FY07-09 proposal 200706100
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Deschutes Sub-basin Riparian Restoration through USDA Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) |
| Proposal ID | 200706100 |
| Organization | Wyeast Resource Conservation & Development Area Council |
| Short description | Develop riparian buffer systems on streams using the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) to restore and enhance riparian areas in the Trout Creek Watershed and other high priority stream reaches identified in the Deschutes Sub-basin Plan |
| Information transfer | The project data will be available at appropriate data projects in the Pacific Northwest such as StreamNet with approval from the landowner in accordance with USDA policy. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Merlin Berg | Wy'East Resource Conservation & Development Counci | wyeast@wyeastrcd.org |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Merlin Berg | Wy'East Resource Conservation & Development Counci | wyeast@wyeastrcd.org |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Deschutes
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| [none] | Trout Creek Watershed and other priority areas in Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson Counties. |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: All Wildlifesecondary: Steelhead Lower Columbia River ESU
Additional: American beaver
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 199404200 | Trout Creek Habitat Restoration Project | Expand riparian buffers already in place. |
| BPA | 199802800 | Implement Trout Cr Watershed Improvement Project Multi Year Funding Proposal | Expand riparian buffers already in place. |
| BPA | 199900600 | Riparian Habitat in Bakeover / Ceep Creeks | Expand riparian buffers already in place. |
| BPA | 200202600 | Morrow County Riparian Buffers | This is a similar project for a separate geiogrphic area in the Columbial Plateau Province. While easc SWCD is an independent local government with different geographic areas of respoonsibilitgy, they do share technical, procedural and programanic information and training. |
| BPA | 200203400 | Wheeler Co Riparian Buffers | This is a similar project for a seperate geographic area in the Columbia Plateau Province. While each SWCD is an independent local government with different geographic afeas of responsibility they do share technical, procedural and programmatic information and training. |
| BPA | 200203500 | Gilliam Co Riparian Buffers | This is a similar project for a seperate geographic area in the Columbia Plateau Province. While each SWCD is an independent local government with different geographic afeas of responsibility they do share technical, procedural and programmatic information and training. |
| BPA | 200201900 | Wasco Riparian Buffers | This project has successfully demonstrated the application of CREP funding and the funding from the Fish & Wildlife Program to support a riparian planner. The Wy'East proposed project is modeled after the success of this project. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maintain Genetic Diversity | Maintain the genetic diversity, adaptivenesss, and abundance of the wild indigenous redband trout, steelhead, spring and fall Chinook salmon, bull trout, and Pacific lanprey in the Deschutes Subbasin. | Deschutes | Restore to historic ranges |
| Restore riparian function | Restore and enhance at least 75 riparian buffer systems on approximately 2,250 acres covering an estimated 75 miles of high priority stream reaches identified in the Trout Creek Watershed and other Deschutes Sub-basin Plan priority reaches by 2009. Buffer widths will range from 35 to 180 feet on each side of thestream. Salmon, steelhead, and other fish and wildlife species will benefit from this habitat restoration project. | Deschutes | Restore riparian ecosystem hjabitat complexity and species diversity. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identify and Select Projects | Determine eligibility or riparian area to enroll into CREP. | a. Identify, prioritize assess and select eligible riparian areas to enroll into Conserve Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). Coordinate with 75 interested landowners on site to assess eligibility of enrolling stream reaches in the riparian buffer system CREP agreements. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $9,062 |
|
Biological objectives Maintain Genetic Diversity Restore riparian function |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Prepare and Submit NRCS Environmental Chedklist. | b Complete a NEPA Environmental Evaluation used by NRCS OREV-1 and submit to BPA's Environmental Compliance Group. NRCS policy is to complete an environmental evaluation for each CREP plan. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $3,020 |
|
Biological objectives Maintain Genetic Diversity Restore riparian function |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Plan | Produce riparian buffer conservation plan. | c The planner conducts a resource inventory, assessment ollowing NRCS the nine step planning process and the “Stream Visual Assessment Protocol.” Establish photo points for monitoring and evaluation. The planning is done with the involvement of the landowner. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $202,388 |
|
Biological objectives Maintain Genetic Diversity Restore riparian function |
Metrics |
||||
