FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22030

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
22030 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Delayed mortality: Assess cumulative effects of multiple, sublethal stressors on the physiological health of downmigrating juvenile salmonids
Proposal ID	22030
Organization	Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Dr. S. Marshall Adams And Dr. Mark S. Bevelhimer
Mailing address	Oak Ridge National Laboratory, PO Box 2008 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6036
Phone / email	8655747316 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	Dr. J.M. Loar
Review cycle	FY 2001 Innovative
Province / Subbasin	Systemwide / Systemwide
Short description	Conduct laboratory experiments to determine cumulative effects of stressors such as gas supersaturation, physical trauma, and elevated temperatures on the physiological health and condition of downmigrating juvenile salmonids leading to delayed mortality
Target species	Chinook salmon, steelhead/rainbow trout and other migratory salmonids

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description

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: PI # 1 (Adams) - 0.25 PI # 2 (Bevelhimer)- 0.33 Technician - 0.33	$105,000
Fringe	Principal Investigators- 34K Technician- 14K	$48,000
Supplies	continuous WQ monitors, chillers, analytical test supplies, dissolved gas & temp contollers, etc.	$29,000
Travel		$7,000
Indirect	PIs & tech.=41%= 64K Materials=18%=5K offsite subs= 4%=2K onsite subs=43%=17K	$88,000
Capital	none	$0
PIT tags	none	$0
Subcontractor	# of tags: Graduate student-25K Selected bioindicator analysis performed by the Univ. of Tenn.- 40K	$65,000
Other		$0
		$342,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$342,000
Total FY 2001 budget request	$342,000

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
ORNL	Bioindicator analysis instrumentation; stream tank experimental system	$0	in-kind
Univ. of Tennessee	Bioindicator analysis instrumentation; fish hauling truck	$0	in-kind
Tenessee Wildlife Resources Agency	fish (juvenile rainbow trout)	$0	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:
Yes - B

Date:
Dec 15, 2000

Comment:

This proposal is an innovative approach to an important problem. The project is fundable if some salmon can be added to some of the treatment levels to calibrate the study (e.g., some salmon might be added to the control and high stress treatments). Presently the study plan relies on hatchery-reared rainbow trout. The biggest issue is recognized by the sponsors, namely that trout not salmon would be used as the test units and the study would not be conducted in the Pacific Northwest. They have an excellent facility for conduct of the study. The proposal lacks details in the design in that it never comments on what the physical stressor is and how the recovery environment is managed. Specific Comments and Questions: ? The proposed study provides a logical laboratory approach to help reduce the nagging uncertainty of the existence of delayed mortality for emigrating juvenile salmon in the Columbia River. ? The sponsors should recognize the study as a 2 X 3 cubed factorial experiment: 2 levels for constant and intermittent exposure and 3 levels (control, low and high) for each of gas, temperature and trauma. This results in 2 x 3 cubed = 54 treatment combinations, perhaps using blocks of 8 units (tanks) over time. ? The sponsor may be trying to do too much in a pilot "innovative" project. For example, it may be better to show some effects then study the intermittent exposure level?