FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22029
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 |
|---|---|
| 22029 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate the ecological role of marine derived nutrients in areas artificially blocked to anadromous fish migrations. |
| Proposal ID | 22029 |
| Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CCT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Kirk Truscott |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 150 Nespelem, WA 99155 |
| Phone / email | 5096342115 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Kirk Truscott |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Inter-Mountain / San Poil |
| Short description | This study proposes to simulate anadromous fish carcasses with artificial fertilizer and assess the affects to resident/adfluvial salmonids. Results will be applicable throughout the west in anadromous, non-anadromous, and blocked areas. |
| Target species | Kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) Rainbow trout (O. mykiss) |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.3012 | -118.7288 | South Nanamkin Creek |
| 48.135 | -118.6909 | Iron Creek |
| 48.312 | -118.732 | North Nanamkin Creek |
| 48.1958 | -118.7085 | Louie 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: Fish Tech 0.25 FTE @ $17.86/hr | $9,287 |
| Fringe | 26% of personnel | $2,415 |
| Indirect | 39.6% of Personnel | $3,677 |
| Subcontractor | # of tags: J-U-B Environmental Group. Project design/implementation. 1,175 hours @ $60/hr | $70,500 |
| Other | THIS BUDGET REFLECTS THE ANTICIPATED COSTS OF YEAR 1 ONLY. | $0 |
| $85,879 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $85,879 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $85,879 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| CCT | Fisheries staff coordination/oversight | $10,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This is marginally innovative in that it has not been done in the Columbia and that it would be applied to a resident/adfluvial population. This would be a useful implementation in the subbasin, if so identified in subbasin plans. As a test for resident trout and some kokanee, this is an adequate study. However, detailed study of response in all of the lower trophic levels is likely unnecessary. Trough experiments are more appropriate for the latter studies, at a much smaller and less costly scale.Comment:
Does not determine if streams require nutrient input before addition of nutrients, nor does it test concentrations of nutrients. Budget exceeds $400,000 over the duration of the study. See general nutrient supplementation comments in report.Comment:
Does not determine if streams require nutrient input before addition of nutrients, nor does it test concentrations of nutrients. Budget exceeds $400,000 over the duration of the study. See general nutrient supplementation comments in report.