FY 2000 proposal 20012

Additional documents

TitleType
20012 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleDevelop New Technology for Telemetry and Remote Sensing of Fish Quality
Proposal ID20012
OrganizationOregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (OCFWRU)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameCarl B. Schreck
Mailing addressDept. of Fisheries and Wildlife, OSU; 104 Nash Hall Corvallis, OR 97331
Phone / email5417371938 / Carl.Schreck@orst.edu
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionDevelop, verify, and field test a new telemetry system (named "FIELD-OP") which is triggered by fixed or mobile transmitter stations to download real-time or stored position, depth, temperature, and fish quality data to receivers.
Target speciesAdult salmon, though applicable to all mid-sized or larger fish and wildlife species, with miniaturization potential for smolt-sized individuals.
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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel Includes a research asst., grad. Student, and fish-culturist; all part-time $39,660
Fringe Rate ranges from 1-52%, depending on position $14,692
Supplies Telemetry equipment $6,000
Operating MicroProbes, sample analysis, fish holding, etc... $19,050
Travel International and domestic $8,500
Indirect 43%, excluding tuition, equipment, and subcontract >$25,000, for Oregon State University $45,968
Other Tuition $3,820
Subcontractor Star Oddi for system development $186,000
$323,690
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$323,690
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$323,690
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Star Oddi Development Costs (includes other external sources; only FY2000 listed) $646,000 unknown
USGS-Biological Resources Division 15% PI's time (only FY2000 listed) $30,000 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: ESA permitting may constrain validation and field work.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fund (medium priority)
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Fund (medium priority)

Comments: This innovative system may well have applications to high priority regional programs. At present, it is not directly linked to existing projects. There are many technical problems to be overcome before the worth of the system for examining meaningful research questions is established. The objectives present a clear progression. Tasks are clearly defined but details for monitoring and evaluating results are inadequate. Proposed statistical methods for the example research question are not appropriate. Some of the examples of research questions that are proposed for addressing with the new system ignore confounding factors. The quality of a scientific discipline is directly proportional to the quality of its measurements. Advances in science follow soon after new measurement techniques are developed, as the field of genetics has so often proved in the last ten years. Field studies of the impact of ambient conditions on fish are usually circumstantial. Reliance on statistical inference and speculation about the relations between ambient conditions and fish behavior and physiology can not substitute for direct measurement. The ability to measure ambient conditions with respect to individual fish would be a great breakthrough. The PI and his associates appear well qualified and suited to the tasks. But this is a developmental program, which seeks to make great strides in miniaturization and integration of functions. The exact outcome from the project cannot be predicted with certainty. The breakthrough would be to measure the relation of ambient conditions on stress. To raise the priority of the proposal, they need to address the sensitivity of the microprobe to detect meaningful differences in stress indicators under the conditions of the proposal. There should be a link of this project to survival studies.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Technical Criteria 1: Met? yes -

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? no - Dependent on the ability to develop the prototype. Application will be sample size limited.

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? yes -

Resource Criteria 4: Met? yes -


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

#1-research on this topic is not a priority. #2-basic research. #3-in-kind. #5-other alternatives were not adequate. #6-but possible in the future. New & innovative research.
Recommendation:
Rank 24
Date:
Oct 8, 1999

Comment:

Rank Comments: This important proposal has the potential for systemwide significance and to improve existing monitoring projects for migration depth, water temperature, and fish quality.
Recommendation:
Rank 24
Date:
Oct 8, 1999

Comment:

This important proposal has the potential for systemwide significance and to improve existing monitoring projects for migration depth, water temperature, and fish quality.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 2-2-00 Council Meeting];