FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22005

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
22005 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	An experimental evaluation of nutrient supplementation on juvenile salmonid fish abundance in nutrient-limited streams
Proposal ID	22005
Organization	Idaho State University (ISU)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Ernest R. Keeley
Mailing address	Box 8007, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University Pocatello, ID, 83209
Phone / email	2082824458 / keelerne@isu.edu
Manager authorizing this project	Richard L. Bowen, President
Review cycle	FY 2001 Innovative
Province / Subbasin	Mountain Snake / Salmon
Short description	Evaluate the effect of low-level fertilzation on the abundance of organisms in nutrient deficient streams and quantify changes in space requirements and habitat quality for salmonid fishes.
Target species	steelhead trout, chinook salmon, bull trout, aquatic invertebrates, periphyton

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
45.3177	-114.4478	Owl Creek
44.8699	-113.6256	Hayden Creek
45.3988	-114.1681	Squaw Creek
45.3998	-114.1678	Indian Creek
45.4047	-113.9935	North Fork
45.25	-113.8994	Carmen Creek
45.2741	-114.3339	Beaver Creek
45.2501	-114.3187	Trail Creek
45.3157	-114.4047	Panther Creek
44.7721	-113.7073	Bear Valley Creek

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: 1 full-time biologist, 2 graduate students, 2 summer assistants, 1 month Keeley, 1 month Smith	$229,191
Fringe	23% for 1 FTE, 8.9% for students and summer assts, insurance, tuition fees	$69,166
Supplies	Electroshocker, block nets, dry suits, drift nets, fertilizer & drip system , sample bottle, preserv	$30,851
Travel	Vehicle rental, fuel, per diem field costs,travel to scientific meetings	$13,200
Indirect	20% on all salaries and wages	$45,838
Other	equip. maintenance costs, water chemistry analysis	$10,000
		$398,246

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$398,246
Total FY 2001 budget request	$398,246

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
ISU	Indirect costs at reduced rate (20% vs. 48.7%)	$34,672	in-kind
USDA - FS	equipment and support staff	$10,000	in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 2000-10)

Recommendation:
19; Yes - B

Date:
Dec 15, 2000

Comment:

Although this is a sound proposal with a good experimental design, it is not truly innovative because the work has, for the most part, been done in the Keogh River and published in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. It is marginally innovative in that it meets the solicitation criteria that it has not been done in the Columbia. Nitrogen and phosphate is limiting and the addition of fry to the experimental sites will aid the evaluation if they distribute evenly. There is more detail on mechanism (e.g., territory size, feeding) than is necessary in a management experiment but there are also scientific benefits in utilizing graduate students, so there is a trade-off. This is an appropriate proposal for academic research on the mechanisms of fish response to increased food availability, the role of nutrients in the stream ecosystem, and the functional relationships through lower trophic levels. It is presented by well-qualified investigators. The level of detail proposed may not be required in a test of the application of nutrient addition to Columbia River systems as a recovery tool.