FY 1999 proposal 9029

Additional documents

TitleType
9029 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleMonitoring Water Quality With Data Collection Platforms
Proposal ID9029
OrganizationClouston Energy Research & Pacific Agricultural Laboratory in collaboration with the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the US Agricultural Department's Natural Resources Conservation Service. (Clouston Energy Research)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameSidney N. Clouston, Jr.
Mailing address7846 SW 171st Place Beaverton, OR 97007
Phone / email5036421886 / Sid4Salmon@aol.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Snake / Grande Ronde
Short descriptionMonitoring hydrologic conditions from baseline data collection or the continuous measurements of water temperature, turbidity, phosphorus (animal P) and pesticides. The Data Collection Platform is a stand alone system that uplinks the data to satellites.
Target species
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 1999 cost
Personnel $100,000
Fringe $50,000
Supplies $3,000
Operating $24,000
Capital $156,000
Travel $4,000
Indirect $4,000
Subcontractor Los Alamos National Lab.; Pacific Agricultural Lab.; Applied Power Corp $25,000
$366,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$366,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$366,000
FY 1999 forecast from 1998$0
% change from forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Weather in some locations may indicate early retrieval of the equipment (snow pack).


Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Comments:

Criteria 1: Technical Criteria - Incomplete There is insufficient information to determine the feasibility of this project. It needs to be evaluated as a monitoring and evaluation part of other watershed projects.

Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Incomplete The objectives are too general. On page 6 Objective 5 says to monitor for the water quality goal. Tell what parameters are to be measured and specify the goals.

Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Yes

Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Yes:


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

urgent. Proposed activities would not produce significant near-term survival improvement nor risk a lost opportunity within the next 1-3 years.

Duplicates ongoing work. Some or all of proposed activities are similar or identical to work already funded. Better knowledge or coordination of past or ongoing projects would have reduced or eliminated project need.

Questionable management value. Proposal was either incomplete but did not provide adequate information to determine whether management criteria were met or complete but did not meet critical management criteria.


Recommendation:
Inadequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This is a proposal to collect data, but its relationship to the FWP is not developed. Plans for analysis and evaluation of the data are not given, nor is the need for the data established.