FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22058
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 |
|---|---|
| 22058 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Experimental Selective Fishery Techniques Development, Evaluation, and Coordination |
| Proposal ID | 22058 |
| Organization | National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Regional Office, Sustainable Fisheries Division (NMFS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Robert E. Bayley |
| Mailing address | 525 N.E. Oregon Street, Suite 510 Portland, OR 97232 |
| Phone / email | 5032305432 / robert.bayley@noaa.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | Bill Robinson, Assistant Regional Administrator |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Design and/or solicit proposals, and coordinate development and testing of selective fishery techniques in the Columbia River Basin, evaluating short- and long- term mortalities of non-target fish encountered during effort directed at harvestable species. |
| Target species | Salmon and steelhead species, primarily chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), steelhead (O. mykiss), and coho (O. kisutch) |
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 | FTE: n/a | $0 |
| Fringe | n/a | $0 |
| Supplies | n/a | $0 |
| Travel | n/a | $0 |
| Indirect | n/a | $0 |
| Capital | n/a | $0 |
| PIT tags | n/a | $0 |
| Subcontractor | # of tags: n/a | $0 |
| Other | Funding of proposals | $400,000 |
| $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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| National Marine Fisheries Service | Project Management and Coordination | $0 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This proposal focuses on the solicitation and coordination of projects evaluating selective fishing techniques. It describes a useful coordination function, but does not meet the innovative criteria. Coordination per se is not innovative. A single budget figure is provided without any justification for its derivation.Comment:
Agree with ISRP comments.Comment:
Agree with ISRP comments.