| Coordination | Sign CCRP Agreements with landowners, NRCS, SWCD and FSA. | d Sign 70 new CREP Agreement by landowners, committing desired property to CREP Agreement for 10 to 15 years and implement conservation practices in the riparian buffer plan. The plan is approved by partnership agencies: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the appropriate Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), and FSA. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $3,021 |
|
Biological objectives Maintain Genetic Diversity Restore riparian function |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Monitor and evaluate riparian buffer implementation. | e Monitor and evaluate the status trend and project implementation of tree planting and the effectiveness of livestock exclusion going back to original photo points identified during the planning stage. Analyze and store data locally and send to StreamNet or another regional database. The lessons learned can be applied to future planning efforts. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $15,104 |
|
Biological objectives Maintain Genetic Diversity Restore riparian function |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Monitor status, trend and project implementation. |
||||
| Outreach and Education | Outreach and education to irrigators and irrigation professionals. | 1) Contact irrigators and irrigation professionals through outreach program to increase awareness of irrigation water and economic optimization (WEOP) benefits to agricultural operations and fish and wildlife. 2) Conduct a three day workshop expand the knowledge, skills and abilities of irrigator to the science of soil, water, crop and water optimizations principles. 3) Share the results and lessons learned with other organizations and individuals interested in riparian ecosystem restoration. Responsibility -- Information Specialist Deliverables 1. Contact irrigators in the Fifteenmile Watershed that have a history of being innovators and early adopters to new innovations to assess their interest in the project. Work through Wasco Extension Service, Wasco Soil and Water Conservation District, Fifteenmile Watershed Council and other water councils in the sub-basin. 2. Conduct a three day workshop on irrigation optimization with 50 irrigators and irrigation professional attending. 3. Publish highlights of progress in local newspapers and partner newsletter and other media. Maintain internet web site describing project progress. 4. Participate in seminars or conferences on riparian ecosystem restoration at regional and national meetings to demonstrate our approach to riparian ecosystem restoration. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $42,290 |
|
Biological objectives Maintain Genetic Diversity Restore riparian function |
Metrics * # of general public reached: Target landowners that own land along a stream |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Provide overall project management and administration. | g Provide overall management, administration and financial accountability to ensure project is well managed and outcomes are achieved on time and on budget. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $27,186 |
|
Biological objectives Maintain Genetic Diversity Restore riparian function |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Resource Conservationist, 1 FTE | $40,716 | $40,716 | $40,716 |
| Personnel | Information Specialist, .3 FTE | $12,215 | $12,215 | $12,215 |
| Personnel | Clerical Support, .1 FTE | $4,454 | $4,454 | $4,454 |
| Fringe Benefits | 1.4 FTE | $17,215 | $17,215 | $17,215 |
| Travel | Per diem, 36 days @ Fed rate - training, technical meetings | $310 | $310 | $310 |
| Travel | Lodging, 36 nites @ Fed rate, training, technical meetings | $612 | $612 | $612 |
| Other | Vehicle lease, 60 mo @ $400 / mo | $4,800 | $4,800 | $4,800 |
| Other | Vehicle operation and maintenance; 15000 mi/yr @ .445/mi | $6,675 | $6,675 | $6,675 |
| Supplies | General office, printing & postage | $600 | $600 | $600 |
| Supplies | Laptop computer & software | $3,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Supplies | Computer tech support | $300 | $300 | $300 |
| Supplies | Digital camera | $300 | $0 | $0 |
| Supplies | GPS unit | $1,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Supplies | Cell phone | $1,200 | $1,200 | $1,200 |
| Supplies | Internet connection | $600 | $600 | $600 |
| Overhead | 10 % | $9,560 | $9,560 | $9,560 |
| Totals | $103,557 | $99,257 | $99,257 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $302,071 |
| Total work element budget: | $302,071 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local | Project Management Team | $3,131 | $3,132 | $3,132 | In-Kind | Under Review |
| NRCS | Project coordination by RC&D Coordinator | $5,242 | $5,242 | $5,242 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| USDA Farm Service Agency | Buffer implementation and contract payments based on historical annual average | $822,075 | $1,644,150 | $1,664,150 | Cash | Under Development |
| USDA NRCS | Technical review of completed plans | $4,000 | $4,000 | $4,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| Totals | $834,448 | $1,656,524 | $1,676,524 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $102,235 FY 2011 estimated budget: $102,235 |
Comments: Assumes continuation of same level of effort with 2-3% increase in salary, OPE and overhead expenses. |
Future O&M costs: No cost to BPA. O&M cost funded by USDA CREP in annual maintenance payments to landowners.
Termination date: 2032
Comments: Termination date to be determined. The Deschutes Subbasin Plan is based upon a 25 year life. If 30 miles of riparian buffers can be restoed annually then in 25 years 750 miles of stream can be restored with this project.
