FY 1999 proposal 9068

Additional documents

TitleType
9068 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleImprove Stream Habitat Through Reduction in Farm Runoff
Proposal ID9068
OrganizationBenton Conservation District (BCD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameMike Tobin
Mailing address1606 Perry St., Suite F Yakima, WA 98902
Phone / email5094545736 / jwhitnal@yakim.wayakima.fsc.usda.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Mid-Columbia / Yakima
Short descriptionEnhance tributary and main stem fish habitat by reducing soil, nutrient, and pesticide runoff from farm operations by supporting on-farm improvementst with cost-share and technical assistance.
Target species
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 1999 cost
Personnel $135,660
Fringe (Benefits are 29% of salary) $39,340
Supplies $1,000
Capital $1,749,000
Subcontractor South Yakima Conservation District; North Yakima Conservation District $0
$1,925,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$1,925,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$1,925,000
FY 1999 forecast from 1998$0
% change from forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: The only constraint to shedule is timing of available funds; Milestones: signed contracts, construction, grower payments.


Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Management Issue: Explain if equitable cost sharing with the NRCS has been pursued (the NRCS should provide this type of start-up funding when specific projects are proposed in accordance to strategic plans and with personnel and cost sharing strategies developed – then, once some structure and detailed proposals are developed, leverage BPA funds).

Technical Issue: Need to define where, how much will be fixed, site specific aspects, and more detail on how $1.9 million will be spent. Also, should clearly describe the quantitative benefits that are expected (especially to fish and wildlife).

Technical Issue: Specific goal is 2,915 acres per year - need a better description of which 2,915 acres each year will be picked in order to assure the biggest bang for the buck.

Technical Issue: Need to describe the monitoring plan that will be used to evaluate if the expected results and fish and wildlife benefits are being achieved.


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:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This is a very well-prepared and well-presented proposal with clear objectives, tasks, and monitoring and evaluation. However, the proposal does not demonstrate that the water saved will provide significant benefits to fish and wildlife in the watershed. The ratio of government and private funding is not well explained. The proposal should be coordinated with other projects in the basin. The proposal should give legal assurances that the water saved is allocated to instream use and not just used by downstream irrigators.