FY 2000 proposal 20151
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 |
---|---|
20151 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Landowner Communication Program |
Proposal ID | 20151 |
Organization | Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control (RSBOJC) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | James W. Trull |
Mailing address | P.O. Box 239 Sunnyside, WA 98944 |
Phone / email | 5098376980 / trullj@svid.org |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 2000 |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
Short description | Provide water quality and conservation information to landowners through an expanded newsletter, new release, and workshop program. Technical assistance will be make available. |
Target species | Chinook, Coho, Sockeye, Steelhead, Bull Trout, Cutthroat, Brown Trout, Brook Trout |
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 |
---|---|---|
20526 | Multi-Year Plan Yakima Anadromous Fish Plan |
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 | 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash 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.
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fundComments: 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.
Comment:
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.Technically Sound? No
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.
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];