Based on your permissions you can access the following related pages:
Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?
View and print project details including project summary, purpose, associations to Biological Opinions, and area. To learn more about any of the project properties, hold your mouse cursor over the field label.
Please Note: This project is the product of one or more merges and/or splits from other projects. Historical data automatically included here are limited to the current project and previous generation (the “parent” projects) only. The Project Relationships section details the nature of the relationships between this project and the previous generation. To learn about the complete ancestry of this project, please review the Project Relationships section on the Project Summary page of each parent project.
| Province | Subbasin | % |
|---|---|---|
| Mountain Snake | Salmon | 100.00% |
|
|
Description: Page: 8 Figure 1: Aerial photo of Manchester Research Station on Puget Sound. Project(s): 2007-403-00 Document: P122627 Dimensions: 1111 x 888 Description: Page: 10 Figure 2: Rearing tanks in main ESA rearing building (13). Project(s): 2007-403-00 Document: P122627 Dimensions: 917 x 601 Description: Page: 10 Figure 3: Cartridge (foreground) and sand filter (background) housing used for seawater processing. Project(s): 2007-403-00 Document: P122627 Dimensions: 361 x 554 Description: Page: 14 Figure 4: Transferring Salmon River smolts into seawater rearing tanks in building 12. Project(s): 2007-403-00 Document: P122627 Dimensions: 726 x 477 Description: Page: 17 Figure 5: Mature adult spring/summer Chinook salmon returned to the West Fork Yankee Fork of the salmon River. Project(s): 2007-403-00 Document: P122627 Dimensions: 939 x 704 |
To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"
To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page
| Number | Contractor Name | Title | Status | Total Contracted Amount | Dates |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
29463
 SOW
|
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) | 1997-001-00 IDAHO CHINOOK CAPTIVE REARING | History | $463,274 | 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007 |
| BPA-005556 | Bonneville Power Administration | PIT Tags - Spring Chinook Captive Prop-Idaho | Active | $1,958 | 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007 |
|
35399
SOW
|
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) | 2007-403-00 EXP ID SPR CHINOOK CAPTIVE PROP | Closed | $516,251 | 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2008 |
|
35458
SOW
|
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | 200740300 EXP NOAA ID SPR CHINOOK CAPTIVE PROP | Closed | $318,126 | 12/1/2007 - 4/30/2009 |
|
39364
SOW
|
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) | 200740300 EXP ID SPR CHINOOK CAPTIVE PROP | Closed | $518,000 | 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009 |
|
40337
SOW
|
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | 200740300 EXP NOAA ID SPR CHINOOK CAPTIVE PROP | Closed | $286,000 | 12/1/2008 - 5/31/2010 |
|
44419
SOW
|
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) | 200740300 EXP ID SPR CHINOOK CAPTIVE PROP | Closed | $475,805 | 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010 |
|
45326
SOW
|
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | 200740300 EXP NOAA ID SPR CHINOOK CAPTIVE PROP | Closed | $293,500 | 12/1/2009 - 8/31/2011 |
|
49517
SOW
|
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) | 200740300 EXP ID SPR CHINOOK CAPTIVE PROP | Closed | $304,224 | 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011 |
|
54251
SOW
|
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) | 2007-403-00 EXP ID SPR CHINOOK CAPTIVE PROPAGATION | Closed | $238,122 | 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012 |
|
59694
SOW
|
