FY 2000 proposal 20010
Contents
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 |
|---|---|
| 20010 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Improve Fish Habitat by Reducing Farm Sediment Runoff |
| Proposal ID | 20010 |
| Organization | Benton Conservation District |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Scott R. Manley |
| Mailing address | 24106 N. Bunn Rd. Prosser, WA 99350-9687 |
| Phone / email | 5097869216 / bcd@beta.tricity.wsu.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Enhance tributary and main stem fish habitat by reducing soil, nutrient, and pesticide runoff from farm operations by supporting on-farm improvements with cost-share and technical assistance. |
| Target species | Bull Trout, Spring and Fall Chinook Salmon, Steelhead and Bald Eagles. |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1997 | Cost-share with several growers for on-farm implementation of new irrigation systems. |
| 1998 | Establish on-farm irrigation management training and scientific irrigation scheduling. |
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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $100,000 | |
| Fringe | (Benefits are 29% of salary) | $29,000 |
| Supplies | $4,000 | |
| Operating | $4,000 | |
| Capital | $1,366,000 | |
| Travel | $1,000 | |
| $1,504,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $1,504,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $1,504,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $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 schedule 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.
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fund, benefits to fish and wildlife not assured. They need to provide legal assurances that the water saved will stay instream.Comments: The proposal does an adequate job of identifying the problem and explaining the technical background for the proposed solution. The proposal failed to adequately describe context of the work within the FWP. In general, the proposal needed to use more documentation and references to support the general objectives and tasks that were proposed. For example, although this is a new project, the author claims that the techniques for cost-sharing are well worked out, but he provides no further explanation. Likewise, although the Benton Conservation District would need to make many decisions about how and where to spend this money, the proposal does not explain the criteria for making the choices. Will cost-sharing be approved on a first-come-first-serve basis, or will they be judged by merit? The proposal could also be improved by explicitly addressing the criteria by which the proposals are to be judged.
This project offers a preventative approach to restoring water quality by reducing agricultural sources of pollution. It provides technical examples of the magnitude of pollution inputs from farm activities in the Yakima. But the proposal is less clear about the benefits of the proposed irrigation measures relative to other potential restoration activities that could be undertaken. The project is requesting funds from BPA to accelerate irrigation improvements already being made through other funding sources. The additional benefit provided by acceleration of an ongoing effort as opposed to BPA funding other projects that would not otherwise receive any support is not specifically discussed. The proposal does not state why BPA is the most appropriate source for improving agricultural practices.
The proposal acknowledges that it is necessary to verify results of the project but indicates that there are other funding sources for monitoring. It is not clear whether these funds are likely to be forthcoming and, if so, how they would be spent. A design for monitoring is not described. The proposal notes that a measurable reduction in various pollutants has been documented through work completed in some tributaries and drains. However these results are not provided. While the project will likely benefit water quality without additional risks to the ecosystem, it is difficult to evaluate the relative effectiveness of the proposed activities from the information that is provided.
Comment:
Comment:
Proponents do not specify allocation of conserved water for fish use. WA SRT would support this project if conserved water were specified for instream flow. Sedimentation is a problem that should be addressed by other agency regulations and not funded by the FWP.Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Show the link between reducing sedimentation and improving fish habitat. Provide literature sources to support the statements.Provide data on past BMPs within the basin and how they have improved water quality. Describe alternatives to BMPs.
Provide more detail on water quality monitoring. How often will samples be collected? Where?
Provide details supporting the suggestion that measured reductions have been documented in the basin.
Budget is confusing. Are all 4 FTEs supported by this project or only 1.5 FTEs? Why should BPA pay the salaries of the 2.5 FTEs that are currently being paid by the proponents?
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];