FY 2000 proposal 20151

Additional documents

TitleType
20151 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleLandowner Communication Program
Proposal ID20151
OrganizationRoza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control (RSBOJC)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJames W. Trull
Mailing addressP.O. Box 239 Sunnyside, WA 98944
Phone / email5098376980 / trullj@svid.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Yakima
Short descriptionProvide water quality and conservation information to landowners through an expanded newsletter, new release, and workshop program. Technical assistance will be make available.
Target speciesChinook, Coho, Sockeye, Steelhead, Bull Trout, Cutthroat, Brown Trout, Brook Trout
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
20526 Multi-Year Plan Yakima Anadromous Fish Plan

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel RSBOJC Staff $5,000
Fringe $2,500
Supplies $1,000
Indirect Office overhead $500
Subcontractor WSU Consultation $2,500
$11,500
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$11,500
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$11,500
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: There are no known constraints if funding is make available.


Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Do not fund

Comments: This proposal seems to assume that the benefits of the work are self explanatory. It is difficult or impossible to evaluate the proposal from the small amount of information that is provided. For example, the plan to "show the relationship between water quality and irrigation" is unclear. The specific message intended for the communication program is not described. The relationship to the larger Fish and Wildlife Program is also not adequately discussed. The proposal is a list of products with little explanation of their content or benefit to fish and wildlife.

The abstract describes a communication program that appears to be entirely focused on agricultural problems. We question whether the Council's fish and wildlife program should fund projects that are not explicitly tied to a benefit for fish and wildlife. Objective 2 states, " The workshops are intended as a mechanism to set the implementation process in motion." What implementation process does this refer to? It should be described in the proposal. Objective 3 appears to be a responsibility of agricultural agencies. The expected results in terms of change of behavior or practices is not clearly stated. How will the impact of the information be assessed?

The proposal needs references or documentation to support the idea that this kind of program would be effective. Of the three main objectives, only the first was specific. The second and third objectives could have been better described by explaining more about the topics and presenters for the workshops and by describing the content of the video "Water, Food, and You." In addition, the proposal needs a better description of the audience (number of people being contacted), the public demand for the information, and how to judge whether the project is successful or not.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

The RSBOJC projects sound like individual tasks that should be bundled under one project. They are also available for other funding sources (e.g. CREP) and should not be funded under BPA FWP funds. Target species listed in proposal do not currently reside in the identified project area which suggests a high potential for misinforming public on existing biology.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Why is this program expected to be effective? How will proponents gauge success?

What other agencies will be involved and how?

What landowners will be targeted?

How will the proponents track new water quality developments?

What schools and age groups will be targeted?

Information/technology transfer section is weak.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];