FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22031
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 |
---|---|
22031 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Evaluation of Two Captive Rearing Methods for Assisting with Recovery of Naturally Spawning Populations of Steelhead and Coho Salmon. |
Proposal ID | 22031 |
Organization | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Donald E. Campton |
Mailing address | Abernathy Fish Technology Center (AFTC), 1440 Abernathy Creek Road Longview, WA 98632 |
Phone / email | 3604256072 / [email protected] |
Manager authorizing this project | Carl V. Burger, Director, AFTC |
Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Systemwide |
Short description | (1) Develop a native broodstock of steelhead via captive rearing to sexual maturity of natural-origin, age 0+ juveniles and (2) short-term rearing of pre-smolt, natural-origin coho salmon to increase survival and provide fish for reintroduction programs. |
Target species | Steelhead and coho 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 |
---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | FTE: 2.8 | $89,199 |
Fringe | 35% | $31,220 |
Supplies | Chemicals, fish food, electricity | $15,000 |
Indirect | 34.2%; includes items listed below | $67,295 |
Capital | Backpack electroshocker, Rotary screw smolt trap, Microplate reader | $33,600 |
PIT tags | 2,500 | $6,000 |
Subcontractor | # of tags: Genetic analyses: NMFS | $18,000 |
Other | PIT-tagging labor (USFWS Vancouver office) | $3,750 |
Other | NOTE: See itemized budget at end of proposal. | $0 |
$264,064 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost | $264,064 |
Total FY 2001 budget request | $264,064 |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This proposal is not recommended for support through the innovative review process because it does not meet the innovative criteria. It relies on standard practices even though it addresses a long-standing critical uncertainty. It is a well written and well designed proposal that would be of value to the region. Consequently, the project deserves "high priority" support through other venues, particularly for its application to upriver (ID) listed steelhead stocks. The proposal is technically sound, and the PI competent and meticulous. The proposal is particularly attractive because it proposes to rigorously examine the effects of hatchery rearing on fitness - a continuing, plaguing uncertainty in the basin's artificial production programs.Comment:
Agree with ISRP comments.Comment:
Agree with ISRP comments.