FY 2000 proposal 20150

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

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.

Comment:

Comments: This proposal is the first in a series submitted by the Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control. Many of these proposal contain potentially good ideas for improving the water quality in the Yakima River. All these proposals, however, suffer from common weaknesses. The objectives, relationship to other projects, methods, and description of the facilities and personnel are too poorly developed to convince reviewers that the projects will use the best available science and have a high likelihood of success. Many of these projects are logical and necessary steps for improving and monitoring water quality from irrigation districts. Unfortunately, this has been left to the reviewers to synthesize rather than making a strong argument for the projects.

This proposal provides no context for why this particular site is the highest priority for a feasibility study relative to all other irrigation return flow problems in the basin. How was this particular site chosen? How big is the problem at this site relative to others throughout the basin? Would it be better to have a basin-wide assessment of the irrigation return flow problem and use that to select one or more sites for feasibility studies? Or does such an assessment already exist but was simply not discussed here?

The budget is impossible to assess from the information given (e.g., the relationship between dollars and activities is not shown). The proposal as written does not address three potential negative impacts. First, if return flows account for 80% of the summer flows, what impact will the diversion of some of that return water have on total flow in the river and how will that impact fisheries? Second, if the water quality of the Granger Drain was better than other return water drains, then the diversion of the Granger Drain could concentrate pollutants and increase the problem. Third, if the return flow in the Granger Drain were reused for irrigation, would it eventually enter the river in a more polluted state? The proposal should show explicit relationships to other projects in the Council's program being funded in the basin. The author should at least try to address the questions that are asked in the proposal evaluation form. The proposal did not provide adequate detail about the scientific techniques to be used, the possibility of alternative solutions to the problem, the ability of a contractor (unidentified) to do the work, or unwanted side-effects of the proposal.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

What happens to downstream flow when flow of the drain is diverted? Why was this drain chosen?

How exactly would it benefit fish and wildlife?

Provide information about key personnel (Section 9).

Comment: