FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22056
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 22056 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Development of Salmon DNA Finger Printing Microarrays |
| Proposal ID | 22056 |
| Organization | Battelle Pacific NW Laboratories (Battelle) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Darrell Chandler |
| Mailing address | PO Box 999 Richland, WA 99352 |
| Phone / email | 5093768644 / |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | |
| Target species | Chinook, Coho, and Steelhead |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $84,545 | |
| Fringe | $22,065 | |
| Supplies | $42,000 | |
| Travel | $13,050 | |
| Indirect | $202,330 | |
| Subcontractor | $30,000 | |
| Other | $6,010 | |
| $400,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $400,000 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $400,000 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Innovative, apparently with a high probability of success. If successful, the technique may offer widespread applicability. This is a technically robust proposal with very competent personnel. The study proposes to bring an innovative new genetic assay technique into Columbia River salmon management and provide "real - time" analysis. Most genetic analyses require weeks or months for turn around time, rather than hours or a few days as this technique promises. The technique also provides high genetic resolution, down to the family line or pedigree level usually associated with DNA fingerprinting. While technically, the proposal was one of the two or three best proposals in the review, it suffered from weak ties to the Fish and Wildlife Program and little discussion of specific management applications. The PI's overstate both the level of inference that will be provided by the genetic results (i.e., fitness, stock ID, etc.) and the way the technique will be used by managers to inform and guide fisheries decisions. One would hope that this will be the case someday, but presently it is not the case. Despite the proposal's claim, most fisheries managers we know will not "make near-real time decisions on hydropower operations based on genetic (chip-based) stock identification data." The proposal would probably have fared better in the review process had it proposed to develop the DNA microarray for specific populations or taxa, such as chinook and steelhead, and to have tested its efficacy on specific steelhead stocks associated with hatchery broodstock development or with an ongoing supplementation program. The assay probably has great potential in supplementation studies to track hatchery and wild stocks and to assay genetic interactions between them.Comment:
The CBFWA generally agrees with the ISRP comments. If this project were successful, there could potentially be many applications for this technique.Comment:
The CBFWA generally agrees with the ISRP comments. If this project were successful, there could potentially be many applications for this technique.