FY 1999 proposal 9063

Additional documents

TitleType
9063 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleOcean Survival of Salmonids Relative to Migrational Timing, Fish Health…
Proposal ID9063
OrganizationNational Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NMFS/NWFSC)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameMichael Schiewe, Ph.D.
Mailing address2725 Montlake Blvd. East Seattle, WA 98112
Phone / email2068603270 / michael.schiewe@noaa.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinMainstem / Ocean/estuary
Short descriptionMeasure the effects of time of entry and smolt quality, food habits, growth, and bioenergetic status of juvenile coho and chinook salmon on survival in relation to oceanographic features of the nearshore ocean environment associated with Columbia River
Target speciesChinook (ocean & stream type) and coho (when available)
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 1999 cost
Personnel $87,300
Fringe $30,600
Supplies $35,000
Operating $1,200
Capital $38,000
Travel $3,500
Indirect $36,600
Subcontractor $545,000
Other $11,000
$788,200
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$788,200
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$788,200
FY 1999 forecast from 1998$0
% change from forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: ESA Section 7 permit for collection of juvenile salmon in the nearshore ocean. Charter of suitable vessel for collection of juvenile salmon in the nearshore ocean.


Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Comments:

Criteria 1: Technical Criteria - Yes

Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Incomplete: Expand proposal to explain exactly how survival is to be measured and related to growth rate.

Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Yes

Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Yes:


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

The AFM recommend funding this project at $300K from the ESA Reserve Account through FY00; therefore the CBFWA recommendation for Direct Program Funding is $0.00
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This proposal is very well written and well conceived. Other related research is well described. The CORIE system raises concerns and is a major portion of the proposal’s first year budget. The proposal does not describe or justify where the 12 stations will be located. Monitoring is not well described. The proposal is ambitious and perhaps should be run on a pilot basis for a year or two to see what is possible. Is BPA the appropriate funding source for this proposal? Does it match the Council RFP?