FY 2000 proposal 20002
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 |
---|---|
20002 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Hydrologic Study of Stangland, Tyler and Clear Lake Area |
Proposal ID | 20002 |
Organization | Stangland-Tyler Aquifer Study |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | James G. Miller |
Mailing address | 14606 S. Stangland Rd Cheney, WA 99004 |
Phone / email | 5092999085 / jandj@cet.com |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 2000 |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Crab |
Short description | This 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 species | Watershed |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|
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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash 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.
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?
Comment:
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.
Technically Sound? No
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.
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];