FY 2000 proposal 20003
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 |
|---|---|
| 20003 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Enhance Fish Habitat by Improving Water Quality |
| Proposal ID | 20003 |
| Organization | South Yakima Conservation District (South Yakima CD) |
| 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 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Eliminate sediment/nutrient loading of the Yakima River due to agricultural and dairy runoff and poor irrigation water management. Provide landowners within the watershed technical assistance and cost-share to achieve Best Management Practices. |
| Target species | Spring & Fall Chinook, Coho Salmon & Summer Steelhead |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1992 | Granger Drain Monitoring Project |
| Dairy Waste Cost-Share Program | |
| 1998 | Gray's Landing Poplar Project |
| 1995 | Sulphur Creek Characterization Project |
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 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 | $0 | |
| Fringe | $0 | |
| Supplies | Solicitation of landowners and completing quarterly & final reports | $1,000 |
| Other | Cost-share to landowners | $199,000 |
| $200,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $200,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $200,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| SYCD | project management | $40,000 | unknown |
| NRCS | technical assistance | $25,000 | unknown |
| landowners | materials and labor | $199,000 | unknown |
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.
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fund, inadequate programmatic justification.Comments: This proposal does an adequate job of identify a problem and proposing a solution. The technical background was well explained and supported by references. The major weakness of the proposal is that it does not attempt to explain the relationship to regional programs in the FWP or to other projects in the basin. The proposal makes no case for why BPA should fund the proposal. We strongly recommend that the writers review the FWP and other related activities in the basin to justify the proposal. The proposal would also be much improved by directly addressing the ISRP criteria for this kind of the proposal.
While it is clear that the water quality problems are acute, how important are the proposed BMPs relative to other actions that have been or could be undertaken in the basin? The specific BMPs that will be used and their relative benefit to overall sediment and pollution inputs is not clear. The proposal offers no specific design for evaluating effectiveness other than a vague reliance on an unspecified "existing water quality monitoring program." It does not discuss whether project staff will continue to monitor compliance of individuals who commit to the program for 10 years.
Section 8a is a listing of unconnected facts. The proposal should describe existing fish distribution in relation to the projects. The objective is to improve water quality. Measurable criteria based on expected improvements in water quality from the existing baseline should be presented. This project seems important in that it seeks to address water quality problems at their source. But the proposal needs more technical detail to evaluate whether it is likely to be effective and how this effectiveness will be monitored.
Comment:
Comment:
Proponents do not specify allocation of conserved water for fish use. SRT would support this project if conserved water were specified for instream flow. SRT does not believe the purpose of FWP is to subsidize irrigation improvements with no assurance of usable habitat improvement.Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
The proposal is based on good ideas but it is not well developed and does not provide enough detail about the project goals (i.e. loading reductions), how sediment and pollutants will be reduced, and how fish and wildlife will benefit.Provide more information about the monitoring plan, the Information/technology transfer, and the rationale and significance to other programs. What methods will be used to evaluate success.
This appears to be an expensive way to improve farm runoff.
Describe the successes of and provide more detail about BMPs in other parts of the country.
Are these types of projects appropriate for BPA funding?
Describe how improving 300 acres of farmland has improved water quality and benefited fish and wildlife.
Estimate how much pollutant loads (nutrients, DDT, sediment, etc.) will be reduced.
What is the "Environmental and Wildlife Checklist" and why will it be used?
Explain how the budget was derived.
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];