FY 1999 proposal 9069

Additional documents

TitleType
9069 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleEnhance Upper Yakima River Basin Fish Habitat
Proposal ID9069
OrganizationKittitas County Conservation District (KCCD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameAnna Olsen
Mailing address607 E Mountain View Ellensburg WA 98926
Phone / email5099258590 / kccd@ellensburg.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Mid-Columbia / Yakima
Short descriptionEnhance 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
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 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 forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

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:

Comments:

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.