FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22004

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
22004 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Impact of wastewater effluent on Chinook salmon reproduction
Proposal ID	22004
Organization	Komex-H2O Science, Inc.
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Rob Traylor
Mailing address	5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1102
Phone / email	7143791157 / rtraylor@losangeles.komex.com
Manager authorizing this project	Rob Traylor
Review cycle	FY 2001 Innovative
Province / Subbasin	Systemwide / Systemwide
Short description	The project objective is to discover the types and concentration of pollutants in wastewater discharged in the Lower Columbia River Basin and Columbia Gorge and the toxicity of selected groups of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals on Chinook salmon.
Target species	Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

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: 12 months	$176,000
Fringe		$0
Supplies		$0
Travel	International & local flights, plus vehical hire	$15,750
Indirect	Administration & management	$22,218
Capital		$0
PIT tags		$0
Subcontractor	# of tags: DHI laboratory fees, courier costs + handling charges (partly interchangable with BTU)	$121,388
Other	BTU laboratory fees, courier costs + handling charges (partly interchangeable with DHI)	$33,171
	Office & accommodation	$24,000
		$392,527

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$392,527
Total FY 2001 budget request	$392,527

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:
Yes - C

Date:
Dec 15, 2000

Comment:

A proposal to study endocrine disrupters in the basin as a potential cause of salmon population disruptions is timely. The panel noted that Nagler, (University of Idaho and colleagues, in press) has demonstrated a high proportion of phenotypic females among genotypic males in Columbia River chinook salmon. It seems there is unnatural sex reversal occurring; and the culprit may well be EDC's in wastewater, the subject of this proposal. However, this proposal lacks many features that would make it high priority for funding. It is a very large project without preliminary work, and without demonstrated preliminary knowledge from published databases about the likely amount of contamination in the River. The proposed methods will not address the objective indicated in the title, i.e. whether or not contaminants are affecting reproduction of salmon; in fact the methods only intend to measure contaminants in blood sera of mature salmon. No research on sex reversal (the pertinent problem) is planned. There is an indication of pertinence of this research to other Fish and Wildlife Program projects but it is a mere listing of titles, not an indication of understanding of the projects or of communication with their staffs. The objectives are not given in the context of a larger goal or vision. The proposers are apparently not aware of research in the Basin on reproduction of salmon, or even aware of the biological effects of EDC's on salmon.). The first objective amounts to a literature search; it should already have been done, at least in an exploratory way. The methods are either poorly described or misguided. For instance the water sampling protocol indicates that samples would be taken below the Gorge, but the important, vulnerable, at-risk populations of salmon spawn upstream of the Gorge and their embryos are vulnerable upstream of the Gorge. The proposers have apparently not communicated with the responsible agencies about their ability to collect fish samples, indicating that they assume they would be able to collect animals. This is not necessarily the case. There is no real indication of laboratory methods, of quality control methods, etc. There is no real justification given for not analyzing samples within the region, merely a statement that labs in Europe are more experienced. This may be so, but it was not persuasively demonstrated. The panel was concerned that the proposers do not plan to openly share their results, which is contrary to the use of public funds. The Panel does not believe this proposal should be funded in its present form.