |
| Response to ISRP Review | Jul 2006 |
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: Although additional information on coho genetics is worthwhile, the proposal provides little or no discussion of current status of coho DNA collections and analyses of existing data and other ongoing efforts. The proposal indicates that WDFW is a cooperator, but no indication is given that they are interested in doing the work or are on board. No use or demand for this data is explicitly identified in the proposal. Integration with existing genetics efforts is not articulated.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: The sponsors responded to the questions raised about this project in the preliminary review. The sponsor’s response did not materially change the impression the ISRP has about this effort. The sponsor was asked to summarize the status of tissue collections and DNA genotyping of coho salmon. It was hoped that this would identify a deficiency in data from wild Columbia River coho, in contrast to other collections. The sponsor summarized limited published literature on genotyping coho salmon; it does not appear to be exhaustive, or recent. Most of the citations are from the early to mid-1990s. The sponsors were requested to provide evidence that Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) was a cooperator. They provided a letter indicating that WDFW would be willing to serve as the contractor of the genotyping if space and time is available in the laboratory. WDFW did not express particular interest in the work, and no information is provided on the genes that will be analyzed. Finally, the sponsors were asked to provide evidence of the need for the data. The response was not convincing. The coho status review that was cited was from 1995, not the more recent update, and there is no link to the Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery Plan, Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team, or harvest management organization (Pacific Salmon Commission or Pacific Fishery Management Council) indicating that there is an urgent need for this data. In conclusion, the ISRP is unable to justify the need to collect this data, on the basis of the proposal.