Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199606700

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 Manchester Spring Chinook Broodstock Project
BPA Project Proposal Number 199606700
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
National Marine Fisheries Service
Business acronym (if appropriate) NMFS
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Thomas A. Flagg
Mailing Address P.O. Box 130
City, State, Zip Manchester, WA 98353
Phone 2068427181
Fax 2068428363
E-mail tom.flagg@noaa.gov
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Mountain Snake
Subbasin 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

[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: 7.4D.1
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses:
Other Planning Document References Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon (4.1.b., 4.1.c: Schmitten et al. 1995; Chapter 7: Schmitten et al. 1997)


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
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 Umbrella
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 No
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 No
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 No


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Endangered Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon captive broodstock rearing a. Salmon River Idaho stocks
2. Endangered Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon captive broodstock rearing a. Grande Ronde River Oregon stocks

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 08/01/96 07/01/05 Produce all spawning age classes from each cohort in captivity Return mature adults to IDFG 50.0%
2 08/01/96 07/01/05 Produce all spawning age classes from each cohort in captivity Return mature adults to ODFW 50.0%


Section 5. 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
Total Itemized Budget $500,000


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project 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%


Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable


Reason for change in scope

Not applicable


Cost Sharing

Organization Item or service provided Amount Cash or In-Kind
NMFS Administrative support $100,000 unknown

 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $525,000 $550,000 $575,000 $600,000
Total Outyear Budgets $525,000 $550,000 $575,000 $600,000
 

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.


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Allendorf, F. W. and N. Ryman. 1987. Genetic management of hatchery stock: past, present, and future. In N. Ryman and F. Utter (editors), Population genetics and fisheries management, p. 141-159. Univ. Washington Press, Seattle. No
Appleby, A., and K. Keown (editors). 1994. History of White River spring chinook broodstocking and captive brood rearing efforts. In T. A. Flagg and C. V. W. Mahnken (editors), An assessment of the status of captive broodstock technology for Pacific Sa No
Berejikian, B. A., E. P. Tezak, S. L. Schroder, C. M. Knudsen, and J. J. Hard. 1997. Reproductive behavioral interactions between spawning wild and captively reared coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). ICES Journal of Marine Science 54:1040-1050. No
Captive Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG). 1991. Regional captive propagation programs worldwide. CBSG News 2(4):12. No
Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (CBFWP). 1994. Available from Northwest Power Planning Council, 851 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, Or 97204-1348. No
DeBlieu, J. 1993. Meant to be wild: the struggle to save endangered species through captive breeding. Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, Colorado, 302 p. No
Flagg, T. A., and C. V. W. Mahnken (editors). 1995. An assessment of captive broodstock technology for Pacific salmon. Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract DE-AI79 93BP55064. No
Flagg, T. A., C. V. W. Mahnken, and K. A. Johnson. 1995a. Captive broodstocks for recovery of depleted populations of Pacific salmon. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 15:81-90. No
Flagg, T. A., F. W. Waknitz, and C. V. W. Mahnken. 1995b. The captive broodstock concept: application to Pacific salmon, pp. 1-1 - 1-60 (1995b). In T. A. Flagg and C. V. W. Mahnken (eds.), An assessment of captive broodstock tech. for Pacific salmon. No
Gipps, J. H. W. (editor). 1991. Beyond captive breeding: reintroducing endangered species through captive breeding. Zool. Soc. London Symp. 62, 284 p. No
Hard, J. J., R. P. Jones, Jr., M. R. Delarm, and R. S. Waples. 1992. Pacific salmon and artificial propagation under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-2, 56 p. No
Hynes, J. D., E. H. Brown, J. H. Helle, N. Ryman, and D. A. Webster. 1981. Guidelines for the culture of fish stocks for resource management. Can. Jour. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38:1867-1876. No
Johnson, J. E., and B. L. Jensen. 1991. Hatcheries for endangered freshwater fish. In W. L. Minckley and J.E. Deacon (editors), Battle against extinction, p. 199-217. Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson. No
Kapuscinski, A. and L. Jacobson. 1987. Genetic guidelines for fisheries management. Univ. Minnesota Sea Grant Rep. 17, 66 p. No
Kincaid, H. L. 1983. Inbreeding in fish populations used in aquaculture. Aquaculture 3:215-227. No
Kincaid, H. L. 1993. Breeding plan to preserve the genetic variability of the Kootenai River white sturgeon. Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract DE-AI79 93BP02886, 18 p. No
Krueger, C. A., A. Garret, T. Dehring, and F. Allendorf. 1981. Genetic aspects of fisheries rehabilitation programs. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38:1877-1881. No
Leitritz, E., and R. C. Lewis. 1976. Trout and salmon culture (hatchery methods). Calif. Dep. Fish Game Fish Bull. 164, 197 p. No
Matthews, G. M., and R. S. Waples. 1991. Status review for Snake River spring and summer chinook salmon. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech, Memo. NMFS F/NWC-200, 75 p. No
Olney, P. J. S., G. M. Mace, and A. T. C. Feistner. 1994. Creative conservation: interactive management of wild and captive animals. Chapman and Hall, London, England, 571 p. No
Piper, R. G., I. B. McElwain, L. E. Orme, J. P. McCraren, L. G. Fowler, and J. R. Leonard. 1982. Fish hatchery management, 517 p. (Available from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.) No
Rinne, J. N., J. E. Johnson, B. L. Jensen, A. W. Ruger, and R. Sorenson. 1986. The role of hatcheries in the management and recovery of threatened and endangered fishes. In R. H. Stroud (editor), Fish culture in fisheries management, p. 271-285. No
Schiewe, M. H., T. A. Flagg, and B. A. Berejikian. 1997. The use of captive broodstocks for gene conservation of salmon in the western United States. Bull. Natl. Res. Inst. Aquacult., Suppl. 3:29-34. No
Schmitten, R., W. Stelle, Jr., and R. P. Jones. 1995. Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon. 347 p., plus appendices. (Available from National Marine Fisheries Service, 525 N.E. Oregon, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737.) No
Schmitten, R., W. Stelle, Jr., and R. P. Jones. 1997. Draft Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon. (Available from National Marine Fisheries Service, 525 N.E. Oregon, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737.) No
Waples, R. S. 1991. Genetic interactions between wild and hatchery salmonids: lessons from the Pacific Northwest. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48 (Supplement 1):124-133. 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 (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.


CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$450,000
Comment:

CBFWA: Nonwatershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
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 -


CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Personnel and resources appear duplicative of the Redfish lake sockeye program.

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
2000
$450,000
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:
$792,000
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$767,200
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$767,200
Sponsor (NOAA Fisheries) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page