FY 1999 proposal 9070

Additional documents

TitleType
9070 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleImprove Water Quality Through Sedimentation and Nutrient Reduction
Proposal ID9070
OrganizationSouth Yakima Conservation District (SYCD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJudith A. Vesper
Mailing address1116A Yakima Valley Highway Sunnyside, WA 98944
Phone / email5098377911 / sunny!jvesper@irm.usda.nrcs.wa
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Mid-Columbia / Yakima
Short descriptionReduce sedimentation and nutrients in the Yakima River caused by poor irrigation practices and unmanaged dairies. Provide farm cooperators with cost-share and technical assistance to apply Best Management Practices (BMPs) within the watershed.
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
Supplies $1,000
Subcontractor Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) $0
Other $199,000
$200,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$200,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$200,000
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: 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.

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

Comment:

Technical Issue: Need to describe the specific measurable objectives (e.g., acreage goals, and objectives for on-the-ground implementation) and how the work is related to a watershed context.

Technical Issue: Explain why the cost is defined for all on-the-ground work, which doesn't match objectives. Provide more information about Sulfur Creek/Mud Lake – the existing resource conditions.

Technical Issue: Describe how this work addresses a critical need in the Yakima basin.

Technical Issue: Need to describe the work in the context of rest of the watershed.

Technical Issue: Explain how money spent on this work will create/improve fish habitat and production?.


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:
Inadequate proposal, adequate purpose after revision
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

The revised proposal is not tied to the overall watershed assessment. The objectives need to be more clearly written. Monitoring needs to be described. It appears to be linked to the other cost share irrigation conversion proposals, but makes no mention of any of them. Although this proposal’s main objective is to control feedlot runoff, it does have some irrigation improvement objectives; consequently, the proposal should give legal assurances that the water saved is allocated to instream use and not just used by downstream irrigators.