FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22017

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
Experimental Management for Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook: Trade-offs Between Conservation and Learning for a Threatened Species	Narrative Attachment
Statistical relationship between Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon parr-to-smolt survival and indices of land use	Narrative Attachment
Additional narrative by Charles Paulsen	Narrative Attachment
22017 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Monitor and Evaluate Nutrient Supplementation as a Tool for Increasing Production and Survival of Juvenile Chinook Salmon from Infertile Streams
Proposal ID	22017
Organization	Paulson Environmental Research, Ltd. (PER Ltd.)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Charles M. Paulsen
Mailing address	16016 SW Boones Ferry Rd. #4 Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Phone / email	5036994115 / cpaulsen@teleport.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 2001 Innovative
Province / Subbasin	Mountain Snake /
Short description	Develop and implement a study to monitor the effects of nutrient supplementation using statistical methods and adult/parr enumeration and estimates of survival through tagging and recapture.
Target species	Chinook salmon

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
45.56	-115.36	Mountain Snake province

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: 0.3	$51,200
Fringe		$0
Supplies		$0
Travel		$0
Indirect		$0
Capital		$0
PIT tags	0	$0
Subcontractor	# of tags: Beak Consultants, Inc., T. Fisher - 0.25 FTE Support Staff - 0.2 FTE	$157,428
		$0
		$208,628

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$208,628
Total FY 2001 budget request	$208,628

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
Bonneville Power Administration	Fund an additional 50% of PER FTE	$25,600	cash

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:
Not a stand-alone project

Date:
Dec 15, 2000

Comment:

This proposal is innovative in that it would analyze nutrient supplementation on chinook salmon. This is not a stand-alone project, since it requires another innovative proposal (we assume 22002) to be funded, and thus raises questions about funding under the $400K cap. An experimental design is explained well, which can be tested for power analysis as more information is obtained. The project proponents to which this connects would be wise to consider this modeling approach and methods of evaluation with six treatment and control streams with well conceived plans for conducting the study. To do this the "parent" project would need to reduce costs and add the PI of this proposal in the budget. Information on accelerated growth, improved condition factor, parr to smolt survival, etc. will require a time frame likely beyond an adequate evaluation of feasibility of this project for the innovative proposals process.