Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199700100

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 Captive Rearing Initiative for Salmon River Chinook Salmon
BPA Project Proposal Number 199700100
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Business acronym (if appropriate) IDFG
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Peter F. Hassemer
Mailing Address 1414 East Locust Lane
City, State, Zip Nampa, ID 83686
Phone 2084658404
Fax 2084658434
E-mail phasseme@idfg.state.id.us
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Mountain Snake
Subbasin Salmon
 
Short Description Develop captive rearing techniques for chinook salmon and evaluate the success and utility of captive rearing for maintaining stock structure and minimum number of adult spawners in three drainages.
Target Species Snake River spring/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.2, 7.4E
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: Permitted under ESA Section 10
Other Planning Document References 1) Chapter 7 (Artificial Production) of the Draft Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan (Schmitten et al. 1997) discusses using hatchery intervention techniques to maintain or boost naturally spawning populations. This discussion includes numerous references to the maintenance of “captive reserves” for some populations. Strategies A, B, and C (pages 106 and 107 in Schmitten et al. 1997) specifically reference the use of artificial reserves or captive populations to accomplish spring/summer chinook salmon objectives identified in the plan. 2) NMFS T.M. #NWFSC-2 Pacific Salmon and Artificial Propagation Under the Endangered Species Act. Discussion of the utility of hatchery conservation programs under the Endangered Species Act. The memorandum also states the viability of the comprehensive Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon ESU is dependent on the continued existence of the population units that comprise it. 3) NPPC Return to the River. Chapter 8, Conclusion 10 under Hatcheries identifies hatchery programs for severely depressed stocks important sources of genetic information. Evaluations called or by the ISG are essential and active components of this program. 4) CPFWA FY1999 Draft Annual Implementation Work Plan - Pages 152-154.


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
1995 Collection of brood year 1994 spring chinook salmon parr from the Lemhi River, East Fork Salmon River, and West Fork Yankee Fork Salmon River.
1996 Collection of brood year 1995 spring chinook salmon parr from the Lemhi River.
1996 Less than 6% male maturation in brood year 1994 stocks (age 2).
1997 Less than 30% male maturation in brood year 1994 stocks (age 3).
1997 Successful outplanting of up to four, brood year 1994, three-year-old male chinook salmon to source streams. Movement and behavior documented.
1997 Milt from brood year 1994 East Fork Salmon River and West Fork Yankee Fork Salmon River male chinook salmon cryopreserved.
1997 Less than 6% male maturation in brood year 1995 Lemhi River chinook salmon (age 2).
1997 Collection of brood year 1996 spring chinook salmon parr from the Lemhi River and West Fork Yankee Fork Salmon River.
1998 Age 4 maturation in East Fork Salmon River (59%), West Fork Yankee Fork Salmon River (93%), and Lemhi River (74%) brood year 1994 stocks.
1998 Less than 26% male maturation in brood year 1995 Lemhi River stock (age 3).
1998 Less than 5% male maturation in brood year 1996 stocks (age 2).
1998 Successful outplanting of maturing, brood year 1994 (four-year-old) and brood year 1995 (three-year-old Lemhi River males) chinook salmon to source streams.
1998 Documentation of 25, and 4 redds (constructed by captive program chinook) in the Lemhi River system and West Fork Yankee Fork Salmon River, respectively.
1998 Milt from brood year 1994, 1995, and 1996 captive chinook cryopreserved.
1998 Successful hatchery pilot investigation of gamete quality and survival to the eyed-egg stage for spawn products produced by Lemhi River (brood year 1994, 1995), East Fork Salmon River (brood year 1994), and West Fork Yankee Fork Salmon River (brood year
1998 Collection of brood year 1997 spring chinook salmon parr from the Lemhi River and West Fork Yankee Fork Salmon River.
1998


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
9606700 Manchester Captive Brood Stock O&M Saltwater rearing at NMFS Manchester, WA facility for greater than one-half of fish in program. No
9305600 Assessment of Captive Brood Stock Techniques NMFS guidance for the refinement and use of captive brood stock technology for Pacific salmon. No
8909600 Genetic Monitoring and Evaluation of Snake River Salmon and Steelhead NMFS genetic analysis of brood stock and wild chinook salmon. No
9107200 Redfish Lake Sockeye Salmon Captive Brood Stock Program IDFG program at Eagle Fish Hatchery to establish captive brood stocks of Redfish Lake sockeye salmon. No
9604400 Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program ODFW captive broodstock program for three stocks of spring chinook salmon in the Grande Ronde River basin. No


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Produce captive-reared adult chinook salmon with morphological, physiological, and behavioral characteristics similar to naturally produced fish. a. Develop facilities and propagation techniques to attain objective.
1. b. Collect fish/eggs from three stocks for the captive rearing program.
1. c. Document propagation protocols including: formulation of feed used, feed rates, rearing environment and protocols, handling frequency, fish health management, and transportation methods.
1. d. Monitor growth and maturation of captive-reared fish.
1. e. PIT tag and visual implant tag all fish to facilitate population isolation and tracking during captive culture.
1. f. Cryopreserve milt from male captive chinook salmon as needed to preserve future options.
2. Evaluate spawning behavior and success of out planted (captive-reared) adults. a. Tag adults with externally visible tags prior to out planting, and radio-tag a reasonable number of fish for field tracking.
2. b. Monitor movement, distribution, behavior, and spawning success of out planted fish.
2. c. Identify and document locations of radio-tagged fish daily.
2. d. Map redd locations and note observed spawner pairings.
2. e. Perform snorkel surveys to estimate parr production.
2. f. Conduct pilot evaluations of gamete quality and survival to the eyed-egg stage.
3. Assess population viability and develop conservation management plan. a. Assess status of 28 spring/summer chinook stocks in Idaho.
3. b. Identify at risk spring/summer chinook stocks in Idaho.
3. c. Initiate NWPPC three step review process and complete step one.
3. d. Personnel and fish culture facility expansion feasibility study
4. Information/Technology transfer. a. Participate in Technical Oversight Committee process.
4. b. Develop and provide IDFG, other agency, and Tribal personnel with current, concise accounts of project activities.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 08/01/95 12/01/05 increased smolt - adult survival yes 50.0%
2 06/01/97 12/01/05 supplement naturally spawning populations yes 25.0%
3 10/01/99 09/01/00 none yes 20.0%
4 08/01/95 12/01/05 none 5.0%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel 2.83 FTE permanent, 2.5 FTE temporary $136,807
Fringe $ 46,010
Supplies $ 20,710
Operating $ 89,520
Capital Facility maintenance at Eagle Hatchery; fish transport vehicle replacement $ 49,500
PIT tags 1000 $ 2,900
Travel $ 10,250
Indirect 23% of costs, excluding capital $ 90,688
Other Population Status/Viability Assessment and Engineering Assessment for future program implementation $100,000
Total Itemized Budget $546,385


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $546,385
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $546,385
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 $450,000 $470,000 $1,500,000 $1,200,000
Total Outyear Budgets $450,000 $470,000 $1,500,000 $1,200,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: No known constraints.


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Bowles, E. 1993. Operation of compensation hatcheries within a conservation framework, an issue paper. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise. No
Bromage, N. R. and R. J. Roberts. 1995. Broodstock Management and Egg and Larval Quality. Blackwell Science Ltd. Cambridge, MA. No
Cloud, J.G., Miller, W. H. and M.J. Levenduski. 1990. Cryopreservation of sperm as a means to store salmonid germ plasm and to transfer genes from wild fish to hatchery populations. The Progressive Fish Culturist 52:51-53. No
Erdahl, D.A. 1994. Inland Salmonid Broodstock Management Handbook. United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 712 FW 1. No
Flagg, T.A. and C.V. W. Mahnken. 1995. An assessment of the status of captive broodstock technology for Pacific Salmon. Final report to the Bonneville Power Administration, Project No. 93-56, Contract No. DE-AI79-93BP55064. Portland, OR. No
Flemming, I.A. and M.R. Gross. 1992. Reproductive behavior of hatchery and wild coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch): does it differ? Aquaculature 103:101-121. No
Flemming, I.A. and M.R. Gross. 1993. Breeding success of hatchery and wild coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in competition. Ecological Applications 3(2):230-245. No
Hard, J.J., R.P. Jones, M.R. Delarm, and R.S. Waples. 1992. Pacific salmon and artificial propagation under the Endangered Species Act. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Technical Memorandum NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) No
Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 1992. Anadromous fish management plan 1992. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise. No
Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Recovery plan recommendations for hatchery production, an issue paper. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise. No
Joyce, J.E., R.M. Martin, and F.P. Thrower. 1993. Successful maturation of captive chinook salmon brood stock. Progressive Fish-Culturist. 55:191-194. No
Leitritz, E. and R.C. Lewis. 1976. Trout and salmon culture (hatchery methods). California Department of Fish and Game Fish Bulletin 164. No
McDaniel, T.R., K.M. Prett, T.R. Meyers, T.D. Ellison, J.E. Follett, and J.A. Burke. 1994. Alaska Sockeye Salmon Culture Manual. Special Fisheries Report No. 6. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. No
National Research Council (NRC). 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. No
Northwest Power Planning Council. 1994. 1994 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. No
Northwest Power Planning Council. 1996. Return to the River: Restoration of Salmonid Fishes in the Columbia River. No
Pennell, W. and B.A. Barton. 1996. Principles of Salmonid Aquaculture. Elsevier Science B.V. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. No
Petrosky C.E. and H.A. Schaller. 1994. A comparison of productivities for Snake River and lower Columbia River spring and summer chinook stocks. In Salmon Management in the 21st Century: Recovering Stocks in Decline. Proceedings of the 1992 Northeast No
Piper, G. R., I. B. McElwain, L.E. Orme, J. P. McCraren, L. G. Gowler, and J. R. Leonard. 1982. Fish Hatchery Management. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. No
Schmitten, R. W. Stelle, and M. Brentwood. 1997 (in review). Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan. U.S. Department of Commerce, national Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. No
Wheeler, P. A. , and G. A. Thorgaard. 1991. Cryopreservation of rainbow trout semen in large straws. Aquaculture 93:95-100. 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 in Part
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund in part, at a base level, to meet production objectives; do not fund research component of proposal because of technical inadequacies. There should be quality research associated with this project, designed with suitable methods and testable hypotheses to address recognized uncertainties associated with captive brood technology.

