FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22004
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 |
---|---|
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.
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.Comment:
Agree with ISRP comments.Comment:
Agree with ISRP comments.