Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate Return Flow Recovery |
| Proposal ID | 9076 |
| Organization | Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control (RSBOJC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | James W. Trull |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 239 Sunnyside, WA 98944 |
| Phone / email | 5098376980 / |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Yakima |
| Short description | Evaluate the feasibility of recovering water from the Granger Drain for reuse in the irrigation distribution system. |
| 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 |
RSBOJC Staff |
$5,000 |
| Fringe |
|
$2,500 |
| Indirect |
Office overhead |
$500 |
| Subcontractor |
CH2M Hill |
$42,000 |
| $50,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $50,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $50,000 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: No constraints have been identified that would affect the schedule.
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 how pumping drain water into canals benefits fish and wildlife.Technical Issue: Need to describe the existing resource condition and identify the critical limiting factors, measurable objectives, strategic actions and expected results, and the monitoring methods for determining if the expected results are being achieved and the process for modifying the project based on the monitoring results. Explain the fish and wildlife benefits.
Management Issue: Need to identify other cost alternatives, e.g. whether including NRCS as a full partner, that were addressed.
Technical Issue: Explain if the project's primary function is to benefit agriculture activities such as conducting a feasibility study to pump drain water into canals and/or constructing irrigation infrastructure versus primarily directed at benefits to fish and wildlife.
Technical Issue: Proposal needs significant modification to clearly describe how the techniques are valid and appropriate to achieve the objectives, and the specific fish and wildlife benefit.
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 after revision
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
The revised proposal includes brief summaries of projects, but it did not add the information lacking in the original. The original proposal did not describe coordination with other projects in the basin or linkages to the Fish and Wildlife Program. It is too vague and lacked detail throughout. It should contain legal assurances that the water saved is allocated to instream use for fish and wildlife and not just used by downstream irrigators.