FY 1999 proposal 198906500

Additional documents

TitleType
198906500 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleAnnual Fish Marking - Missing Hatchery Production Groups
Proposal ID198906500
OrganizationU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameWalt Ambrogetti
Mailing address9317 Hwy. 99, Suite I Vancouver, WA 98665
Phone / email3606967605 / Walter_Ambrogetti@mail.fws.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinSystemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionMark various groups of fish for BPA funded projects, report mark/unmarked ratios to PSMFC, sample all fish to recover coded-wire tags, & estimate group survival, contribution to fisheries, stray rate of hatchery fish, smolt migration speed, etc.
Target speciesSalmonids
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 $129,298
Fringe $50,282
Supplies $69,405
Operating $54,932
Tag $73,950
Travel $21,593
Subcontractor $0
$399,460
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$399,460
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$399,460
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: N/A


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 - Yes

Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Yes

Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Yes:


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

The FY 99 budget request is in error and should be $501,995. If funded at $399k, the PIT tags ($73,950) will need to be purchased from another account, spring chinook at Entiat NFH ($29,600) will not be marked.
Recommendation:
Inadequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This is a poor proposal that ranked low in the set. The writers did not follow instructions on preparation of the proposal. The basic marking is a good idea, but the proposal contains loosely related objectives and is poorly written. This proposal includes objectives 4 and 5 on rearing upriver brights fall and spring chinook, but these objectives are not closely related to the title. The proposal title is archaic and sensible only if you know the project history. How can the groups be missing if they are being marked? There is not an adequate explanation of "missing." The proposal appears to duplicate project number 8201300 (Coded Wire Tag Recovery Program) and needs coordination (independent review?) with other coded-wire tag proposals. A rethinking of the whole coded-wire tag program may be needed to bring it up to date.