Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Develop Tools to Evaluate the Effects of Selective Fisheries on Chinook |
| Proposal ID | 9083 |
| Organization | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | James B. Scott, Jr. |
| Mailing address | 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 103 Lacey, WA 98503 |
| Phone / email | 3607535820 / James.B.Scott@noaa.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Evaluate potential impact of selective fisheries on coastwide chinook management and stock assessment. |
| Target species | |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 8910800 |
Monitoring and Evaluation Modeling Support |
Complements this proposal by addressing the effects of oceanic conditions on fish migrations. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost |
|---|
| Subcontractor |
WDFW; ODFW; USFWS; NWIFC; ADF&G; University of Washington; University of Idaho |
$189,200 |
| $189,200 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $189,200 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $189,200 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
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.
Recommendation:
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Criteria 1: Technical Criteria - Yes
Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Yes
Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Yes
Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Yes:
Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Pending
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This is an adequate proposal ranked in the midrange of the set. There is a programmatic need for this study because the present coded wire tag system makes various assumptions about non-selective fisheries and equal distribution of catch. If the region were to use a selective fishery it would wipe out the current assumptions. The proposal is well linked to the Fish and Wildlife Program measures by number and in text. The proposal cites Gorton amendment requirement for consideration of ocean conditions. However, the proposal contains several weaknesses. The background data on what was done for coho is administrative rather than technical. Facilities are not described so that they can be evaluated for adequacy. Objective 2 does not have tasks. Methods could be better explained, and built-in monitoring and evaluation should be provided. The principal investigator is listed as full time when we know he has other projects based on reviewed proposals. It appears he is well over 100% committed; thus, other personnel need to be identified. The proposal needs to be coordinated with 8910800, 9601900 and 9018.