FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22052
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 |
---|---|
22052 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Sources, Fate and Biological Impacts of Sediments as Part of a Comprehensive Sediment Management Plan |
Proposal ID | 22052 |
Organization | Washington State University, Washington Water Research Center (WSU) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Thanos Papanicolaou |
Mailing address | Washington Water Research Center, Washington State University P.O. Box 643002, Pullman, WA 99164-3002 |
Phone / email | 5093355531 / apapanic@wsu.edu, stockle@wsu.edu |
Manager authorizing this project | Dan Nordquist, Grant Research and Development |
Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
Short description | Development of an innovative Source Fate Impact Methodology for rapidly identifying sources of sediments, quantifying sediment fate, and statistically analyzing impacts on fish habitat and aquatic biota. |
Target species | Steelhead trout, resident rainbow trout |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
47.1031 | -117.7703 | Cottonwood 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 | $60,631 | |
Fringe | $21,196 | |
Supplies | $14,220 | |
Travel | $4,250 | |
Indirect | $46,662 | |
Subcontractor | $51,377 | |
$1,000 | ||
$199,336 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost | $199,336 |
Total FY 2001 budget request | $199,336 |
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 would use isotope "fingerprinting" methods to identify the source of sediment in Cottonwood Creek, a tributary of the Clearwater. Although the method could potentially be useful in helping to direct sediment control measures, it appears to have shortcomings. First, the proposed study catchment is low elevation, and the source of sediment might logically be readily identifiable as being of agricultural origin. Therefore, the use of such a sophisticated method in this case appears to be overkill – a better study site might be one within which the source of sediment is less apparent. Second, there is no indication in the proposal of how the information generated would be used to help in the design or assessment of ongoing habitat restoration efforts – this is critical, as it is the potential pathway that could benefit FWP should the method prove useful. Finally, the proposal appears to have been hastily prepared, or the authors are not familiar with the study site. There are several Cottonwood Creeks in northern Idaho -- Figure 1 shows the Cottonwood Creek that the text seems to suggest would be studied, but Figure 5 another Cottonwood Creek! Which one is the proposed study site?Comment:
Agree with ISRP comments.Comment:
Agree with ISRP comments.