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) | 2007-403-00 EXP ID SPR CHINOOK CAPTIVE PROP | Closed | $284,477 | 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013 |
|
62939
SOW
|
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) | 2007-403-00 EXP ID SPR CHINOOK CAPTIVE PROP | Closed | $278,059 | 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014 |
|
66445
SOW
|
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) | 2007-403-00 EXP ID SPR CHINOOK CAPTIVE PROP | Closed | $180,627 | 10/1/2014 - 3/31/2016 |
| Annual Progress Reports | |
|---|---|
| Expected (since FY2004): | 16 |
| Completed: | 12 |
| On time: | 12 |
| Status Reports | |
|---|---|
| Completed: | 57 |
| On time: | 50 |
| Avg Days Early: | 3 |
| Count of Contract Deliverables | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earliest Contract | Subsequent Contracts | Title | Contractor | Earliest Start | Latest End | Latest Status | Accepted Reports | Complete | Green | Yellow | Red | Total | % Green and Complete | Canceled |
| 4002 | 19681, 24657, 29463, 35399, 39364, 44419, 49517, 54251, 59694, 62939, 66445 | 2007-403-00 EXP ID SPR CHINOOK CAPTIVE PROP | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) | 03/19/2001 | 03/31/2016 | Closed | 43 | 105 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 110 | 95.45% | 0 |
| Project Totals | 103 | 174 | 4 | 0 | 9 | 187 | 95.19% | 0 | ||||||
| Count of Contract Deliverables | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earliest Contract | Subsequent Contracts | Title | Contractor | Earliest Start | Latest End | Latest Status | Accepted Reports | Complete | Green | Yellow | Red | Total | % Green and Complete | Canceled |
| 4662 | 20494, 25270, 30168, 35458, 35459, 40337, 39994, 45326, 45023, 46273 REL 17 | 2007-404-00 EXP NOAA OR SPR CHINOOK CAPTIVE PROP | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | 04/30/2001 | 08/31/2012 | Closed | 60 | 69 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 77 | 94.81% | 0 |
| Project Totals | 103 | 174 | 4 | 0 | 9 | 187 | 95.19% | 0 | ||||||
| Count of Contract Deliverables | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earliest Contract | Subsequent Contracts | Title | Contractor | Earliest Start | Latest End | Latest Status | Accepted Reports | Complete | Green | Yellow | Red | Total | % Green and Complete | Canceled |
| BPA-5556 | PIT Tags - Spring Chinook Captive Prop-Idaho | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2006 | 09/30/2007 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Project Totals | 103 | 174 | 4 | 0 | 9 | 187 | 95.19% | 0 | ||||||
| Assessment Number: | 2007-403-00-NPCC-20110124 |
|---|---|
| Project: | 2007-403-00 - Spring Chinook Captive Propagation-Idaho |
| Review: | RME / AP Category Review |
| Proposal: | RMECAT-2007-403-00 |
| Proposal State: | Pending BPA Response |
| Approved Date: | 6/10/2011 |
| Recommendation: | Fund |
| Comments: | Implement through FY 2014. Project is winding down. Bonneville to work with sponsors to complete a joint summary captive propagation report. |
| Conditions: | |
| Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #6 Research projects in general—. |
| Assessment Number: | 2007-403-00-ISRP-20101015 |
|---|---|
| Project: | 2007-403-00 - Spring Chinook Captive Propagation-Idaho |
| Review: | RME / AP Category Review |
| Proposal Number: | RMECAT-2007-403-00 |
| Completed Date: | 12/17/2010 |
| Final Round ISRP Date: | 12/17/2010 |
| Final Round ISRP Rating: | Meets Scientific Review Criteria |
| Final Round ISRP Comment: | |
|
The response adequately addresses the ISRP's response request, especially to provide a summary of results to date. The material provided in the revised Major Accomplishments section now gives a clearer picture of the status of the program. Much needs to be done to provide strong results (to make up for a slow, at best, start).
