FY 1999 proposal 199105500
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Supplementation Fish Quality (Yakima) |
| Proposal ID | 199105500 |
| Organization | National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Thomas A. Flagg |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 130 Manchester, WA 98353 |
| Phone / email | 2065534208 / Tom.Flagg@NOAA.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Yakima |
| Short description | Develop and evaluate fish culture techniques (seminatural raceway habitat, predator avoidance training, exercise, live food diets, etc.) for a natural rearing enhancement system that increases the postrelease survival of artificially propogated salmon. |
| Target species | Columbia River spring/summer/fall chinook salmon and steelhead |
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 |
|---|
| 9701300 |
Yakima Cle Elum Hatchery O & M |
Strategies being developed under NATURES are implemented in YKFP test of supplementation. |
| 8335000 |
Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery O & M |
Strategies being developed under NATURES are planned to be used in the Nez Perce Hatchery. |
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 |
|
$154,000 |
| Fringe |
|
$28,000 |
| Supplies |
|
$60,600 |
| Operating |
|
$28,000 |
| Capital |
|
$57,000 |
| Tag |
6000 |
$17,400 |
| Travel |
|
$18,000 |
| Indirect |
|
$54,000 |
| Subcontractor |
N.A. |
$83,000 |
| $500,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $500,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $500,000 |
| 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: The schedule may be modified when new ideas offering solutions to problems arise. The main constraints that may cause schedule changes are the level of funding and the accessibility of production-scale facilities to evaluate smolt-to-adult survival.
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:
Recommendation:
YKFP Inadequate proposal, adequate purpose as a set
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This is a well-organized proposal for needed work. The proposal appears to be overly optimistic in its projection of the amount of work that can be accomplished.