FY 2000 proposal 199305600

Additional documents

199305600 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleAssessment of Captive Broodstock Technology
Proposal ID199305600
OrganizationNational Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameDr. Penny Swanson
Mailing addressNFSC - 2725 Montlake Blvd. East Seattle, WA 98112
Phone / email2068603282 / penny.swanson@noaa.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionImprove effectiveness and assess risks of captive broodstock programs as a tool for recovery of depleted salmon stocks
Target speciesPacific salmon Oncorhynchus sp.
Project location
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)



Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

1994 Compared reproductive performance of sockeye salmon reared in either fresh or salt water.
1994 Compared effectiveness of biodegradeable and nonbiodegradable GnRH implants for induction of ovulation and spermiation in sockeye salmon
1993 Examined the relationship between body fat levels and early male maturity in spring chinook salmon
1995 Examined independent and interactive effects of growth rate and body fat levels on onset of maturity in male spring chinook salmon
1997 Examine relationship between growth rate or ration level on onset of age of maturity in male spring chinook salmon
1994 Determine critical period of olfatory imprinting in sockeye and spring chinook salmon
1994 Tested improved broodstock diets for sockeye salmon
1995 Tested various dietary lipid levels for effects on reproductive performance in sockeye salmon
1996 Developed/validated bioencapsulation procedures to deliver antibiotics to first feeding salmon fry
1995 Tested live food diets for sockeye salmon fry
1996 Evaluated reproductive behavior of chinook salmon in artificial spawning stream
1995 Compared reproductive success of captively reared and sea ranched coho salmon
1994 Determined effects of rearing sockeye salmon at either 8 or 12 C on growth, age of maturity, smoltification and gamete quality
1994 Development of methods to measure the nonspecific immune functions of salmonids
1994 Measurement of cellular immune functions of sockeye salmon throughout their entire life cycle.
1994 Quantification of the effect of rearing temperature on the ability of sockeye salmon to produce antibody response.
1994 Quantification of the effect of smoltification of sockeye salmon on immune functions which are important for disease resistance.
1997 Quantification of effects of growth rate on immune functions of chinook salmon.
1997 Test azithromycin for reducing mortality due to BKD in sockeye salmon
1998 Test azithromycin for reducing mortality due to BKD in sockeye salmon
1998 Examine mate preference in chinook salmon
1994 Established quantitative genetic experimental design
1995 Released to sea 257,000 fish marked with family specific coded wire tags
1998 Completed genetic analysis of juvenile body morphometry in base population
1998 Cultured 2-. 3-, and 4-year old PIT tagged fish form the same cohort to maturity
1998 Established experimentally inbred (1 generation, 2 levels of inbreeding) and control lines of progeny

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9202200 Wild smolt physiology/behavior Collaborate by evaluating smoltification of experimental groups of spring chinook salmon.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel $190,600
Fringe $48,600
Supplies $152,200
Operating $38,000
Capital $13,500
PIT tags 2000 $6,000
Travel $16,500
Indirect $166,700
Subcontractor $3,000
Subcontractor $310,500
Subcontractor $11,000
Subcontractor $129,700
Subcontractor $42,000
Subcontractor $90,000
Subcontractor $15,000
Subcontractor $73,000
Subcontractor $4,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$1,310,300
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$1,310,300
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

Fund for one year
Jun 15, 1999


Recommendation: Fund for one year. Subsequent funding contingent on inclusion of better details on organization, coordination, subcontractors. Investigators should submit this as an umbrella proposal with subproposals related to: 1) growth and diet, 2) health, 3) reintroduction strategies, and 4) genetic consequences. A detailed description of the overall organization and coordination structure should be included in the umbrella proposal.

Comments: Rationale. Captive broodstocks may/will be needed to preserve threatened chinook stocks until they can be reintroduced. There are several difficulties inherent in the strategy of using captive broodstocks for the temporary preservation of species, some of which are addressed in this multifaceted project. The project is a big one with a long history. It's difficult to follow the proposals Section 4 and Section 5 because the different facets are mixed together.

Objective/Methods. Diet & growth affect age of maturity, smoltification, morphology, and gametes. A problem for culturing captive broodstocks is how to achieve fast growth without younger maturation and without suppressing immune response, which is how to adjust protein/energy ratios in salmon diet. This is a basic issue in salmon biology - understanding the relationship between nutrition, growth, maturation age, smolting would enlighten a lot of conservation decisions. The immediate problem for captive broodstocks is the abnormal tendency of cultured chinook males to mature young as jacks, probably a consequence of abnormal nutritional environment. Health. BK disease is a big threat. Erythromycin antibiotic is the only available and ineffective treatment and id potentially toxic. Alternative azithromycin needs testing. Reintroduction. Fish bred in captivity probably would lack the physical ability to thrive at liberty. They will need exercise conditioning and a diet regimen. Inbreeding. Captive broodstocks necessarily are small, liable to inbreeding depression. It's important to evaluate experimentally inbred fish in order to understand the importance of inbreeding.

It's hard for reviewers to tell which investigator is responsible for each facet of the research, i.e. who is doing what. Some investigators demonstrate continuing peer-review of their work (e.g Hard, Shearer) others (e.g. Harrell) haven't had their work published. So reviewers' ability to judge the quality of work is mixed. The budget includes large contracts for others with unknown functions in the project and their qualifications aren't listed, which makes it more difficult for reviewers to assess the quality of work. What are functions of PMFC, Frank Orth, UW, UI, NWIFC in the project? Probably the methods in use and proposed for use are at least adequate while in some instances creative and innovative. In each area the project's work is pertinent to finding techniques for captive broodstock rearing and for understanding what the effects of the program will be. The diet and health projects are directly related to techniques of rearing; the inbreeding project's dealing with a more subtle problem and requires a long time commitment for meaningful results. But it is a central issue

This on-going FWP project has an impressive list of accomplishments since 1994 and may be one of the better FWP projects in terms of publication of results in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

This project might be better developed as an umbrella with the various components separated into sub-proposals. The "key personnel" and budget description sections need to provide more information. At a minimum, they should provide a CV for the recipients of the large subcontracts. They should better describe their internal organization and the tasks associated with the subcontractors.

Aug 20, 1999


Aug 20, 1999


Criteria all: Met? yes - How do you assess the connection between this proposal and the sockeye recovery goal.
Aug 20, 1999


This proposal has the form of an umbrella contract. The specific objectives should be separated into independent projects. We recommend removing Objective 1.3 and reducing the budget to reflect that change.
Fund at current levels
Mar 1, 2000


(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:

Mar 1, 2000


[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]; Funding level determination for BPA
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$1,468,100 $1,468,100 $1,468,100

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website