WSP05534

• File Number: 8273.600
• Description: Colorado River Basin Salinity Control - Federal Agencies - USDA
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 4/1/1994
• Author: USDA
• Title: Monitoring and Evaluation Report for the McElmo Creek Unit of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program - 1993 Annual Report
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Annual Report

IV. ECONOMIC MONITORING AND EVALUATION

1. Introduction

.,

~
~
~
"'-l

Economic Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) requirements are derived
from SCS interpretations for the National Manual for Cost-Share
Programs and are outlined in the CRSCP Framework Plan for Monitoring
and Evaluation (6-23-91). Specific requirements include but are not
limited to the following:

. '\}:'I
....'...

1) collection of salinity control data;
2) evaluation of salinity control practices; and
3) analysis of costs, benefits, and project effectiveness.

In compliance with CRSCP requirements, the Framework Plan identifies
the need for documenting benchmark, treatment, and follow-up
situations for irrigation water delivery, management, and application
and for on-farm production and conservation activities.. .

To assist in.meeting CRSCP requirements, a salinity Planning
Worksheet (SPW) was developed and tested in 1992 in the Grand Valley,
Lower Gunnison, and McElmo basins. The SPW has been revised,
incorporating.planners comments, to ma}{e it a more efficient tool.
The SPW is the colorado-SCS approved tool for documenting CRSCP
planning. It is being used to document benchmark (before) and
treatment (both planned and actual) effects. of each contract plan;
This will allow required analysis of salinity treatment impacts for
project evaluation. FOllow-up will be done on each contract plan at
the time of SCS final status review. Some of the' 'benef i ts of us ing
the SPI( in data collection are: provides necessa~y data for
economic evaluation, provides an element of consistency to the
planning and fOllow-up process, and the consistent format allows for
faster and more .efficient plan reviews.

Data gathered with the SPW is entered in data bases in the Grand
Junction Area Office. As these data bases are developed, they can be
made available to Field Offices for quarterly reporting and oth~r
purposes. Continuing use of this data collection process will ensure
the availability of adequate information for developing annual
reports and longer term.summary reports.

The following data do not represent the entire compliment of
planning activities. The data represented is a composite of FY
1991, 1992, and 1993 collection. The adoption of the SPW has
been slow. With continued support; sufficient, accurate data
should become available.

~(:.i:;
f'.....,.

2. Background and Potential Effects and Impacts

fOllow-up data has n~t yet been collected due to time frame of the
contracts. Follow-up data collection will be done at the end of the
contract (final SCS status review); Collection of detailed data on
monitored sites was not been thoroughly completed.

""'"'.",
,~:. . ,.

16