FY 2000 proposal 20047

Additional documents

TitleType
20047 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleEnhancement of salmonid gamete quality by manipulation of intracellular ATP
Proposal ID20047
OrganizationUniversity of Idaho (UI)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameRolf L. Ingermann
Mailing addressDepartment of Biological Sciences Moscow, ID 83844-3051
Phone / email2088856280 / rolfi@uidaho.edu
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionDevelop methods to enhance the short-term storage of unfrozen salmonid gametes and improve the quality of salmonid eggs and nonactivated, activated, and cryopreserved sperm.
Target speciesOncorhynchus tshawytscha (chinook) and Oncorhynchus mykiss (steelhead/rainbow)
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
Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection: Genetic Retrieval from Single Sperm (Dr. Project Participant
Endocrine Control of Ovarian Development in Salmonids (Dr. James J. Nagler) Project Participant
Analyzing Genetic and Behavioral Changes During Salmonid Domestication (Dr. Project Participant
Induction of Precocious Sexual Maturity and Enhanced Egg Production in Fish Project Participant

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 Rolf Ingermann (3.0 mo); Joseph Cloud (1.0 mo), (James Nagler after FY2000), 1 Technician (12.0 mo), $76,000
Fringe RLI, JGC, Tech: 28.5%, GS: 1%, UGS: 1% during school year, 9% during summer $16,410
Supplies Supplies (7,000), NMR & Flow Cytometer use (6,000) $13,000
Operating Graduate Student Tuition & Fees (2,500), Vehicle Rental (1,000), Publication Costs, Xeroxing, Graphi $8,000
Capital Equipment: Microcentrifuge (2,500), Laboratory Computer (2,500) $5,000
Travel $3,000
Indirect 44.7% $56,505
Other Center for Reproductive Biology Administrative Core (5,000) $5,000
$182,915
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$182,915
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$182,915
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: None


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Do not fund. The proposal does not justify programmatic need.

Comments: From a scientific standpoint this is a well-designed study with specific, measurable objectives. The concept of ATP as a screening tool to predict motility and fertilizing ability of salmonid sperm and eggs is presented in a convincingly manner. The proposal systematically aligns scientific hypotheses, tasks, anticipated results, potential problems and corrective actions and assessment/evaluation approaches Reviewers disagree however whether it would have practical applicability in improving the efficiency of using gamete samples for increased artificial and wild production of fish populations.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Criteria all: Met? yes - Question the applicability of this research.
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Sounds like pure theoretical research. Unclear what the application is for the recovery of listed species.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];