FY 2001 Innovative proposal 200105500
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 |
|---|---|
| 22047 Narrative | Narrative |
| Mountain Snake: Salmon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Mountain Snake: Salmon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Salmonid response to fertilization: an experimental evaluation of alternative methods of fertilization |
| Proposal ID | 200105500 |
| Organization | National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Beth L. Sanderson |
| Mailing address | NWFSC, 2725 Montlake Blvd. East Seattle, WA 98115 |
| Phone / email | 2068603410 / Beth.Sanderson@noaa.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | John Williams and Phil Roni |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Experimentally evaluate the effects of marine derived nutrients on populations of Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon using three enhancement strategies: carcasses, carcass analogs, and inorganic nutrients |
| Target species | spring/summer chinook |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Sweeney Creek | ||
| 45.47 | -114.96 | Salmon River |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS/BPA | Action 183 | NMFS | Initiate at least three tier 3 studies (each necessarily comprising several sites) within each ESU (a single action may affect more than one ESU). In addition, at least two studies focusing on each major management action must take place within the Columbia River basin. The Action Agencies shall work with NMFS and the Technical Recovery Teams to identify key studies in the 1-year plan. Those studies will be implemented no later than 2003. |
| NMFS/BPA | Action 183 | NMFS | Initiate at least three tier 3 studies (each necessarily comprising several sites) within each ESU (a single action may affect more than one ESU). In addition, at least two studies focusing on each major management action must take place within the Columbia River basin. The Action Agencies shall work with NMFS and the Technical Recovery Teams to identify key studies in the 1-year plan. Those studies will be implemented no later than 2003. |
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: 3.85 | $122,500 |
| Fringe | $27,900 | |
| Supplies | $63,100 | |
| Travel | $53,600 | |
| Indirect | $92,900 | |
| Subcontractor | $40,000 | |
| $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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | personnel | $115,500 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
The proposal is innovative because it compared three sources of enrichment and the application to a chinook salmon population is new. This proposal is statistically rigorous. It correctly considers mesocosms in the field and uses field sites already studied by NMFS (PIT tag survival studies). The rationale and tie to the BiOp was good. A good experimental design with experimental channels and appropriate facilities for a technique likely applicable to the Snake River was incorporated in the proposal, but perhaps the design is superfluous in some aspects. To compare three enhancement strategies, the level of detail proposed could be decreased. The leaf litter experiments seemed to add little, and the detailed evaluation of condition factor, to the point of examining fish livers, may be unnecessary. Many such details might be reduced considerably by focusing on alternate response variables. Because of these concerns, the ISRP suggest that the work might be funded at a reduced level from the proposed budget. During discussion of the proposal, some additional minor concerns and questions were noted: 1. The target (and background) N and P levels should be specified. 2. The sponsors recognized the limitations of detecting a response through PIT-tagging, where approximately 2000 parr must be tagged. The ISRP suggested that the yield of smolts might be a more reasonable response variable. 3. Could adult and life stage modeling as well as the cost-benefit work come later?Comment:
See general nutrient supplementation comments in report.Comment:
See general nutrient supplementation comments in report.Comment:
Comment:
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
expense
Date:
May 2005
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $35,000 | $0 | $0 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website