Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Enhance Upper Yakima River Basin Fish Habitat |
| Proposal ID | 9069 |
| Organization | Kittitas County Conservation District (KCCD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Anna Olsen |
| Mailing address | 607 E Mountain View Ellensburg WA 98926 |
| Phone / email | 5099258590 / kccd@ellensburg.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Yakima |
| Short description | Enhance and protect fish habitat in the Upper Yakima River watershed by providing cost share incentives for rill irrigation system upgrades, improving management practices, improving irrigation delivery and restoring riparian habitat on private lands. |
| 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 |
2.0 FTE |
$55,800 |
| Fringe |
(Based on Benefits at 15% of Salary) |
$8,370 |
| Supplies |
Office, computer, and field supplies |
$8,000 |
| Capital |
Irrigation systems, management equipment, riparian plantings, fencing, livestock watering facilities |
$400,080 |
| Travel |
Lease or purchase of vehicle, insurance, fuel, maintenance |
$11,250 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$0 |
| Other |
|
$16,500 |
| $500,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $500,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $500,000 |
| 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: Constraints: Weather, etc. which may impede construction. Endangered Species Listings which may time consuming requirements.
Milestones: signed contracts, project implementation, landowner payments.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Criteria 1: Technical Criteria - Yes: This is a habitat restoration project that should have been reviewed as a watershed project. Difficult to evaluate as criteria are insufficient to fully evaluate watershed proposals.
Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Incomplete: "Improve water quality" is not a specific or measurable objective.
Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Yes
Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Yes:
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 well-presented proposal with clear objectives. More emphasis could be placed on field monitoring of results to ground truth the FOCS computer-tracking model. It should be field monitored in coordination with projects 9068 and 9704900 and 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.