FY 1999 proposal 9070

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
9070 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Improve Water Quality Through Sedimentation and Nutrient Reduction
Proposal ID	9070
Organization	South Yakima Conservation District (SYCD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Judith A. Vesper
Mailing address	1116A Yakima Valley Highway Sunnyside, WA 98944
Phone / email	5098377911 / sunny!jvesper@irm.usda.nrcs.wa
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 1999
Province / Subbasin	Lower Mid-Columbia / Yakima
Short description	Reduce 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

Latitude	Longitude	Description

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment

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
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 forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

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.

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments

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?.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

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.

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 1998-1)

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.