Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Improve Water Quality Monitoring Program |
| Proposal ID | 9162 |
| Organization | Kittitas ReclamationDistrict (KRD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Jack Carpenter |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 276 Ellensburg, WA 98926 |
| Phone / email | 5099256158 / krd@eburg.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Yakima |
| Short description | Enhance the water quality monitoring program that is being conducted by the KRD. By increasing the sampling locations, frequency of sampling, and analytical work, the effectiveness of the water quality improvement programs can be monitored better. |
| 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 |
KRD Staff |
$2,000 |
| Fringe |
|
$800 |
| Supplies |
|
$500 |
| Travel |
Vehicle mileage |
$1,200 |
| Indirect |
Office overhead |
$500 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$5,000 |
| $10,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $10,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $10,000 |
| 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: Enhanced water sampling and analysis program needs to be in place to monitor effectiveness of improvements that KRD proposes to implement.
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:
Criteria 1: Technical Criteria - Incomplete: Same as for proposal # 9060.
Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Incomplete
Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Incomplete
Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Incomplete
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
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
The proposal is vague, especially the monitoring. Project coordination needs to be better described. Should BPA be funding this kind of work?