FY 2000 proposal 199606700
Contents
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 |
|---|---|
| 199606700 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Manchester Spring Chinook Broodstock Project |
| Proposal ID | 199606700 |
| Organization | National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Thomas A. Flagg |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 130 Manchester, WA 98353 |
| Phone / email | 2068427181 / tom.flagg@noaa.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Rear Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon captive broodstocks from Idaho’s Salmon River sub-basin and Oregon’s Grande Ronde River sub-basin. Provide pre-spawning adults, eyed eggs, and juveniles to aid recovery of these ESA-listed stocks. |
| Target species | Spring and summer chinook salmon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1996 | Precocious age-2 males returned to ODFW |
| 1997 | Age-3 males returned to ODFW |
| 1997 | Age-3 males released in Idaho |
| 1998 | Age 4 males and females returned to ODFW and IDFG |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9700100 | Captive Rearing Initiative for Salmon River Chinook Salmon | Idaho Department of Fish and Game is also maintaining captive broodstocks for Salmon River sub-basin populations of Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon to avoid catastrophic loss of the gene pool and for rebuilding efforts |
| 9604400 | Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is also maintaining captive broodstocks for Grande Ronde River sub-basin populations of Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon to avoid catastrophic loss of the gene pool and for rebuilding efforts |
| 9305600 | Assessment of captive broodstock technology | Refinement of captive broodstock technology is necessary to maximize potential of captive broodstock recovery programs for ESA-listed stocks of Pacific salmon in the Columbia River Basin |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
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 2000 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 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $83,800 | |
| Fringe | $31,800 | |
| Supplies | $74,700 | |
| Operating | $119,600 | |
| Travel | $19,200 | |
| Indirect | $50,900 | |
| Subcontractor | $120,000 | |
| $500,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $500,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $500,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Administrative support | $100,000 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Schedule may be constrained by population viability of ESA-listed stocks in this recovery program. If population numbers are still low by the year 2001, then captive broodstocks may have to be continued to protect the gene pools.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund (Look at other Manchester Proposals, 9305600, programmatic review of captive broodstock)Comments: This project is designed to develop and maintain captive broodstocks of chinook salmon in saltwater at Manchester, WA. The proposal is thorough with respect to hatchery procedures and describes the scientific and technical background of the problem, including a discussion of the potential risks and benefits of captive broodstock techniques. It clearly relates to a regional need and has strong connection to other projects. Some questions raised by reviewers include, in respect of the section on testable hypotheses: how do you either reject or fail to reject "sufficient"? And elsewhere: it's clear that monitoring is part of the project, but are all opportunities to evaluate the techniques used being pursued? Is this project correctly classified as research?
Propagating captive brood stock as a protection measure under ESA can not be viewed as a long-term strategy. Many problems are inherent in such propagation; a program that is not ultimately consistent with the needs of endangered species. The authors of this proposal seem to be aware of these problems and have included a discussion of several in their proposal.
Comment:
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? Yes -Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? No - Very poorly written objectives and tasks. No time or thought?
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? Yes -
Resource Criteria 4: Met? Yes -
Comment:
Personnel and resources appear duplicative of the Redfish lake sockeye program.Fund at current levels
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
(d) captive propagation - (Projects 9009300, 9107200, 9204000, 9305600, 9606700, 9801001, and 9801006 - various sponsors)Issue: 1) Has NMFS developed a prioritization schedule for captive brood projects as previously requested by the Council, and; 2) if the answer is yes, does the Council find the interim standards for use of captive brood strategies adequately responsive to the Council's concerns that these projects are costly, and the feasibility of the technology is unproven?
Past Council Treatment: In its Fiscal Year 1998 and Fiscal Year 1999 recommendations, the Council expressed several categorical concerns with the captive broodstock projects being proposed for funding: (1) the projects are expensive, (2) they appear to be proliferating, (3) the feasibility of the technology had not been adequately reviewed, and, (4) an underlying question related to the question of whether these projects are primarily "ESA projects" or projects that are consistent with and part of the program funded by Bonneville. In the end, the Council recommended that existing captive broodstock programs be funded, but it called upon NMFS to work with the other anadromous fish managers to develop a set of interim standards for the application of captive broodstock technology. The Council advised that its continued funding support for the NMFS systemwide project was contingent on a set of acceptable standards being developed. The Council also stated that it would not recommend funding for any new captive broodstock projects absent an emergency, without those standards. The Council also stated its intention to require captive broodstock projects to follow the interim 3-step review process for artificial production projects. The Council has also asked that NMFS prioritize captive broodstock projects and provide that schedule to the Council to assist in the review of the budget proposals.
In February of this year, NMFS submitted the interim standards report requested by the Council. The region is using these interim standards as temporary guidance in discussions about captive propagation. The standards were incorporated into the guidelines and performance standards developed in the preservation/conservation purpose of artificial production under the APR process, and are, therefore, consistent with the principles, policies, and purposes as described in the report and recommendations.
Council Recommendation: To date, the Council has not received a prioritization of likely target populations and intervention programs to form a basis for programmatic and budget planning. Therefore, funding levels for existing programs should be held at current levels pending that prioritization. If and when the prioritization is provided, a review of these captive brood programs for consistency with APR report policies and standards must be conducted before additional funds are allocated to these programs or new programs. The Council recommends that projects 9009300, 9107200, 9204000, 9305600, 9606700, 9801001 and 9801006 be funded with the following conditions:
- Funding should be held at levels required to fund these existing programs pending the prioritization that the Council has previously requested from NMFS, and expansion of existing programs should not be permitted. To date, the Council has not received a prioritization of likely target populations and intervention programs to form a basis for programmatic and budget planning.
- The Council should not consider any new funding for this technique until adequate review has been completed, and, if possible, subbasin plans are in place.
- A review of these captive brood programs for consistency with APR report policies and standards should be conducted before additional funds are allocated to these programs or new programs.
- The Council recommends that the Tucannon project (#20020) be permitted to continue into the three-step artificial production review process. The low-cost and short duration attributes of this project and the status of the run being treated mitigate the Council's general concerns with captive propagation projects in this particular instance. NEPA and planning work may be funded with Fiscal Year 2000 funds, and the sponsor and BPA are to work with Council staff in identifying what needs, if any, there are for that work. Funding for implementation of the project will not be approved until three-step review is complete and applicable documents address the NMFS interim standards as well as the policies, purposes and performance standards in the APR report, and until NEPA requirements are satisfied.
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]; Funding level determination for BPANW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $792,000 | $767,200 | $767,200 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website