FY 2000 proposal 20153
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 |
|---|---|
| 20153 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Construct Sediment Settling Basins |
| Proposal ID | 20153 |
| 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 quality of water discharged into the Yakima River from major drainage channels within the RSBOJC service area by construction of sediment settling basins. |
| Target species | Chinook, Coho, Sockeye, Steelhead, Bull Trout, Cutthroat, Brown Trout, Brook 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Improve Water-Quality Monitoring Program | The program will monitor the results of the sedimentation basin program | |
| 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 | $5,000 |
| Fringe | $2,500 | |
| Supplies | $0 | |
| Capital | Land Acquisition | $35,000 |
| Indirect | office overhead | $1,500 |
| Subcontractor | design and construction of basins | $220,500 |
| $264,500 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $264,500 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $264,500 |
| 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: Land acquisition and permits may affect implementation schedule.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fundComments: This project is probably a good idea and if successful might have a positive impact on the Yakima's water quality. However, it is not adequately explained or justified. Projects 20150, 20152, and 20153 all involve improvements in water quality. An umbrella proposal is needed to provide a rationale for the selection and sequence of proposed projects expected to provide the greatest benefits. The fact that the same rationale is repeated for each of the RSBOJC projects indicates both the need for an umbrella and the lack of detail justifying the individual projects under the general idea of improved water quality. How do these projects collectively constitute the best approach for addressing water quality problems? What alternatives were considered and why were these particular projects chosen?
The proposal predicts the amount of silt that could be retained by settling ponds but provides no documentation or references for where the numbers came from. There was not enough detail in the objectives or methods to determine whether the project was using the best available scientific methods.
Like the previous proposal (20152) this one seems to build a budget for design and construction of projects before enough planning has been done to choose the sites and to identify the site-specific requirements and costs for the work. The proposal merely states that designs will be made for "2 to 3 prototype basins." Why this number? Where should they be located and why are these the best sites of all possible sites in the basin? How can personnel, land acquisition, and design and construction costs be projected in the proposed budget if the number of sites, locations, land ownership, etc. are unknown? As in #20152, it would seem more appropriate to first propose an information collection/planning phase for this project and then submit a subsequent proposal based on the identification of site-specific engineering and construction requirements developed in the plan.
The proposal indicates that water quality results will be monitored and compared to baseline data. But it does not specify what parameters will serve as indicators, how the monitoring would be designed, or what sites and information will constitute a baseline for comparison. The author should review the proposal evaluation criteria and at least try to answer or acknowledge the questions. The RSOBJC has collected water quality information (mentioned in other projects). Some of that information should have been presented and target reductions in sediment loads given.
Comment:
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. Settling basins have not proven to be an effective strategy for water quality restoration. High ongoing O&M costs.Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Proposal lacks detail. For example, which water quality parameters will be used to decide where to put the ponds.Provide more information about how the success of the project will be monitored.
Provide information on key personnel (Section 9) and Information/technology transfer (Section 10).
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];