FY 2000 proposal 20155
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Inventory On-Farm Irrigation Practices |
| Proposal ID | 20155 |
| 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 | Take an inventory on present irrigation practices to determine number of acres that are rill and flood irrigated. This inventory will determine which areas that need to be targeted with informational and educational material. |
| Target species | Chinook, Coho, Sockeye, Steelhead, Bull Trout, Cutthroat, Brown Trout, Brook Trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
|
Landowner Communication Program |
distributes informational and educational material |
| 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 |
$5,000 |
| Fringe |
|
$2,500 |
| Supplies |
|
$0 |
| Travel |
Vehicle mileage |
$2,000 |
| Indirect |
Office overhead |
$100 |
| $9,600 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $9,600 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $9,600 |
| 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: None
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:
The major weakness of this proposal is that it does not support the ideas in the project with enough detail and documentation to convince reviewers that the project has been well thought out and is justified. The technical background for collecting this information needs to be much better developed. For example, the objectives move directly into comparing rill versus flood irrigation, but the significance of these different kinds of techniques on the problem was never introduced. The programmatic justification could have been much improved by including more detail on the technical background and the linkage to other projects. This project seems to be a critical part of the whole package submitted by the Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control but this relationship is not described. This should have been described in both the rationale sections of the proposal and in the section on information transfer. The proposal also fails to discuss alternative approaches and unwanted side effects of the project, if any, or the reason why BPA should fund this project.
The general rationale for this project suggests it should be a precursor, or at least a part of an overall planning phase for RSBOJC water quality projects. If this information is needed to know how much sediment can be conserved and how much farming practices contribute to the problem, it would seem the inventory should precede those projects that presuppose which actions are most needed. This proposal might be another useful component of an initial planning phase for selecting sites and budgeting costs for RSBOJC water quality projects.
Unfortunately, the proposal does not provide sufficient information to evaluate how the survey will be conducted, how the information will be collected, or how the results will be analyzed or used to make decisions. What questions will be asked? Will this be a statistical sample survey or a census of all landowners? How will the survey be designed? Who will do the work? The explicit connection to project 20151 is good. The connection to the Fish and Wildlife Program and benefits to fisheries need to be more explicit.
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 indicates that the proponents may not have a complete understanding of the problem they are trying to address.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Proposal lacks detail. Not sure why this task cannot be accomplished by the agency without support from BPA.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];