FY 1999 proposal 9072

Additional documents

TitleType
9072 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleImprove Return Flow Water Quality
Proposal ID9072
OrganizationRoza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control (RSBOJC)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJames W. Trull
Mailing addressP.O. Box 239 Sunnyside, WA 98944
Phone / email5098376980 /
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Mid-Columbia / Yakima
Short descriptionImprove the quality of water discharged from individual farming operations. This will be accomplished by identification of sources of lower quality return flows using aerial photography and field inspections. Technical assistance will be made available.
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 RSBOJC Staff $20,000
Fringe $10,000
Supplies Pipe and fittings $35,000
Travel Vehicle mileage $2,000
Indirect Office overhead $3,000
Subcontractor $35,000
$105,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$105,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$105,000
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: Financial impact to landowners may affect implementation schedule.


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 - Yes: This is a habitat restoration project that should have been reviewed as a watershed project. Difficult to evaluate as criteria are insufficient to fully evaluate watershed proposals.

Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Yes

Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Yes

Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Yes:


Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

In-lieu funding issue. Proposed tasks appear to be "in lieu of other expenditures authorized or required from other entities under other agreements or provisions of law". (Section 4.(h)(10)(A) of PNW Power Act).

Budget constraints. Proposal was found to be technically sound and appropriate but was deferred because other work was judged more urgent and funds were not adequate for all needed work.


Recommendation:
Inadequate proposal, adequate purpose
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

Monitoring is not adequately described. This proposal is not linked to the Fish and Wildlife Program. The problems in the watershed need to be described in the context of constraints on fish production. The proposal should describe coordination with other basin projects. The proposal should give legal assurances that the water saved is allocated to instream fisheries use.