Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2002-030-00 - Salmonid Progeny Markers Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2002-030-00 - Salmonid Progeny Markers
Project Number:
2002-030-00
Title:
Salmonid Progeny Markers
Summary:
We propose to assess the relative reproduction success of Umatilla summer steelhead using a pedigree analysis and a laboratory tested strontium progeny marker injection.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2002
Ending FY:
2032
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau Umatilla 100.00%
Purpose:
Artificial Production
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Salmonids
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS (threatened)
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

Iskúulktpe Creek watershed outline in teal.

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P123238

Document: Progeny Marker for Salmonids Annual Report

Page Number: 10

Project: 2002-030-00

Contract: 53059


Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $418,506 $340,877 $340,877 $272,702 $300,040

Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla $340,877 $340,877 $272,702 $300,040
FY2017 (Current) $302,942 $0 $0 $68,175 $102,679

Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla $0 $0 $68,175 $102,679
FY2018 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Post 2018 – Umatilla $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-May-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2016 - FY2018)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2016 Expense $297,000 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Fish Accord Review 05/02/2008
FY2016 Expense $56,040 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Fish Accord project COLA 11/21/2008
FY2016 Expense $10,591 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Establish CTUIR FY13-17 Admin Budget (2012-010-00) 07/19/2012
FY2016 Expense $76,057 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (ID, CTUIR) 11/14/2014 11/14/2014
FY2016 Expense $109,543 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla CTUIR budget adjustment (funds to 1987-100-01) 5/10/16 05/10/2016
FY2016 Expense $109,543 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla CTUIR budget adjustment (funds to 1987-100-01) 5/10/16 05/10/2016
FY2016 Expense $77,629 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (SBT, CCT, CTUIR) 11/10/16 11/14/2016
FY2017 Expense $297,000 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Fish Accord Review 05/02/2008
FY2017 Expense $64,866 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Fish Accord project COLA 11/21/2008
FY2017 Expense $10,422 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Establish CTUIR FY12 Admin Budget (2012-010-00) 01/26/2012
FY2017 Expense $10,856 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Establish CTUIR FY13-17 Admin Budget (2012-010-00) 07/19/2012
FY2017 Expense $76,058 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (ID, CTUIR) 11/14/2014 11/14/2014
FY2017 Expense $4,161 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Add funding to CTUIR FY17 Admin Budget (2012-010-00) 02/24/2016
FY2017 Expense $109,543 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla CTUIR budget adjustment (funds to 1987-100-01) 5/10/16 05/10/2016
FY2017 Expense $37,960 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (SBT, CCT, CTUIR) 11/10/16 11/14/2016
FY2017 Expense $37,960 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (SBT, CCT, CTUIR) 11/10/16 11/14/2016
FY2017 Expense $77,629 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (SBT, CCT, CTUIR) 11/10/16 11/14/2016
FY2017 Expense $77,629 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (SBT, CCT, CTUIR) 11/10/16 11/14/2016
FY2017 Expense $114,991 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (SBT, CCT, CTUIR) 11/10/16 11/14/2016
FY2017 Expense $48,404 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (SBT, CCT, CTUIR) 11/10/16 11/14/2016
FY2017 Expense $48,404 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (SBT, CCT, CTUIR) 11/10/16 11/14/2016
FY2017 Expense $13,370 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (SBT, CCT, CTUIR) 11/10/16 11/14/2016
FY2017 Expense $174,581 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (Idaho, CRITFC, CCT, CTUIR, YN) 3/24/2017 03/24/2017
FY2018 Expense $0 From: Post 2018 – Umatilla FY18 Initial Planning Budgets (WS, CTUIR, YN, CRITFC, CCT, ID) 2/10/2017 02/13/2017

Pending Budget Decision?  No


No Project Cost Share

FY2016 0 %
FY2015 0 %
FY2014 0 %
FY2013 0 %
FY2012 0 %
FY2011 0 %
FY2010 0 %
FY2009 0 %
FY2008 0 %
FY2007 0 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
71981 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 2002-030-00 EXP PROGENY MARKER FOR SALMONIDS Issued $340,877 1/1/2016 - 3/31/2017



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):22
Completed:4
On time:4
Status Reports
Completed:48
On time:25
Avg Days Late:38

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
12037 20590, 24747, 35208, 38818, 45868, 53059, 56109, 60143, 64079, 68014, 71981 2002-030-00 PROGENY MARKER FOR SALMONIDS Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 10/2002 10/2002 Issued 48 86 0 0 59 145 59.31% 0
Project Totals 48 86 0 0 59 145 59.31% 0


Review: RME / AP Category Review

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 2002-030-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 2002-030-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2002-030-00
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: (62.5)
All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and
All Deleted RPA Associations (64.2)
Proponent Response:

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2002-030-00-ISRP-20101015
Project: 2002-030-00 - Salmonid Progeny Markers
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2002-030-00
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 answers to the ISRP questions were adequate. Completing the feasibility investigations with the field trials in Iskuulpa Creek is justified to bring the effort to a reasonable conclusion and to serve as the basis for any future management application. When this project began, otolith chemical marking was an alternative to genetically based parentage assignment. The genetic methods have since proven successful, and employing chemical marking alternative may or may not be cost effective.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
A response is requested on the following issues:

1. Describe in more detail the laboratory methods of strontium analysis and of parentage analysis that will be used. In the presentation Q&A the project leader said the Strontium analyses would be carried out at an OSU laboratory by project staff. The laboratory should be identified, and if OSU staff is to assist in the analyses and quality control they should be identified. The protocols for analysis should be identified. The project staff’s qualifications to perform the analysis should be given in the response.

