FY 1999 proposal 9143

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
9143 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Evaluate Disease Interactions Between Wild and Hatchery Salmonids
Proposal ID	9143
Organization	Oregon State University, Department of Microbiology (OSU)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Dr. Linda M. Bootland
Mailing address	Rm 528 Nash Hall, Dept. Microbiolgy, Oregon State Univ. Corvallis,OR 97331
Phone / email	5417371860 / bootlanl@bcc.orst.edu
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 1999
Province / Subbasin	Systemwide / Systemwide
Short description	This research addresses the role disease plays in the survival of wild salmon and whether hatchery fish negatively impact wild fish either directly, by transmitting pathogens and disease, or indirectly, by reducing the fitness of wild fish.
Target species

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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost
Personnel	Bootland $27,756, Bartholomew $12,336, RA @.33 FTE $15,688, 2 RA $52,308	$108,088
Fringe	@41% to 51%	$49,623
Supplies	PCR reagents, tissue culture reagents, ELISA kits, plasticware	$24,000
Travel	local travel to collection sites, partial travel to one national meeting for each PI	$3,000
Indirect	@42.5%	$84,877
Subcontractor	USFWS	$15,000
		$284,588

Total estimated budget

Total FY 1999 cost	$284,588
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 1999 budget request	$284,588
FY 1999 forecast from 1998	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

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:
CBFWA: Nonwatershed Technical Group Comments

Recommendation:

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Criteria 1: Technical Criteria - Yes

Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Yes

Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Yes

Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Yes:

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Pending

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 1998-1)

Recommendation:
Adequate

Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

The proposal is adequate and ranked in the upper midrange of the set. It has good planned collaboration and well-referenced science. The OSU facilities are especially good. However, the problem is not well defined and thus the need for the work is not persuasively stated. The proposal needs to better describe which pathogens and diseases would be studied (list differs between survey and challenges).