Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Accelerate the Application of Integrated Fruit Management to Reduce the Risk of Pesticide Pollution in Fifteenmile Sub-basin Orchards |
| Proposal ID | 200102200 |
| Organization | Wy'East Resource Conservation & Development Area (Wy'East RC&D) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Merlin Berg |
| Mailing address | 2325 River Road, Suite 2 The Dalles, OR 97058 |
| Phone / email | 5412962325 / merlin.berg@or.usda.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | Jeff Rola, President Wy'East RC&D |
| Review cycle | Columbia Gorge |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Gorge / Fifteenmile |
| Short description | Accelerate the immplementation of Integrated Fruit Management in orchards that use new generation pesticides and sprayer technology to reduce the risk of pollution to land and aquatic resources from pesticides affecting salmon and steelhead. |
| Target species | Steelhead, lampreys and residents |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 45.6067 |
-121.1482 |
Threemile Creek |
| 45.5871 |
-121.176 |
Dry Hollow |
| 45.6051 |
-121.1888 |
Mill Creek |
| 45.6347 |
-121.1972 |
Chenowith Creek |
| 45.59 |
-120.95 |
Fifteenmile Creek |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
|
New applicant |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 199304000 |
Fifteenmile Creek Habitat Restoration Project |
Complimentary project - addresses need in sub-basin |
| 199304001 |
15-Mile Creek Steelhead Smolt Production |
Complimentary project - addresses need in sub-basin |
|
Mid-Columbia CREP Planner (Proposed) |
Complimentary project - addresses needin sub-basin |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 4 Water Quality Monitoring |
4a Planning |
1 |
$0 |
|
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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1 Establish & Operate Weather Stations |
a Purchase equipment & install |
1 |
$160,622 |
Yes |
|
d Validate degree-day model |
3 |
$2,500 |
Yes |
| 3 Research Effectiveness Tower Sprayer |
a Research & evaluate |
5 |
$52,050 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $54,525 | $54,525 | $52,052 | $52,052 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1 |
b Information delivery system |
5 |
$3,920 |
Yes |
|
c Plan & implement IFP with growers |
5 |
$47,000 |
Yes |
| 2 Information Transfer |
a Group training of IFP techniques |
5 |
$6,400 |
Yes |
|
b Grower roundtable |
5 |
$4,000 |
Yes |
|
c Outreach information & education |
5 |
$13,280 |
|
| 6 Project Management |
a Contract & financial management |
5 |
$15,000 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $96,302 | $96,333 | $90,085 | $90,085 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 4 Water Quality Monitoring |
b Implement water quality monitoring |
2 |
$0 |
Yes |
| 5 Project Monitoring & Evaluation |
a Follow-up with growers to evaluate progress |
5 |
$4,000 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $64,000 | $64,000 | $4,000 | $4,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: .21 |
$8,780 |
| Fringe |
Included in Personnel @ 30% of total |
$0 |
| Supplies |
|
$4,800 |
| Travel |
|
$600 |
| Indirect |
Project Management |
$15,000 |
| Capital |
Weather Stations |
$157,322 |
| NEPA |
|
$0 |
| PIT tags |
|
$0 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$122,270 |
| Other |
|
$0 |
| $308,772 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $308,772 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $308,772 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Wasco County Fruit & Produce League |
$10,00 per year for five years |
$50,000 |
cash |
| Northern Wasco County PUD |
|
$7,000 |
cash |
| NAP Northwest |
$4,000 per year for five years |
$20,000 |
cash |
| Grower |
8 existing weather stations @ 4,517 ea |
$36,136 |
in-kind |
| Professional services |
crop consultants, 140 hr @ $57 / hr |
$8,000 |
in-kind |
| Grower construction equip & labor |
equipment & labor, 186 hr @ $28 / hr |
$5,260 |
in-kind |
| Wasco Soil & Water Cons Dist |
technical assistance |
$4,000 |
in-kind |
| Mid-Colombia Ag Res & Ext Ct. |
sprayer |
$20,000 |
in-kind |
| USDA-NRCS |
RC&D coordinator TA, .85FTE over 5 yr's |
$51,186 |
in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Oct 6, 2000
Comment:
Fundable only if the proposers make a convincing case of benefits to fish and wildlife and a closer tie to the Fish and Wildlife Program (FWP). The presentation made a better case than the proposal and the proposers were forward thinking. The agriculture experiment station should be a source of assistance for these proposers.