2. The Parentage Analysis methods should be indicated. These analyses apparently will be done under contract by a genetics lab. The laboratory should be identified and some evidence of its qualifications should be given in the response. The protocols for the genetic analysis should be identified and some indication of the feasibility should be given.

3. What is the likely cost of strontium mark and recovery? What is the likely accuracy of detection of the strontium mark? The presentation provided some information not given in the proposal; it should be given in the response. How do these costs compare to those of genetic parentage analysis? What is known about the accuracy of genetic parentage analysis? How would the results of this research be applied to estimation of “Relative Reproductive Success” (of HOR and NOR steelhead) as used in the AHA model?

4. Extending the feasibility investigation from the laboratory to field is reasonable if adequate samples can be collected. Please indicate in the response how many adult steelhead can reliably be expected to be injected with strontium chloride at the project weir? Can tissues be collected from all adult steelhead?

5. The proposal suggests that 15 offspring otoliths/parent will be required. Will such large samples be required at the new dose rate of 20,000 and will such large samples be feasible given egg-to-fry survival rates in Iskuulpa Creek?

The purpose of the project is to investigate feasibility of strontium markers to assess relative reproductive success (RRS) in summer-run steelhead of the Umatilla (Iskuulpa Creek). The need for measurement of RRS was identified by ISRP in previous reviews as necessary for evaluation of supplementation. Demonstration of a technique in the laboratory has formed part of an MSc thesis of one of the project staff and is in review for peer-reviewed publication (TAFS). A comparison of accuracy and cost with another candidate technique, genetic parentage analysis, is part of the proposed project. Gravid steelhead are to be injected with strontium intraperitoneally, and elevated strontium is to be detected in natural origin offspring from Iskuulpa Creek in otolith primordia.

This proposal is to extend the feasibility investigation to a natural stream. Female hatchery steelhead will be injected with strontium chloride, and natural female steelhead will be sham injected. Otoliths from a sample of natural-origin progeny in the natural stream will be evaluated for strontium and assigned to either a hatchery or natural-origin female parent. The assignments will be cross-validated with genetic progeny assignments. The rationale for this project is a need for a more effective and efficient technique than genetic parentage analysis. The presentation was helpful. It clarified that the field dose would be 20,000 ppm rather than 5,000 ppm, a change resulting from analysis of lab experiments at OSU. There is a complete census possible at Iskuulpa Creek at the weir.

Other researchers pursuing similar research (Washington Department of Fisheries and Wildlife) have found it necessary to get permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to administer strontium to fish that are potentially harvested and eaten. While it’s not the ISRP purpose to review project permits, we recommend that the project leader communicate with them. The ISRP understands that Steve Schroder (WDFW) had an INAD for injecting gravid females with strontium. The CTUIR should be in touch with him. The INAD may still be in force and maybe CTUIR could readily get listed on it. Word is that USFWS may take on custody of the INAD. Having FDA permission might blunt any criticism about strontium as an artificial taggant.

The ISRP has questions on the project’s ability to collect sufficient numbers of marked offspring. The proposal suggests that 15 otoliths/parent will required. Will such large samples be required at the new dose rate of 20,000 ppm and will such large samples be feasible given egg-to-fry survival rates in Iskuulpa Creek?

As conceived now, the method applies to a single generation, but if the method could be extended to measure RRS in subsequent generations it would have more power.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (11/15/2010)

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2002-030-00-NPCC-20101105
Project: 2002-030-00 - Salmonid Progeny Markers
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-2002-030-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement through 2014. Implementation beyond 2014 based on ISRP and Council review of the results report and recommendation of future work.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #6 Research projects in general—.
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2002-030-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2002-030-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: RM&E to address supplementation issues; fishery managers authorized/required; some cost share or other remedy needed.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2002-030-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2002-030-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2002-030-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2002-030-00 - Salmonid Progeny Markers
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:
This is an innovative project with potential applicability and benefit to other projects and situations requiring estimation of reproductive success. Assessment of relative reproductive success and supplementation is a key issue in fish culture in the basin. Objectives are clear and tied in with a real world problem. Methods appear sound. The project is a few years old and has progressed from small scale lab testing to verify the utility and transmission of the elemental tag to a proposed field test. This phase of the project is the logical next step.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2002-030-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2002-030-00 - Salmonid Progeny Markers
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Interim funding pending further Council consideration of regional m&e framework.

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Julie Burke Administrative Contact Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Gary James Interested Party Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Travis Olsen Project Lead Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Gene Shippentower Supervisor Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Barbara Shields Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Carrie Crump Technical Contact Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Jerimiah Bonifer Interested Party Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)