Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199009300

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Genetic Analysis of Oncorhynchus Nerka (Modified to Include Chinook Salmon)
BPA Project Proposal Number 199009300
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
University of Idaho
Business acronym (if appropriate) UI
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Madison S. Powell
Mailing Address 3059F National Fish Hatchery Road
City, State, Zip Hagerman, ID 83332
Phone 2088379096
Fax 2088376047
E-mail fishdna@micron.net
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Mainstem/Systemwide
Subbasin Systemwide
 
Short Description Provide biological and genetic information on O. nerka and O. tshawytscha samples collected throughout the Snake and Columbia Basins to be used in the overall recovery of endangered Snake River sockeye salmon and threatened Salmon River chinook salmon.
Target Species Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) and chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)


Project Location

[No information]


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal


NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: 4.2A, 4.3C.1, 7.4D.2, 7.5A.1, 8.4A.1, 8.4B.1
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: NMFS-Hydrosystems Operations Biological Opinion, 1996 NMFS Biological Opinion for IDFG permit # 1010 (Section 10) Captive Rearing of ESA-listed Snake River Salmon
Other Planning Document References Endangered Species Act requirements, Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan, Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi-Wa-Kish-Wit (specifically Nez Perce Tribal interests with chinook salmon), 1990 Salmon River Subbasin Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan (objective #6).


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous


Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
1997 Identification of a listed sockeye in creel samples and straying sockeye at Manchester
1998 Completion of mitochondrial DNA data set for sockeye
1999 Completion of preliminary nuclear DNA data set for sockeye.
See project history Section 8d for further detail between 1990-1995.


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
9107100 Snake River Sockeye Salmon Habitat (Sho-Ban Tribes) This project provides genetic information for habitat and resource management. The 9107100 project provides tissue samples for this project. No
9107200 Redfish Lake Sockeye Salmon Captive Broodstock (IDFG) This project provides genetic information on an endangered population. The 9107200 project provides tissue samples for this project. No
9204000 Redfish Lake Sockeye Salmon Captive Broodstock Rearing and Research (NMFS) This project provides genetic information on an endangered population. The 9204000 project provides tissue samples for this project. No
9606700 Manchester Spring Chinook Broodstock Project (NMFS) This project will provide genetic information for three threatened populations of chinook salmon. The 9606700 project will provide tissue samples for this project. No
9700100 Captive Rearing Initiative for Salmon River Chinook Salmon (IDFG) This project will provide genetic information for three threatened populations of chinook salmon. The 9700100 project will provide tissue samples for this project. No
9801002 Captive Rearing Initiative for Salmon River Chinook Salmon-M (IDFG) This project will provide genetic information for three threatened populations of chinook salmon. The 9801002 project will provide tissue samples for this project. No


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Continue outmigrant genetic analysis a. See objectives, Section 8e below.
2. Continue creel survey genetic analysis a. See objectives, Section 8e below.
3. Continue analysis on returning sockeye a. See objectives, Section 8e below.
4. Continue evaluation of additional nuclear markers. a. See objectives, Section 8e below.
5. Continue evaluation of stray O. nerka a. See objectives, Section 8e below.
6. Continue evaluation of early and late spawning o. nerka a. See objectives, Section 8e below.
7. Begin genetic analyses of captively reared and returning chinook salmon from Salmon River a. See objectives, Section 8e below.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 01/01/00 01/01/04 see Section 8e below 15.0%
2 01/01/00 01/01/04 see Section 8e below 15.0%
3 01/01/00 01/01/04 see Section 8e below highly dependent upon anadromous returns 2.0%
4 01/01/00 01/01/04 see Section 8e below 30.0%
5 01/01/00 01/01/04 see Section 8e below 8.0%
6 01/01/00 01/01/04 see Section 8e below 5.0%
7 01/01/00 01/01/04 see Section 8e below highly dependent upon returns 25.0%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel M. Powell, Principle Investigator Senior Scientific Aide Graduate Research Assistant $ 70,450
Fringe M. Powell @ 28.5% Senior Scientifc Aide @ 34.5% Graduate Research Assistant @ 1% $ 16,360
Supplies chemicals, pipet tips, tubes, gloves, nucleotide primers, etc. $ 8,400
Operating equipment service and calibration, UPS shipping, Federal Express, long distance calls/faxing. $ 2,100
Travel 1 professional meeting (AFS) and 12 monthly T.O.C. meetings $ 2,800
Indirect on campus indirect cost rate @44.7% $ 44,749
Other none $ 0
Total Itemized Budget $144,859


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $144,859
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $144,859
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%


Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable


Reason for change in scope

Not applicable


Cost Sharing

Not applicable
 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $145,000 $147,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000
Total Outyear Budgets $145,000 $147,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: None except the amount of work is dependent on collections of returning sockeye and chinook.