This proposal describes an approach to reducing non-point source pollution resulting from the application of orchard pesticides. It is a problem relevant to the water quality aspects of fish habitat. The proposal does a good job laying out objectives and comprehensive tasks, and takes care to include criteria for success and timelines in the methods. Adaptive management is included through explicit plans for modifications of procedures. The proposal establishes connections to other non-FWP projects, but does not tie the proposed work into other projects within the FWP.
The proposal places an emphasis on collaboration with growers, outreach and education. This is a real strength of the proposal. The main question has to do not with the relevance of this work, but with who should pay for it. This might be more appropriate as part of a more collaborative project that would include specific assessment of a potential problem for resident and anadromous fish.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Nov 15, 2000
Comment:
In the CBFWA technical review, the Managers focused on the benefits to fish and wildlife. If a technical review were provided in the context of benefits to orchard production, the review would probably exhibit different results. Pesticides in the Fifteenmile Subbasin have not been identified as a major limiting factor for fish and wildlife in the subbasin summary. The proposal does not show a direct link to fish and wildlife. The orchards in this subbasin are not generally located in the riparian zone and the sponsors showed no tie to providing data and information to the local fish and wildlife managers. No monitoring and evaluation is presented to measure benefits to fish and wildlife.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Dec 1, 2000
Comment:
Fundable, the response was adequate. If fish and wildlife managers are truly concerned about water quality and the application of broad-spectrum pesticides, this kind of project could be a very important experiment and applicable to many watersheds in the Basin, specifically in the Yakima and Hood subbasin where orchards are prevalent. A pilot project of this nature, especially if it included more specific ties to water quality and fish, could provide useful management information in the basin. Considering the results of recent studies and literature, the ISRP expects that concerns over the detrimental effects of pesticides will become a greater issue in the Basin. We agree with CBFWA that this proposal should include a more detailed monitoring and evaluation plan to measure benefits to fish and wildlife.
Whether an agriculture project of this kind should be funded through BPA is a policy issue beyond the purview of the ISRP. However, the proposal solicitation should provide guidance on the spectrum of funding available or not available for such projects.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 16, 2001
Comment:
The ISRP reiterated its support for proposal 21016 which would test integrated pesticide management in Fifteenmile Creek orchards. CBFWA gave a "do not fund" recommendation
Staff recommendation: Fund a scaled-down demonstration project. ISRP noted the strength of the proposal involved the collaboration, outreach and education of the orchardists. Staff contacted project sponsors in an effort to reduce the scale of the project, maintain its strengths, and address ISRP concerns about monitoring and evaluation for effects on fish and wildlife.
Adjustment to budget recommendation: Sponsors agreed to reduce the number of weather station data inputs and eliminate the tower sprayer component of the project. The budget for the information delivery and grower outreach (the ISRP's identified project strengths) would be maintained. The monitoring and evaluation budget for Fiscal Year 2002 and Fiscal Year 2003 would return to the Council for review once sponsors get an agreed upon plan with Oregon DEQ and fish and wildlife managers, subject to ISRP review. Council would recommend a placeholder of $64,000 for the monitoring and evaluation budget component in Fiscal Year 2002 and Fiscal Year 2003, subject to Council review and approval.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 11, 2001
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 20, 2003
Comment:
Contract runs through December. Have over accrued for 03. Money was carried over from 02. 04 and 05 represents continued work with growers, equipment purchase and database work, monitoring and making system work for the growers. BPA part of project is 59% of funding. Cost shares from OWEB and DEQ, plus growers. Had an 02 burden on 03. Needs to be added to the adjustment list. 94K has to be added to get project through 03. Initial request for 5 years of funding.
Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 20, 2003
Comment:
