FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22014
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 |
|---|---|
| 22014 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Improving and Extending the Snake River Germplasm Repository |
| Proposal ID | 22014 |
| Organization | University of Idaho (UI) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Dr. Joseph Cloud |
| Mailing address | Department of Biological Sciences, University of Idaho Moscow, ID 83844-3051 |
| Phone / email | 2088856388 / jcloud@uidaho.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | Brian Farmer |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | The fertility of sperm cryopreserved in large (5 ml) straws will be improved and the female germplasm of shinook salmon will be cryopreserved and stored. |
| Target species | chinook salmon; steelhead |
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: 8.0 months of summer salary for PI (Cloud), two graduate students (48 months each) | $184,227 |
| Fringe | Benefits for the above three employees | $17,488 |
| Supplies | Supplies to freeze gametes / embryos / ovaries and to culture lymphocytes | $23,000 |
| Travel | Travel to collect gametes / animals and attending a scientific meeting | $9,000 |
| Indirect | 47.0 % of direct costs | $121,126 |
| Other | Cost of animals and animal care | $24,000 |
| $378,841 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $378,841 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $378,841 |
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 is a collection of three projects, one of which (fine-tuning sperm cryopreservation protocols) is not innovative. The others (cryopreservation and transplantation of female germplasm) are extensions of techniques from other organisms and are innovative in the context of Pacific salmon. However, the panel was concerned that much of the work on female germplasm has a fairly small chance of meaningful success at this point in time, although recognizing that PI Cloud demonstrates preliminary progress in developing the innovative techniques and is acknowledged as the most competent expert on the preservation of salmon germ cells both regionally and nationally. The project is not explicitly tied to Subbasin or Regional Plans, but one can surmise that the techniques would be valuable for ESU's in extremis. Whether that potential need warrants the expenditure is debatable and the reviewers questioned that the need was of highest priority.Comment:
Some populations are going to need these extreme measures. ISRP refutes this project based on the same reasons that this category of funding was established to address. High expense. Cryopreservation of female germplasm is the only need in this proposal.Comment:
Some populations are going to need these extreme measures. ISRP refutes this project based on the same reasons that this category of funding was established to address. High expense. Cryopreservation of female germplasm is the only need in this proposal.