FY 2000 proposal 199107200
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 |
|---|---|
| 199107200 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199107200 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Redfish Lake Sockeye Salmon Captive Broodstock Program |
| Proposal ID | 199107200 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Paul A. Kline |
| Mailing address | 1800 Trout Rd. Eagle, ID 83616 |
| Phone / email | 2089394114 / pkline@idfg.state.id.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Establish captive broodstocks of Redfish Lake sockeye salmon. Spawn captive adults to produce eggs, juveniles, and adults for supplementation and future broodstock needs. Monitor nursery lake conditions. Evaluate juvenile outmigration by release option. |
| Target species | Snake River Sockeye 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 |
|---|---|
| 1991 | Development of first broodstock from the four anadromous adult returns (BY91 spawning). |
| First cryopreservation of sockeye milt. | |
| Excellent rearing survival of wild -captured outmigrants transferred to Eagle Hatchery. | |
| Primary facility improvements made to accommodate program at Eagle Hatchery. | |
| 1992 | Cryopreservation of milt from the single male anadromous adult return. |
| First collection of residual sockeye salmon. | |
| Development of a limited residual broodstock (BY92 spawning) | |
| 1993 | Development of broodstocks from the eight anadromous adult returns (BY93 spawning). Maturing outmigrants collected in 1991 incorporated in the spawning matrix. |
| Cryopreservation of milt from anadromous males and captive outmigrants. | |
| First release of pre-spawn adults (20) in Redfish Lake in September. | |
| 1994 | Development of BY94 broodstocks from the single female anadromous adult return and first generation male progeny from BY91. |
| Development of BY94 supplementation groups using captive outmigrants and first generation progeny from BY91. | |
| First release of pre-smolts (~14,200) to Redfish Lake. | |
| Second release of pre-spawn adults (65) in Redfish Lake in September. | |
| 1995 | Development of limited broodstocks using wild - captured residual and captive outmigrants (BY95 spawning). |
| Approximately 85,000 pre-smolts released in Redfish Lake using several supplementation strategies. | |
| Approximately 9,000 pre-smolts released in Pettit Lake. | |
| Approximately 850 hatchery-produced outmigrants (from 1994 supplementation) successfully overwintered and outmigrated as smolts in 1995. | |
| First program smolt release (~3,800) in Redfish Lake Creek. | |
| IDFG re-opens Redfish Lake kokanee fishery to help manage kokanee competition. | |
| 1996 | Development of BY96 broodstocks from the single female anadromous adult return and first generation male progeny from BY93. |
| Development of BY96 supplementation groups using first generation progeny from BY93. | |
| First development of safety net broodstock using cryopreserved milt. | |
| Approximately 2,000 pre-smolts released in Redfish Lake. | |
| First plant of eyed-eggs (~105,000) in Redfish Lake. | |
| Pre-spawn adults (120) released to Redfish Lake with subsequent identification of approximately 30 redds. | |
| Approximately 14,900 hatchery-produced outmigrants (from 1995 Redfish and Pettit lake supplementation) successfully overwintered and outmigrated as smolts in 1996. | |
| Approximately 11,500 smolts released in Redfish Lake Creek. | |
| 1997 | Development of BY97 supplementation groups using first generation progeny from BY94. |
| Approximately 250,000 pre-smolts released in three lakes. | |
| Pre-spawn adults released to Redfish (80), Alturas (20), and Pettit (20) lakes. Redds observed in Redfish and Pettit lakes. | |
| Eyed-eggs planted in Redfish (85,000) and Alturas (20,000) lakes. | |
| Approximately 400 hatchery-produced outmigrants (from 1996 supplementation) successfully overwintered and outmigrated as smolts in 1997. | |
| 1998 | Development of BY98 supplementation groups using first generation progeny from BY96 (females) and BY94 males. |
| Development of BY98 safety net groups using first generation progeny from BY96 (females), the single 1998 anadromous male return, and cryopreserved milt. | |
| Approximately 142,000 pre-smolts released in three lakes. | |
| Approximately 82,000 smolts released in Redfish Lake Creek and the upper Salmon River. | |
| Approximately 58,400 hatchery-produced outmigrants (from 1997 supplementation) successfully overwintered and outmigrated as smolts in 1997. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9204000 | Redfish Lake Captive Broodstock Rearing and Research | Duplicate broodstock research and rearing by NMFS. Cooperative culture program contributing to the development of broodstocks for spawning and for supplementation. |
| 9107100 | Snake River Sockeye Salmon Habitat Improvement | Cooperative program by Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Generates limnology and fish population information critical to overall recovery effort. Active lake fertilization program. |
| 9009300 | Genetic Analysis of Oncorhynchus nerka | University of Idaho genetic studies of broodstock and wild sockeye. Generates mtDNA data for program. |
| 8909600 | Genetic Monitoring and Evaluation of Snake River Salmon and Steelhead | NMFS genetic studies of broodstock and wild sockeye. Generates allozyme data for program. |
| 9305600 | Assessment of Captive Broodstock Technology | NMFS directed captive propagation research. Generates data on a range of subjects relevant to the program. |
| 9700100 | Captive Rearing Initiative for Salmon River Chinook Salmon | IDFG captive rearing experiment for Salmon River chinook salmon. Develops rearing protocols relevant to the program. IDFG Eagle Hatchery shares sockeye and chinook rearing responsibilities. |
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 | $218,900 | |
| Fringe | $74,800 | |
| Supplies | $62,500 | |
| Operating | $120,183 | |
| Capital | $60,000 | |
| PIT tags | 6,000 | $17,400 |
| Travel | Includes all costs associated with travel (air & ground transportation, perdiem, lodging). | $17,250 |
| Indirect | 21.3% overhead on Personnel and Operating costs. | $109,063 |
| $680,096 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $680,096 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $680,096 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: No known constraints.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund. OK for a multi-year review cycle, review again in three to five years.Comments: This proposal deals with a stock at imminent risk of extinction and continues a long-running captive rearing program. The proposal is clearly written with appropriate objectives and tasks. Project history and accomplishments are well documented, including specific data by year and by lake.
Criticisms of the proposal included that 1) Adult return should be one of the proposal's objectives and should be considered and measured in the tasks, including monitoring and evaluation. Success in the project is measured against smolt numbers (at various life stages), but not against adults, even recognizing that in some ways, this places an unfair burden of proof on the project. Nonetheless, ultimate success of the project (and related projects) depends solely on this parameter. 2) The proposal does not describe benchmarks of criteria that would terminate the project due to success or to failure. Future versions of the proposal should identify those benchmarks and address how they will dictate the ultimate fate of the project. 3). No mention is made of peer-reviewed publications as an end product of the Technology transfer section.
Comment:
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? Yes -Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? No - Objectives do not meet definition.
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? Yes -
Resource Criteria 4: Met? Yes -
Comment:
This project is important and should continue. We recommend funding in order achieve management objectives in this region. We would like to see an umbrella for all of the sockeye projects in this area for FY01.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: |
| $825,638 | $825,638 | $825,638 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website