FY 2000 proposal 20152
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Improve Yakima River Water Quality by Incorporating Buffer Strips |
| Proposal ID | 20152 |
| 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 / trullj@svid.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Improve the water quality discharging to the lower Yakima River from the RSBOJC service area. This will enhance the quality of the existing wetlands and wildlife habitat areas that have developed in the lower Yakima River Basin. |
| Target species | Chinook, Coho, Sockeye, Steelhead, Bull Trout, Cutthroat, Brown Trout, Brook Trout |
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 |
|---|
|
Improve Water Quality Monitoring Program |
This program will monitor the results of the buffer strip project. |
| 20526 |
Multi-Year Plan Yakima Anadromous Fish Plan |
|
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 |
RSBOJC Staff |
$60,000 |
| Fringe |
|
$30,000 |
| Supplies |
Fencing materials |
$27,500 |
| Operating |
None the first year |
$0 |
| Capital |
Land acquisition |
$40,000 |
| Travel |
Vehicle mileage |
$2,000 |
| Indirect |
Office overhead |
$1,500 |
| $161,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $161,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $161,000 |
| 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: Negotiation with landowners for acquisition of property
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do not fund
Comments:
This proposal does a good job of describing the water quality problems created by irrigated agriculture in the Yakima River. It does not clearly show why buffer strips are a solution to the problem. How much of the water quality problems are due to surface runoff and erosion that would be improved by buffers? The RSOBJC has collected baseline data on water quality (Section 8 f of the proposal) and that baseline information should have been presented in the proposal along with a quantitative target for improvement. The objects are really tasks—the purpose of the project is not to define buffer strips but to improve water quality. The author should review the proposal evaluation criteria and try to answer or at least acknowledge the questions asked. This is probably a good idea but it is not adequately explained or justified.
The proposed criteria for identifying problem areas and establishing priorities for enhancing buffer strips are not specified. The lack of information provided makes it impossible to judge whether the applicants do, in fact, have the technical expertise to carry out the work. It is not clear why this particular area within the basin is the appropriate place to focus riparian efforts. Its significance relative to the rest of the basin and the distribution of salmonids is not clear. The proposal states that filtration by buffer strips is working well in parts of the system but gives no details of how this effectiveness has been or would be evaluated. The methods for surveying drainageways, identifying problem areas, ranking priorities for the work, or developing prescriptions for vegetative recovery at each site are not given. Goals for vegetative recovery (e.g., species) and width of buffers necessary to be effective are not described.
The proposal states that some temporary employees may be hired. However it is unclear how the budget was developed if the staff needs, land purchase requirements, and amount of land to be restored are unknown. The proposal needs to discuss alternative approaches to the problem and why the proposed approach is the best given the potential for unwanted side effects. Although the staff appears to have engineering expertise, the proposal did not indicate that they would have the necessary biological expertise or familiarity with the appropriate methods to conduct the initial biological assessment or the subsequent monitoring. It seems a more reasonable approach would be to first complete an inventory and mapping of problem areas, restoration inadequacies, priorities, and necessary land acquisitions. These results, in turn, could be used to prepare a subsequent proposal and a more detailed budget based on specific recovery prescriptions for each high-priority site.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
The RSBOJC projects sound like individual tasks that should be bundled under one project. They are also available for other funding sources (e.g. CREP) and should not be funded under BPA FWP funds. Target species listed in proposal do not currently reside in the identified project area which indicates that the proponents may not have a complete understanding of the problem they are trying to address. Opportunity exists in this project to have positive outcomes. Buffer strip size is not defined by measurable outcome.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Proposal lacks detail. What criteria will be used to determine what sites get buffer strips? How will results be monitored? What parameters will be measured?
Provide information on key personnel (Section 9) and Information/technology transfer (Section 10).
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];