Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Monitor Water Quality and Quantity in Eastern Klickitat County |
| Proposal ID | 9001 |
| Organization | Eastern Klickitat Conservation District (EKCD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Dave Clayton |
| Mailing address | 1107 S. Columbus Ave. Goldendale, WA 98620 |
| Phone / email | 5097735823 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Klickitat |
| Short description | Measure water quality and quantity from May through October in eastern Klickitat County to evaluate habitat for fish and other animals. |
| Target species | |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$4,415 |
| Fringe |
|
$1,105 |
| Supplies |
Already purchased |
$0 |
| Operating |
|
$500 |
| Capital |
Used surplus utility vehicle from Washington State Motor Pool |
$3,600 |
| Travel |
|
$750 |
| Indirect |
|
$675 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$0 |
| Other |
|
$240 |
| $11,285 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $11,285 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $11,285 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
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.
Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Technical Issue: Explain the relationship between the project and the critical needs of the basin. Explain the rationale for collecting the water quality parameters, (why is it important to monitor nitrates, temperature, etc.?) and how that information will benefit fish and wildlife. Explicitly state the link to the problem.Technical Issue: Describe how this work is a component of a watershed assessment.
Technical Issue: Need to describe how this work is coordinated with project 9159 to prevent duplication, and to demonstrate that these activities are tied to a watershed assessment and other ongoing activities (projects 9002, 9705600).
Technical Issue: Explain how the information will be used - what decisions are made with the information.
Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Should apply to DOE for funding
Recommendation:
Inadequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
The proposals need to describe their linkage to the Fish and Wildlife Program and provide better technical justification. Past results should be presented in Section 7.D. The sampling sites and the present water quality parameters are not described. The proposal should be more explicitly tied to the YKFP.