FY 2000 proposal 20002

Additional documents

TitleType
20002 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleHydrologic Study of Stangland, Tyler and Clear Lake Area
Proposal ID20002
OrganizationStangland-Tyler Aquifer Study
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJames G. Miller
Mailing address14606 S. Stangland Rd Cheney, WA 99004
Phone / email5092999085 / jandj@cet.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Crab
Short descriptionThis is a study of 40 square miles of the head waters of Crab Creek within Spokane County. The study will provide a base line for water quality and quantity within the Midwestern area of Spokane County.
Target speciesWatershed
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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel Training, Weir Read,Weir Selec,Well Selec, etc $42,560
Fringe $0
Supplies Weather Stations, Well Sampling Systems, Water Meters, Well Survey, Electrical Measure Tape, etc $34,850
Operating Well locations, water samples, calibration of equipment $20,151
Capital Water level indicators for streams and the lake $0
Construction Construction of weirs $29,000
Travel None $0
Indirect None $0
Other Legal Fees, Permits $44,650
$171,211
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$171,211
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$171,211
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
None $0 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: The evaluation of water samples from the wells and Clear Lake could change the schedule if contamination is found. This study will try and identify sources of water contamination


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Do not fund. Proposal was not programmatically justified in terms of benefits to fish and wildlife and the Fish and Wildlife Program.

Comments: The primary weakness of this proposal was that it was not well linked to the Fish and Wildlife Program, nor were the benefits of the project to fish and wildlife clearly explained. They did not adequately connect this hydrology study to fish and wildlife recovery issues. Much of the proposal had little biological relevance. What are the resources being impacted? Is BPA the most appropriate funding source?


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Screening Criteria: no- There are no Resident fish measures listed.

Technical Criteria: no- It does not clearly state direct benefits to resident fish. Any fish contributions are incidental.

Programmatic Criteria: no-It does not address urgent requirements, and It doesn't meet Criteria 12,15,16.

Milestone Criteria: no- There are no milestones in the proposal.

General Comments: Looks like an excellent project, but not a BPA responsibility.


Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Proposal does not demonstrate a clear linkage to BPA's mitigation obligations or regional fish and wildlife recovery goals and objectives. Does not lead to applied fish and wildlife management/ restoration activities.

Sections 3 and 4 are incomplete. The stated objectives are actually tasks and the proposal lacks time-referenced biological objectives and milestones.

Personnel roles not defined. Not all people listed as personnel are referenced in budget.

BPA does not seem appropriate. It appears that this project is Washington DEQ's responsibility.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];