FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22052

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 / [email protected], [email protected]
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.

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 2000-10)

Recommendation:
Yes - C

Date:
Dec 15, 2000

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?