Final deliverables: Restore and enhance at least 130 riparian buffer systems on approximately 3,900 acres covering an estimated 130 miles of high priority stream reaches identified in the Trout Creek Watershed and other Deschutes Sub-basin Plan priority reaches by 2012. Buffer widths will range from 35 to 180 feet on each side of the stream. Salmon, steelhead, and other fish and wildlife species will benefit from this habitat restoration project.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: The proposal provides a good synthesis of focal species, habitat conditions, and limiting factors from the Deschutes Subbasin Plan. Detail on habitat conditions establishes the need for riparian improvements. The proposal explicitly identifies how the implementation of riparian buffers will address specific limiting factors. It provides an excellent description of the CREP that also includes some assessment of factors that influence landowner willingness to enroll. Links to regional programs are well described. Collaborations between this and other related projects are presented in good detail. The objectives are direct components of riparian buffer contracts and are measured in: # contracts, acres, miles. It is good to have these objectives quantified but as with other riparian buffer projects it would be helpful to know more about the basis for these numbers in order to understand how the SWCDs develop their enrollment targets or how these targeted enrollments relate to the total need. The work elements are reasonable and follow NRCS protocols. The project will monitor riparian buffer implementation and the effectiveness of livestock exclusion. Monitoring and evaluation will also be conducted through the application of NRCS protocols, in which a baseline visual stream assessment is followed by subsequent periodic assessments to assess terrestrial change within the riparian buffer. The ISRP recommends that to more completely assess post-project results and effectiveness a cooperative effort be implemented with ODFW to also monitor fisheries and stream habitat response to the implementation of riparian buffers. As with other riparian buffer projects the evaluation aspect could be enhanced by evaluating factors influencing enrollment (although this proposal is notable for having included some discussion of this aspect in the rationale section) and lessons learned from the development and implementation of these contracts. The ISRP recommends that the Oregon SWCDs to work together to identify general findings as well as outcomes that vary by SWCD. The evaluation could identify ways to tie in outreach and education with landowner incentives and constraints. Additional thinking might be developed on how to target new audiences. One aspect of the information transfer component of the project is described as the transfer of information on project accomplishments to Streamnet "with approval of the landowner in accordance with USDA policy." The quoted phrase deserves more explanation as to which project data will be public and which may remain confidential. The ISRP requests a response clarifying the following issues identified in the review: 1. How enrollment objectives are determined. 2. The potential to develop a cooperative effort with ODFW to monitor fisheries and stream habitat response to the implementation of riparian buffers. 3. The potential for SWCD collaborative development of a report assessing the determinants of successful implementation processes for riparian buffer contracts and other USDA voluntary conservation programs. 4. Whether the conservation plans developed as part of CREP enrollment are kept confidential or are reported as part of the project results. If conservation plans are not reported, can they be synthesized in a way that will allow monitoring of progress toward meeting their objectives?
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: The proposal provides a good synthesis of focal species, habitat conditions, and limiting factors from the Deschutes Subbasin Plan. Detail on habitat conditions establishes the need for riparian improvements. The proposal explicitly identifies how the implementation of riparian buffers will address specific limiting factors. It provides an excellent description of the CREP that also includes some assessment of factors that influence landowner willingness to enroll. Links to regional programs are well described. Collaborations between this and other related projects are presented in good detail. The objectives are direct components of riparian buffer contracts and are measured in: # contracts, acres, miles. It is good to have these objectives quantified but as with other riparian buffer projects it would be helpful to know more about the basis for these numbers in order to understand how the SWCDs develop their enrollment targets or how these targeted enrollments relate to the total need. The work elements are reasonable and follow NRCS protocols. The project will monitor riparian buffer implementation and the effectiveness of livestock exclusion. Monitoring and evaluation will also be conducted through the application of NRCS protocols, in which a baseline visual stream assessment is followed by subsequent periodic assessments to assess terrestrial change within the riparian buffer. The ISRP recommends that to more completely assess post-project results and effectiveness a cooperative effort be implemented with ODFW to also monitor fisheries and stream habitat response to the implementation of riparian buffers. As with other riparian buffer projects the evaluation aspect could be enhanced by evaluating factors influencing enrollment (although this proposal is notable for having included some discussion of this aspect in the rationale section) and lessons learned from the development and implementation of these contracts. The ISRP recommends that the Oregon SWCDs to work together to identify general findings as well as outcomes that vary by SWCD. The evaluation could identify ways to tie in outreach and education with landowner incentives and constraints. Additional thinking might be developed on how to target new audiences. One aspect of the information transfer component of the project is described as the transfer of information on project accomplishments to Streamnet "with approval of the landowner in accordance with USDA policy." The quoted phrase deserves more explanation as to which project data will be public and which may remain confidential. The ISRP requests a response clarifying the following issues identified in the review: 1. How enrollment objectives are determined. 2. The potential to develop a cooperative effort with ODFW to monitor fisheries and stream habitat response to the implementation of riparian buffers. 3. The potential for SWCD collaborative development of a report assessing the determinants of successful implementation processes for riparian buffer contracts and other USDA voluntary conservation programs. 4. Whether the conservation plans developed as part of CREP enrollment are kept confidential or are reported as part of the project results. If conservation plans are not reported, can they be synthesized in a way that will allow monitoring of progress toward meeting their objectives?