The proponents also discuss the need for additional resources to complete a joint summary captive propagation report with ODFW, NOAA, and perhaps other co-managers. A summary of past efforts to produce captive reared spring Chinook adults is needed and essential. The joint summary report should complete the adaptive management for the project and identify the broader basinwide implications of the research, which will have been conducted for nearly two decades at the completion of field collections and genetic analysis. The ISRP believes there are several critical challenges to using this technology as a salmon recovery strategy. One is deciding at what point (the trigger) in the decline in population abundance should captive propagation begin. A second is to identify the time needed to get infrastructure in place to make a difference in the population’s recovery trajectory. A third would address what geographic scale of intervention is required to support the metapopulation structure of an ESU with 31 populations. If all populations are in serious decline, how many need to be incorporated into captive propagation? If only a few are in serious decline, is intervention justified? |
|
| First Round ISRP Date: | 10/18/2010 |
| First Round ISRP Rating: | Response Requested |
| First Round ISRP Comment: | |
|
The ISRP requests that the proponents provide a more detailed summary of the results-to-date in a few succinct tables and text narrative. Summary: This project remains an important one within the overall basin’s investment aimed at understanding how artificial production might be used to assist salmon recovery efforts. The project’s overall goals about comparing different captive rearing and release methods seems to have gotten lost amid the details of on site sampling and genetic parentage analysis. Linkages from methods to analyses to the overall project goals and potential applications need to be more clearly stated. One of the charges to the ISRP is to produce a retrospective report for Council (which also serves the Governors, state legislatures, and Congress). To complete that task, the ISRP needs a succinct summary of the material in the cumulative annual reports. Toward that end, the proposal needs to include clearer statements, tables, and figures about progress to date than it does in its present form. Eventually a report from the proponents to Council is also needed that compares the captive rearing methods (strategies) in the Salmon River rearing and releasing adults, with the Grande Ronde rearing to adults/spawning and producing smolts for release. This is one of the few adaptive management experiments in the basin. The report needs to compare the methods and evaluate the efficacy of the strategy/methods. The report needs to compare the methods and evaluate the efficacy of the strategy/methods. The report should be evaluated by the ISAB and ISRP as a report to the Council on an independent conclusion on the scope of the benefit (and cost) of using this approach to rescue populations that have extremely small numbers of spawning adults. Reviewers were surprised that proponents were not carefully looking at the smolt-to-adult work, especially considering that the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe had a smolt trap and were taking tissue samples. They should collaborate. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives Adequately described. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management Proponents assert that the hatchery propagation and M&E of spawning components have been completed; however, this section is deficient in adequately presenting results to date. The proposal provides many details on its internal protocols, but consistently lacks overview tables or statements summarizing results to date. The proposal would benefit from a clearer presentation of results to date, steps to be taken over the remaining timeline for the project, and how the conclusions of the project will be utilized by sponsors and other fisheries managers in the Columbia River Basin. A succinct set of tables and narrative text explaining the outcome of this experiment is needed. Additionally, the comparison of captive rearing methods (strategies) – Salmon River rearing and releasing adults, Grande Ronde rearing to adults/spawning and producing smolts for release – is one of the few adaptive management experiments in the basin. A report comparing the methods and evaluating the efficacy of the strategy/methods is needed. That report should be evaluated by the ISAB as a report to Council (states and feds) on an independent conclusion on the scope of benefit (and cost) of relying on this approach to rescue populations that have extremely small numbers of spawning adults. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) Adequately described. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Adequately described. |
|
| Documentation Links: |
|
| Assessment Number: | 2007-403-00-BIOP-20101105 |
|---|---|
| Project Number: | 2007-403-00 |
| Review: | RME / AP Category Review |
| Proposal Number: | RMECAT-2007-403-00 |
| Completed Date: | None |
| 2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: | Supports 2008 FCRPS BiOp |
| Comments: |
BiOp Workgroup Comments: No BiOp Workgroup Comments The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: ( 50.6 63.1 64.2 ) All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and All Deleted RPA Associations (71.4) |
| Proponent Response: | |
|
|
|
| Assessment Number: | 1996-067-00-NPCC-20090924 |
|---|---|
| Project: | 1996-067-00 - Manchester Spring Chinook Capt |
| Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
| Approved Date: | 10/23/2006 |
| Recommendation: | Fund |
| Comments: |
| Assessment Number: | 1997-001-00-NPCC-20090924 |
|---|---|
| Project: | 1997-001-00 - Idaho Chinook Salmon Captive R |
| Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
| Approved Date: | 10/23/2006 |
| Recommendation: | Fund |
| Comments: | Reduced budget reflects the removal of the all genetic elements except the critical needs associated with identifying progeny of captive adults. |
| Assessment Number: | 1996-067-00-ISRP-20060831 |
|---|---|
| Project: | 1996-067-00 - Manchester Spring Chinook Capt |
| Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
| Completed Date: | 8/31/2006 |
| Final Round ISRP Date: | None |
| Final Round ISRP Rating: | Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified) |
| Final Round ISRP Comment: | |
|
The ISRP recommends "Fundable (Qualified)" with the qualification being that this project needs to be funded only if the Grande Ronde and Salmon River Chinook captive propagation proposals are funded.