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Allendord, F.W., and R.S. Waples. 1996. Conservation and Genetics of Salmonid Fishes. pp 238-280. In: J.C. Avise, and J.L. Hamrick (eds.). Conservation Genetics: case histories from nature. Chapmena nd Hall, New York. No
Banks, M.A., B.A. Baldwin, and D. Hedgecock. 1996. Research on chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) stock structure using microsatellite DNA. Bull. Natl. Res. Inst. Aquatcult. Suppl. 2:5-9. No
Brannon, E.L., A. Setter, T. Welsh, R. Danner, K. Collins, M. Casten, G. Thorgaard, K. Adams, and S. Cummings. 1994. Genetic analysis of Oncorhynchus nerka: life history and genetic analysis of Redfish Lake Oncorhynchus nerka. Completion Report. BPA. No
Burgner, R.L. 1991. Life History of Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). In: Pacific Salmon Life Histories (eds. C. Groot and L. Margolis) University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Pp. 3-101. No
Dowling, T.E., C. Moritz and J.D. Palmer. 1990. Nucleic acids II: restriction site analysis. In D.M. Hillis and C. Moritz (eds.). Molecular Systematics, Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland. No
Everman, B.W. 1895. A preliminary report upon salmon investigations in Idaho in 1894. Bulletin U.S. Fish Commission. 15:253-284. No
Federal Register. 1992. 57 FR 213. No
Felsenstein, J. 1993. PHYLIP: phylogenetic inference package. University of Washington, Seattle. No
Fitch, W.M. and M. Margoliash. 1967. Construction of phylogenetic trees. Science 155:279-284. No
McElroy, D., P. Moran, E. Bermingham and I. Kornfield. 1991. REAP: the restriction enzyme analysis package. Center for Marine Studies, University of Maine, Orono. No
Moran, P., D.A. Dightman, R.S. Waples, and L.K. Park. 1997. PCR-RFLP analysis reveals substantial population-level variation in the introns of Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.). Molecular Marine Biology and Biotechnology. 6(4):315-327. No
Morris, D.B., K.R. Richard, and J.M. Wright. 1996. Microsatellites from rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and their use for genetic study of salmonids. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53:120-126. Yes
Nei, M. 1987. Molecular Evolutionary Genetics. Columbia University Press, New York. No
Ricker, W.E. 1938. “Residual” and kokanee salmon in Cultus Lake. J. Biol. Bd. Can. 4:192-218. No
Sambrook, J., E.F. Fritsch and T. Maniatis. 1989. Molecular Cloning: a laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor Press, Cold Spring Harbor. No
Waples, R.S., O.W. Johnson, and R.P. Jones, Jr. 1991. Status Review for Snake River Sockeye Salmon. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS F/NWC-195, 23 p. No
Waples, R.S., P.B. Abersold, and G.A. Winans. 1997. Population genetic struction and life history variability in Oncorhynchus nerka from the Snake River Basin. Final Report. Bonneville Power Administration. No


Section 7. Abstract

Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

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

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 99-2 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund. OK for a multi-year review cycle, review in FY2002 for reporting of results.

Comments: This proposal is well written and addresses the genetic variation in Columbia River sockeye salmon, particularly in the listed stock (Redfish Lake) and its captive breeding program, plus the impact of captive rearing on three listed chinook salmon populations. These populations are severely depressed and require careful genetic monitoring to maintain the remaining genetic variation. The genetic techniques being applied are appropriate and continue to be developed to increase the resolution of genetic differences. This is clearly high priority work that warrants continued funding and is an example of a strong proposal. One concern identified, though, was that the project was apparently started in 1990. In general, it appears that the progress to date has not been adequately reported, especially in peer-reviewed publications and reports. While this concern merits investigation or clarification, the reviewers did note that publications have been recently submitted.


CBFWA: Nonwatershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Criteria all: Met? yes - This ongoing project is changing direction and now including chinook. Question if similar straying studies are proposed for chinook as this could expand the project significantly.

CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
This project is important and should continue. We recommend funding at a reduced rate in order to meet other management priorities within this sub region.

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$139,000
Comment:

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
2000
$139,434
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]; Funding level determination for BPA

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund at current levels
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
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.

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$126,000
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$ 98,000
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$ 98,000
Sponsor (U of Idaho) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page