FY 2000 proposal 20155

Additional documents

TitleType
20155 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleInventory On-Farm Irrigation Practices
Proposal ID20155
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 descriptionTake 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 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
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
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 $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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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];