FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22061
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 |
|---|---|
| 22061 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Fluid Dynamics and Mechanics of In-Stream Wood Debris |
| Proposal ID | 22061 |
| Organization | Philip Williams and Associate, Ltd. (PWA) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Tim Abbe, Ph.D. |
| Mailing address | 1314 NE 43rd Street, Suite 206 Seattle, WA 98105 |
| Phone / email | / abbe@pwa-ltd.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Elizabeth S. Andrews |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Snake / Henry's Fork |
| Short description | 1:1 scale experimental placement if a large tree into the Henry's Fork of the Snake River. Monitoring and documenting changes in bed formation and flow characteristics. the geomorphic chages will be be used to calibrate 2-D and 3-D models |
| Target species | All Fish |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 43.7574 | -111.9497 | Henrys Fork |
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 | $179,700 | |
| Fringe | Included in FTE salary above | $0 |
| Supplies | See section 3f for itemized list | $26,200 |
| Travel | includes 8 round trips to Idaho falls @ $500/R.T., per diem (1 month), and accomodations (1 month) | $15,500 |
| $221,400 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $221,400 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $221,400 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Forest Service | Field Staff for approx. 80 hours | $4,000 | cash |
| National Marine Fisheries Service | Field Staff for approx. 150 hours | $8,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This is a marginally innovative proposal that would investigate hydraulic characteristics of wood debris in channels to determine longevity, and help in future design of habitat reconstruction efforts. Controlled experiments in Henry's Fork of the Snake River would endeavor to assess viability of alternative strategies. There is an abundance of information on this subject. No critical purpose would be served by inspecting the details of one structure as proposed here.Comment:
CBFWA recommends not funding this project due to the proposals inability to convince the resident fish managers of its value as an innovative project. Information not vital to habitat rehabilitation. (RFC)Comment:
CBFWA recommends not funding this project due to the proposals inability to convince the resident fish managers of its value as an innovative project. Information not vital to habitat rehabilitation. (RFC)