FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22028

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
22028 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Design and Coordinate Nutrient Supplementation Evaluations in the Salmon and Clearwater Subbasins, Idaho
Proposal ID	22028
Organization	Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Steve Yundt
Mailing address	600 S. Walnut St., P.O. Box 25 Boise, ID 83707
Phone / email	2083343791 / syundt@idfg.state.id.us
Manager authorizing this project	Virgil Moore
Review cycle	FY 2001 Innovative
Province / Subbasin	Mountain Snake / Salmon
Short description	Produce an experimental design for nutrient supplementation investigationsthat coordinates projects over a number of project sponsors and broad geographic area, and identifies specific information needs so multiple projects are complementary.
Target species	chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout, cutthroat trout, resident rainbow/steelhead trout

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
45	-114.98	Salmon subbasin
46.44	-115.65	Clearwater subbasin

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: 1.25 (1 full time research biologist and 3 months bio-aide)	$42,656
Fringe	rate determined by state	$13,067
Supplies	office supplies, communications, printing, laptop computer, other misc. costs	$6,300
Travel	with-in state: meetings, coordination	$2,580
Indirect	state determined rate = 20.9%	$12,979
Capital		$0
PIT tags	0	$0
Subcontractor	# of tags: none	$0
Other	none	$0
		$77,582

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$77,582
Total FY 2001 budget request	$77,582

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.

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 2000-10)

Recommendation:
Not Innovative

Date:
Dec 15, 2000

Comment:

This is not innovative research and is weaker than the other fertilization proposals. It does offer a good suggestion towards development of an experimental design. The ad-hoc committee might be better served by considering a workshop approach (see general comments in the proposal review process) where the question is clearly defined (e.g. inorganic nutrients increase smolt yield), response variables are chosen (e.g., smolt yield), and a method of addressing the question is developed, based on the best available evidence (much of the pertinent literature was missed in this proposal, e.g., Johnston et al 1990) and model approaches to identify key uncertainties