FY 1999 proposal 199005200
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Performance/Stock Productivity Impacts of Hatchery Supplementation |
| Proposal ID | 199005200 |
| Organization | Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Reg Reisenbichler |
| Mailing address | 6505 NE 65th St. Seattle, WA 98115 |
| Phone / email | 2065266282 / Reg_Reisenbichler@usgs.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Provide increased understanding of reputed failure of supplementation w/steelhead in Idaho's Clearwater River & an improved basis for planning/modifying supplementation programs & program evaluations by measuring genetic effects from artificial propagatio |
| Target species | Anadromous Oncorhynchus spp. (particularly steelhead and spring chinook salmon) throughout the Columbia River basin (and throughout their range). |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
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 |
|
$157,973 |
| Fringe |
|
$45,022 |
| Supplies |
|
$48,756 |
| Operating |
|
$11,832 |
| Travel |
|
$18,312 |
| Indirect |
|
$111,615 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$102,983 |
| $496,493 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $496,493 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $496,493 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Identify any constraints that may cause schedule changes. Describe major milestones if necessary. Arbitrary budget reductions, such as the arbitrary reduction of our budget for 1998 by $41,000, will postpone or preclude completion of objectives because we will have inadequate manpower to accomplish the field and lab work and report preparation.
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:
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 funding difference will be accommodated by reduced work load.
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This is an excellent study that ranked high in the set although the proposal quality could be improved. The objectives are written more as tasks but are well planned. The abstract is not adequate but the science is good. This project has been ongoing since around 1990 and should have provided a more specific description of results--where does the study stand now?