FY 2002 Innovative proposal 34012
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 |
|---|---|
| 34012 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Sponsor a Smolt |
| Proposal ID | 34012 |
| Organization | Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation (MSRF) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Terry M. O'Reilly |
| Mailing address | PO Box 756 Winthrop, WA. 98862 |
| Phone / email | 5099962787 / msrf@methow.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Terry O'Reilly |
| Review cycle | FY 2002 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Methow |
| Short description | Develop a long-term self-sustaining interactive public sponsorship program for recovery efforts in the Methow Subbasin through the PTAGIS database system in conjunction with evaluation of the Twisp Steelhead Acclimation site. |
| Target species | Upper Columbia River Steelhead |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.3667 | -120.1778 | Twisp River mile 3.0 |
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 2002 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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Public Sponsorship Program Development. | Task 1a. Database Development and Management. | 18 | $16,374 | |
| Task 1b. Permitting. | 1 | $3,000 | Yes | |
| Task 1c. PIT tag 6,000 steelhead for the Twisp Acclimation Site. | 1 | $30,500 | Yes | |
| Task 1d. Marketing and project administration. | 18 | $8,187 |
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 2002 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 2002 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 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 0.2 | $12,400 |
| Fringe | Standard Employee Benefit Package: Medical/Dental Insurance, Social Security, Medicare, etc. | $6,820 |
| Supplies | Postage, Office Supplies, etc. | $100 |
| Travel | 900 miles @ $0.365/mile | $329 |
| Indirect | Indirect Overhead @25% | $4,912 |
| PIT tags | # of tags: 6000 PIT tags | $13,500 |
| NEPA | Section 10 Permit | $3,000 |
| Subcontractor | Biomark Inc. fees to PIT tag 6,000 juvenile steelhead | $17,000 |
| $58,061 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $58,061 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $58,061 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSRF | Twisp Acclimation Site | $600,000 | in-kind |
| WDFW | Wells Hatchery Facilities, PIT tag assitance, Acclimation Site Operation | $12,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Not innovative and not an adequate proposal. This proposal requests funds for project management and website development of a "sponsor a smolt" program. The project would develop a program of public sponsorship to create a funding base for pit tagging of smolts at an acclimation facility. Public sponsorship of the "sponsor a smolt" program is presented as the innovative part of the project. However, the proposal emphasizes the tagging rather than the public program. The project would not analyze the effectiveness of public involvement in funding.If the project were based on public involvement it would address questions like the following: What is the target level of smolt sponsorship? What sponsorship level would need to be achieved to create a permanent source of funds? What if only partial funds were raised? How would tagging activities be modified? The proposal reads as though funding to tag 6000 smolts is assured.
The project may not maintain public interest in sponsorship because the tagged fish will not be detectable for most of their lifecycle. Additionally, the proposers should consider whether the public would accept an average return rate of 1% or less on their investment of sponsorship. Is there a risk of them getting discouraged at this return on investment?
Comment:
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological BenefitEducational project - could be indirect benefit if public support of PIT tag program is high.
Comments
This proposal requests funds for project management and website development of a "sponsor a smolt" program. Public sponsorship of the "sponsor a smolt" program is presented as the innovative part of the project. However, the proposal emphasizes the tagging rather than the public program. The real question - whether this would be a viable funding source, is not addressed.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
No
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUEducational project - could be indirect benefit if public support of PIT tag program is high.
Comments
This proposal requests funds for project management and website development of a “sponsor a smolt” program. Public sponsorship of the “sponsor a smolt” program is presented as the innovative part of the project. However, the proposal emphasizes the tagging rather than the public program. The real question- whether this would be a viable funding source, is not addressed.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No