FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22041
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 |
|---|---|
| 22041 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Using Microbial Fingerprinting to Rapidly Assess Ecosystem Responses to Watershed Restoration Efforts and Assist in Prioritizing Future Activities |
| Proposal ID | 22041 |
| Organization | Washington State University (WSU) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Darin Saul |
| Mailing address | PO Box 643003 Pullman, WA 99164-3003 |
| Phone / email | 5093353357 / sauld@wsu.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | Dan Nordquist |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | This project will use microbial fingerprinting to develop a scientifically defensible classification scheme to indicate the biological integrity of potential salmonid habitat throughout the Columbia River Basin. |
| Target species | Aquatic Ecosystem |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.4 | -115.66 | 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: 1.7 | $63,999 |
| Fringe | 26% on salary and tuition for grad student | $19,510 |
| Supplies | sample analysis and lab supplies | $52,000 |
| Travel | for sampling trips | $10,000 |
| Indirect | 26% of direct costs - equipment and tuition | $36,266 |
| Capital | Biolog 3E, Sediment Sampler, Velocity Meter | $19,800 |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | $0 | |
| Other | Total | $201,575 |
| $403,150 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $403,150 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $403,150 |
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:
This proposal is innovative because it proposes to develop a new procedure, microbial fingerprinting, as an indicator of biological integrity of streams. If fully developed the procedure might be a viable competitor to the use of invertebrates or amphibians as indicators of biological integrity and a potential cost-effective means of classifying ecosystem type, health and response to restoration activities. However, the link to the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program is not clearly argued. A microbial index to biological integrity does not seem particularly high priority when viewed against the needs of the Columbia system.Comment:
Budget exceeds $400,000.Comment:
Budget exceeds $400,000.