Comments: The proposal appears to have as its basic assumption that captive reared fish are the same ecologically, behaviorally, and genetically as the native stock; however, this assumption should be tested as the project's major null hypothesis, rather than serving as its primary assumption.

Captive rearing may be a reasonable (but last-ditch) effort in the current situation; reviewers assume that policy has been formally reviewed and approved in the region. No cost sharing is indicated in the proposal, and that seems unexpected. Progress on the project in 1997-98 is only superficially described, but it appears that results from captive-reared fish that were released in 1998 will be very important. The FY2000 budget, a major increase from previous years, is justified (by the authors) by the apparent need to hire an additional biologist and expand facilities.

The proposal's stated objectives seem reasonable at first glance, but the tasks described in the methods section will not meet the objectives, so the proposal is unsound from scientific standpoints. For example, Objective 1 is to produce chinook having morphological, physiological, and behavioral characteristics similar (how similar?) to those of naturally-produced fish. However, no morphological, physiological, or behavioral tests are described for comparing the artificially-raised fish against wild counterparts, except that under Objective 2 it will merely be observed whether or not the hatchery products "spawn in the wild." Where are the genuine morphological, physiological, and behavioral measurements, what is the statistical design, and where are the wild "control" animals?

Objective 2 is to "evaluate spawning behavior and success of outplanted (captive-reared) adults." The primary measure of spawning success should be the production of offspring that are as fit as wild counterparts, i.e., that survive as well to the spawning stage as do wild fish, and that produce offspring that are as viable as those of wild fish. The methods include (1) observation of spawning behavior in a wiered section of a stream and (2) "snorkel surveys to quantify juvenile production." This experiment is not replicated, and it is not stated what method will be used to convert raw counts of juveniles into an estimate of the actual number produced. Neither is it stated how the snorkelers will know which juveniles are offspring of the subject spawners and which are immigrants from elsewhere.

Objective 3 is to "assess population viability and develop conservation management plan" (bottom of p. 14). Under that statement it says there are "no testable hypotheses." If the applicant believes no testable hypothesis exists for assessing population viability, then population viability cannot be assessed. Therefore, the objective should not exist. The proposal contains no description of methods for Objective 3.

In the past-accomplishments table (Section 4, p. 3), the following 1997 item is shown: "Successful outplanting of up to four, brood year 1994, three-year-old male chinook salmon to source streams. Movement and behavior documented. Reviewers wonder if this is a misprint.

The proposal indicates (p. 16, end of first paragraph under Obj. 2) that "a framework" is still being developed for the FY2000 methods. Because the applicant does not yet know what the methods will really be, and the logic of the proposal is so faulty, this proposal should not be funded.


CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$546,000
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? Yes - A bit vague

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? Yes - Questionable at best; how is this really going to happen?

Resource Criteria 4: Met? Yes -


CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Move to Capital Funding source ($546,385). Current capital and outyear capital expense justifies moving the funding from the ID NW SRT funding base.

ISRP Final Review , ISRP 99-4 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Oct 29, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Fund. The responses are to the point and adequately address the ISRP concerns. The sponsor obviously took considerable pains to develop thoughtful responses.

NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Nov 8, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
2000
$546,385
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting];

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$509,000
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$509,000
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$509,000
Sponsor (IDFG) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page