CATEGORY: Fixed Station COST: $149,600 REGION: Midwest PARK: VOYA PROJECT TITLE: Calculation of Streamflow and Nutrient Loading between Namakan Lake and Kabetogama Lake using Index-Velocity Methods COMMENTS: Project oversight and reporting costs seem high in relation to the rest of the project. It would be more competitive if this were applied to data collection and analyses and project oversight contributed as in-kind. Use of ADVM is an appropriate use of new technology. The proposal indicates potential or real effects from cottages. Is that not also a way to focus on key inputs at a cost effective element.that alone could assist in some problem resoluition. Threat is acknowledged as complex, but issue of natural hydograph and dam rule curves to be more the threat than the cyanobactor blooms or nutrient cycling reviewer “appears: belives that this needs more logic applied in this proposal to assist the conclusion that the bloom and water movements are the issue in search of this proposal CATEGORY: Fixed Station COST: $150,000 REGION: Intermountain PARK: YELL PROJECT TITLE: Water Quality of Soda Butte Creek Entering Yellowstone NP During Remediation of the McLaren Tailings COMMENTS: It is difficult to determine the significance of this issue to YELL especially since the Park has only provided one year of funding for monitoring and the NPS WRD provided funding for enhanced monitoring for one year. Why is YELL not providing funding? Why is monitoring discontinued? Need long term monitoring, not just 3 years Given that monitoring has been done for many years it would help the proposal to describe at least briefly those results. This proposal gives the impression that this monitoring is needed at least in part because the park is cutting back on monitoring this tributary. This raises questions as to the significance and severity of the threat/problem. Conflicting issue of the current monitoring being planned thru 2013, while $$ for that is included in this proposal rather than holding NPS feet to the fire. Why would the park NOT cover this cost? Is park ok with the State’s monitoring plan? Are they punting the $$ and decision into the future?
CATEGORY: Fixed Station COST: $149,600 REGION: Midwest PARK: VOYA PROJECT TITLE: Calculation of Streamflow and Nutrient Loading between Namakan Lake and Kabetogama Lake using Index-Velocity Methods COMMENTS: Project oversight and reporting costs seem high in relation to the rest of the project. It would be more competitive if this were applied to data collection and analyses and project oversight contributed as in-kind. Use of ADVM is an appropriate use of new technology. The proposal indicates potential or real effects from cottages. Is that not also a way to focus on key inputs at a cost effective element.that alone could assist in some problem resoluition. Threat is acknowledged as complex, but issue of natural hydograph and dam rule curves “appears: to be more the threat than the cyanobactor blooms or nutrient cycling reviewer belives that this needs more logic applied in this proposal to assist the conclusion that the bloom and water movements are the issue in search of this proposal CATEGORY: Fixed Station COST: $150,000 REGION: Intermountain PARK: YELL PROJECT TITLE: Water Quality of Soda Butte Creek Entering Yellowstone NP During Remediation of the McLaren Tailings COMMENTS: It is difficult to determine the significance of this issue to YELL especially since the Park has only provided one year of funding for monitoring and the NPS WRD provided funding for enhanced monitoring for one year. Why is YELL not providing funding? Why is monitoring discontinued? Need long term monitoring, not just 3 years Given that monitoring has been done for many years it would help the proposal to describe at least briefly those results. This proposal gives the impression that this monitoring is needed at least in part because the park is cutting back on monitoring this tributary. This raises questions as to the significance and severity of the threat/problem. Conflicting issue of the current monitoring being planned thru 2013, while $$ for that is included in this proposal rather than holding NPS feet to the fire. Why would the park NOT cover this cost? Is park ok with the State’s monitoring plan? Are they punting the $$ and decision into the future?
USGS_NPS%202011_panel%20comments.docx