FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200310800

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
35059 Narrative	Narrative
35059 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
Sturgeon Overview	Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Rapid Detection of White Sturgeon Iridovirus in Spawning Fluids, Eggs and Juvenile Tissues of White Sturgeon
Proposal ID	200310800
Organization	Abernathy Fish Technology Center, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Dr. Peter W. Taylor
Mailing address	1440 Abernathy Creek Rd. Longview, WA 98632
Phone / email	3604256072 / pete_taylor@fws.gov
Manager authorizing this project	Carl Burger
Review cycle	Mainstem/Systemwide
Province / Subbasin	Mainstem/Systemwide /
Short description	Develop a rapid nested PCR assay for the detection of White Sturgeon Iridovirus from reproductive fluids, eggs and tissues of infected fish. Utilize the assay to determine viral prevalence and geographic distribution within the Columbia River Basin.
Target species	White Sturgeon

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
		Basin-wide

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
184

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
2001	Developed and optimized a nested PCR assay for the detection of three bacterial pathogens of salmonid fish.
2002	Completed a broad survey of the presence of Bacterial Coldwater Disease in the reproductive fluids and eggs of Pacific salmon.
2002	Manuscript " Optimization of nested polymerase chain reaction assays for identification of Aeromanas salmonicida, Yersinia ruckeri and Flavobactrium psychrophilum" accepted for publication in The Journal of Aquatic Animal Health.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
-8650		Will supply samples for this project and will be able to use our results to develop risk-assessment for propagation projects.
198806400	Kootenai River White Sturgeon Studies and Conservation Aquaculture	Will supply samples for this project and will be able to use our results to develop risk-assessment for propagation projects.
198806500	Kootenai River Fisheries Investigations	Will supply tissue samples from wild-caught juvenile sturgeon.
199502700	Assess Limiting Factors of the Lake Roosevelt White Sturgeon Population	Will supply tissue samples from wild-caught juvenile sturgeon.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
PCR primer development	a. upgrade existing primer set to a double primer "nested" assay.	0.5	$26,125	Yes
Optimize PCR protocols		0.5	$19,827
DNA extraction protocols	a. develop extraction methods for tissue samples.	0.5	$21,000
Construct and equip sterile room for virus work		0.1	$9,000

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
PCR assays on collected field samples	a. PCR assays	3.0	$21,500

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
PCR assays	2004	2005	$93,855

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005
$46,927	$46,927

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2003 cost
Personnel	FTE: 1.0, GS-5 Lab technician	$25,525
Fringe		$8,940
Supplies		$11,000
Travel		$4,000
Indirect		$12,862
Subcontractor	PCR primer development	$26,125
Other	construct and equip sterile room for virus work	$9,000
		$97,452

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 cost	$97,452
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2003 budget request	$97,452
FY 2003 forecast from 2002	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
USFWS	0.5 FTE, GS-12 research microbiologist	$47,625	in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2002-13)

Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required

Date:
Aug 2, 2002

Comment:

Not Fundable. The proposal is technically inadequate. The proposal lacked clarity and adequate methodological detail. The proposal had poorly stated objectives (none at all really). There was just a list of tasks. The real objective of determining the prevalence of the virus in the basin was given in the narrative of background. The PI's brief CV and listed references suggest competence in the development and application of genetic-based disease assays, but neither the proposal nor the presentation provided adequate detail on laboratory or genetic assay methods to provide reviewers confidence that the project's goals are likely to be realized. The PI talked about PCR as a new technique. While PCR has clearly revolutionized many genetic-based analyses, it has been around for nearly a decade and is routine business in any genetic laboratory. The PI could have shown slides that quickly and clearly showed the non-geneticists in the audience how PCR worked, how primer sets are generated for new applications, and how the presence / absence ELIZA-type tests are performed to determine.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Oct 24, 2002

Comment:

The RFC questions the utility of the proposed work due in part to the following information that was included in Project 198806400: In cooperation with pathologists from the USFWS Dworshak Fish Health Lab and pathologists from Clear Springs Foods (Buhl, ID.), Project 198806400 has "developed and implemented non-lethal sampling procedures for detecting an endemic sturgeon pathogen, White Sturgeon Iridovirus (WSIV). This development now successfully permits the examination of recaptured hatchery released fish and wild white sturgeon adults. Prior to this development, natural prevalence was undetectable. This collaboration provides great realized and potential utility, and is directly applicable by others for similar issues throughout the geographical range of white sturgeon."

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-14)

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Nov 5, 2002

Comment:

Do Not Fund; agree with CBFWA. The proposal is technically inadequate. It lacks clarity and adequate methodological detail and has poorly stated objectives (just a list of tasks). The real objective of determining the prevalence of the virus in the basin was given in the narrative of background. The principal investigator's brief CV and listed references suggest competence in the development and application of genetic-based disease assays, but neither the proposal nor the presentation provided adequate detail on laboratory or genetic assay methods to provide reviewers confidence that the project's goals are likely to be realized. The principal investigator talked about PCR as a new technique. While PCR has clearly revolutionized many genetic-based analyses, it has been around for nearly a decade and is routine business in any genetic laboratory. The principal investigator could have shown slides that quickly and clearly showed the non-geneticists in the audience how PCR worked, how primer sets are generated for new applications, and how the presence / absence ELIZA-type tests are performed.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jan 21, 2003

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit

Comments
Not Reviewed

Already ESA Required?

Biop?
No

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund (Tier 3)

Date:
Jun 11, 2003

Comment:

Category:
3. Other projects not recommended by staff

Comments: