FY 2000 proposal 20073
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 |
|---|---|
| 20073 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate Relationship Between Land Use, Water Quality, and Fish Health |
| Proposal ID | 20073 |
| Organization | U.G. Geological Survey (USGS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Mark D. Munn |
| Mailing address | 1201 Pacific Ave., Suite 600 Tacoma, WA 98402 |
| Phone / email | 2534283600 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Okanogan |
| Short description | Evaluate whether land use activities are elevating the concentrations of pesticides and trace elements in surface waters to levels that pose a potential threat to fish and other aquatic life. |
| Target species | Sculpin and Rainbow trout |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 9604200 | Restore and enhance anadromous fish populations and habitat in salmon creek | Contaminants in sediment and water may be limiting to the restoration of anadromous salmon. |
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 | $47,900 | |
| Fringe | $8,500 | |
| Supplies | Equipment, laboratory cost, printing | $86,600 |
| Travel | $11,400 | |
| Indirect | $96,700 | |
| Subcontractor | $10,000 | |
| $261,100 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $261,100 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $261,100 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Tasks b, c, and d have to be completed during low-flow conditions; therefore, the exact timing of sample collection will depend upon flow conditions for 1999.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fund. This may be a significant problem but the proposal needs to show a tighter linkage to land use, and cost sharing with other organizations would better assure that the results would be applied to benefit fish and wildlife.Comments: This appears to be a great idea but they do not adequately describe how they are going to make the correlation between land use and accumulation of pesticides. There are multiple stressors in the system, so the evaluation will be complex; the GIS alone will not be able to tease out the complexities of the land use problems. It is possible that GIS coverage of land use in the area (task 1) may already exist and may not need to be duplicated; the proposers should check with other agencies. They might also consider analyzing tissue samples from suckers, as these fishes can be long-lived and can bioaccumulate toxins in muscle and fat tissues. If they do find a problem, they need a strategy to address the problems and a plan to monitor the subsequent implementation. This project should show some cost sharing with the land managers and the Washington Department of Ecology. The budget needs to be explained.
Comment:
Comment:
Screening Criteria: no- There are no RFM related fish measures listed in the proposal.Technical Criteria: no-The data use is not clear.
Programmatic Criteria: no-There are no clear hydro-related issues being addressed.
Milestone Criteria: no-There are no milestones listed.
General Comments: It appears to be an Anadromous fish project, and it should be forwarded to the Anadromous fish caucus.
Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Is $50,000 for report preparation appropriate?Proposal appears to initiate a never-ending cycle of research. When and how will this information lead to direct management decisions relative to the fish and wildlife program?
Poor cost-benefit ratio.
No cost-sharing.
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];