FY 1999 proposal 9070
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 |
|---|---|
| 9070 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Improve Water Quality Through Sedimentation and Nutrient Reduction |
| Proposal ID | 9070 |
| Organization | South Yakima Conservation District (SYCD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Judith A. Vesper |
| Mailing address | 1116A Yakima Valley Highway Sunnyside, WA 98944 |
| Phone / email | 5098377911 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Yakima |
| Short description | Reduce sedimentation and nutrients in the Yakima River caused by poor irrigation practices and unmanaged dairies. Provide farm cooperators with cost-share and technical assistance to apply Best Management Practices (BMPs) within the watershed. |
| Target species | |
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 |
|---|
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Supplies | $1,000 | |
| Subcontractor | Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) | $0 |
| Other | $199,000 | |
| $200,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $200,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $200,000 |
| 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: Inclement weather, construction problems, timing of funds.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Return to Sponsor for Revision
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Technical Issue: Need to describe the specific measurable objectives (e.g., acreage goals, and objectives for on-the-ground implementation) and how the work is related to a watershed context.Technical Issue: Explain why the cost is defined for all on-the-ground work, which doesn't match objectives. Provide more information about Sulfur Creek/Mud Lake – the existing resource conditions.
Technical Issue: Describe how this work addresses a critical need in the Yakima basin.
Technical Issue: Need to describe the work in the context of rest of the watershed.
Technical Issue: Explain how money spent on this work will create/improve fish habitat and production?.
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.
ISRP Review (ISRP 1998-1)
Inadequate proposal, adequate purpose after revision
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
The revised proposal is not tied to the overall watershed assessment. The objectives need to be more clearly written. Monitoring needs to be described. It appears to be linked to the other cost share irrigation conversion proposals, but makes no mention of any of them. Although this proposal’s main objective is to control feedlot runoff, it does have some irrigation improvement objectives; consequently, the proposal should give legal assurances that the water saved is allocated to instream use and not just used by downstream irrigators.