The technical and scientific background summarizes the problem facing managers trying to prevent extirpation of depleted animal populations, including Pacific salmon. The ISRP takes exception, however, to the first sentence of paragraph two on page 3: "Captive propagation of animals to maximize their survival and reproductive potential has won acceptance in endangered species restoration (Gipps ....)." In fact there is not a single species the ISRP is aware of that has been brought into captivity because the remaining numbers were so low that extinction was imminent, that has been returned to a self-sustaining status in the wild. Captive propagation remains a highly controversial avenue to pursue and should be regarded as experimental and untested. Project personnel prepared a generally thorough description of the project's history, providing very succinct and useful summary of the number of smolts from each population that were transferred to Manchester, the ages at which they matured, and the percent survival. It would be good to break this table down by sex as well. Questions remain, however, regarding the continuing need for and desirability of the project. Data presented to justify the project concern the number of fish produced in the program. The real assessment of the project is the character of the contribution to the viability of these stocks. The summary shows success in raising and spawning the affected fish, but there does not seem to be any information available to document the project's impact on the viability of these fish populations. The objectives were specific work elements. The ISRP believes it appropriate that this project have objectives similar to the 1998010006/1998010001 and 199700100 the Oregon and Idaho project for which they are rearing fish: prevent extirpation of listed ESU or independent populations of Chinook salmon, and contribute to the restoration of self-sustaining natural populations. The benefits are difficult to assess because the goal is to maintain or enhance the viability of the impacted stocks. The fish propagation goals are defined and measurable. Some benefit may accrue in the short-term for a threatened stock, but the techniques used here are inconsistent with recovery of threatened species in the long-term. The captive rearing at Manchester is unlikely to have major impacts on non-focal species, particularly since the effluent from the culture system is treated with ozone before discharge to Puget Sound. The most likely sources of impacts would be disease, possibly eutrophication of receiving waters, and interaction with escaped fish. These should be taken care of by the shore-based tank system. |
|
| Documentation Links: |
|
| Assessment Number: | 1997-001-00-ISRP-20060831 |
|---|---|
| Project: | 1997-001-00 - Idaho Chinook Salmon Captive R |
| Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
| Completed Date: | 8/31/2006 |
| Final Round ISRP Date: | None |
| Final Round ISRP Rating: | Meets Scientific Review Criteria |
| Final Round ISRP Comment: | |
|
The Idaho Captive Rearing program collects naturally produced Chinook salmon parr or eyed eggs, and then rears them in captivity to adults for release to increase the number of naturally spawning salmon.
The proposal indicates that this experimental effort will be terminated by 2012. The sponsors request funding to complete the evaluation of this captive rearing strategy. The ISRP raised several questions in the preliminary response. The principal query was for an outline of the timeline of juvenile rearing and adult release, and the subsequent natural parr, smolt, and adult production, to ensure that the time frame for the data collection and analysis was sufficient. The sponsors provided an answer to this question that was sufficient. A secondary question was about the natural spawning performance of the captive stock. In earlier proposals, the sponsors reported asynchrony in the spawning of natural and cultured adults, and poor egg viability in natural redds produced from captive stock. No mention of this was in the current proposal and the ISRP requested an update. The sponsors provided a review of the recent observations on asynchrony, reporting that during the last funding cycle this was not a problem. Egg viability was not tested during this time period. No explanation was provided for the improvement in synchrony between natural and cultured spawning adults. Finally, the ISRP asked about the quantitative benefits from a program like this to an entire ESU, under circumstances such as the spring and summer run Chinook in the Snake River that consist of an appreciable number of spawning units. That is, assuming there is a demographic benefit in the treated tributary, what are the quantitative consequences in the Viable Salmonid Population metrics for the ESU, from these improvements in individual sites. Sponsors responded that: "It remains difficult for us to comment on whether the potential added adult production from this program will elevate VSP abundance or productivity parameters to a status level more desirable than the current ‘High Risk' standing. Nevertheless, added adult production will help ensure that a continuum of spawning from one generation to another occurs. Preventing cohort loss will slow the loss of critical population genetic variation and preserve future recovery options." The ISRP appreciates this candid appraisal, but emphasizes that addressing this larger issue is critical when considering using this technology to support ESUs consisting of multiple independent populations or spawning aggregates. When you have 30 to 40 independent populations in an ESU, what aggregate demographic benefit are you getting if you can improve the status by these intensive actions in one or two of the individual populations? What is the short and medium term benefit from this type of action? The final reports and analyses should include this later consideration of the quantitative benefits at the ESU level if benefits are demonstrated at the independent population level. |
|
| Documentation Links: |
|
| Assessment Number: | 1996-067-00-INLIEU-20090521 |
|---|---|
| Project Number: | 1996-067-00 |
| Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
| Completed Date: | 10/6/2006 |
| In Lieu Rating: | Problems May Exist |
| Cost Share Rating: | 3 - Does not appear reasonable |
| Comment: | Marine rearing facility O&M for captive broodstock for SR spring/summer chinook; broad support for regional recovery efforts; other entities authorized/required, query whether cost-share sufficient. |
| Assessment Number: | 1997-001-00-INLIEU-20090521 |
|---|---|
| Project Number: | 1997-001-00 |
| Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
| Completed Date: | 10/6/2006 |
| In Lieu Rating: | Problems May Exist |
| Cost Share Rating: | 3 - Does not appear reasonable |
| Comment: | Eagle Lake hatchery O&M, RM&E, Redfish Lake captive broodstock program; other entities authorized/required to address this stock & to perform some of the other functions; query whether cost-share sufficient. |
| Assessment Number: | 2007-403-00-CAPITAL-20090618 |
|---|---|
| Project Number: | 2007-403-00 |
| Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
| Completed Date: | 2/27/2007 |
| Capital Rating: | Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding |
| Capital Asset Category: | None |
| Comment: | None |
| Assessment Number: | 1996-067-00-CAPITAL-20090618 |
|---|---|
| Project Number: | 1996-067-00 |
| Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
| Completed Date: | 2/27/2007 |
| Capital Rating: | Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding |
| Capital Asset Category: | None |
| Comment: | None |
| Assessment Number: | 1997-001-00-CAPITAL-20090618 |
|---|---|
| Project Number: | 1997-001-00 |
| Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
| Completed Date: | 2/27/2007 |
| Capital Rating: | Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding |
| Capital Asset Category: | None |
| Comment: | None |
| Project Relationships: |
This project Split From 1996-067-00 effective on 7/2/2007 Relationship Description: Work and budgets from project 1996-067-00 is split equally to projects 2007-403-00 and 2007-404-00. This project Merged From 1997-001-00 effective on 7/2/2007 Relationship Description: Work and budgets from projects 1997-001-00 and (half of) 1996-067-00 is moved into project 2007-403-00. |
|---|
| Name | Role | Organization |
|---|---|---|
| Dan Baker | Technical Contact | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Paul Kline (Inactive) | Interested Party | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Desmond Maynard (Inactive) | Technical Contact | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration |
| Jeff Dillon | Supervisor | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Debbie Frost | Technical Contact | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration |
| Travis Brown | Technical Contact | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Israel Duran | Env. Compliance Lead | Bonneville Power Administration |
| Jeff (IDFG) Heindel (Inactive) | Project Lead | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Eric Stark (Inactive) | Project Lead | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Jonathan McCloud | Project Manager | Bonneville Power Administration |
| Douglas Engemann (Inactive) | Interested Party | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Christine Kozfkay | Technical Contact | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
