Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Improve Stream Habitat Through Reduction in Farm Runoff |
| Proposal ID | 9068 |
| Organization | Benton Conservation District (BCD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Mike Tobin |
| Mailing address | 1606 Perry St., Suite F Yakima, WA 98902 |
| Phone / email | 5094545736 / jwhitnal@yakim.wayakima.fsc.usda.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Yakima |
| Short description | Enhance 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
| 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 |
|
$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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
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.