FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22031

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 / Don_Campton@fws.gov
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.

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 2000-10)

Recommendation:
Not innovative, but good prop

Date:
Dec 15, 2000

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.