FY07-09 proposal 199901000
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Pine Hollow/Jackknife Habitat |
| Proposal ID | 199901000 |
| Organization | Sherman County Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) |
| Short description | Implement practices to reduce erosion, flooding, and protect critical areas in the stream corridor which will allow natural recovery of riparian vegetation and channel stability in the Pine Hollow and Jackknife watersheds. |
| Information transfer | Information concerning the project will be transferred to BPA in the form of metrics, such as number of habitat/water quality improvement projects installed, number of stream miles protected, number of acres protected from peak flows, etc. Metrics will be reported on a 5th field watershed scale. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Joli Munkers | Sherman County SWCD | joli.munkers@oacd.org |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Krista Coelsch | Sherman County SWCD | krista.coelsch@oacd.org |
| Jason Faucera | Sherman County SWCD | jason.faucera@oacd.org |
| Joli Munkers | Sherman County SWCD | joli.munkers@oacd.org |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / John Day
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 45.3 | 120.5 | John Day River at RM 60 | |
| 45.3 | 120.65 | NE corner of Jackknife Canyon | |
| 44.7 | 121.0 | SE Headwaters of Pine Hollow Creek | |
| 44.7 | 120.5 | John Day River at RM 103 |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Steelhead Middle Columbia River ESUsecondary: Interior Redband Trout
secondary: All Wildlife
Additional: Big Horn Sheep, Ferruginous Hawk, Grasshopper Sparrow, Sage Sparrow, American Beaver, Great Blue Heron, Elk, Deer, Antelope, Upland Game Birds, Migratory Species
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|---|
| 2005 | Installed 2 Spring Developments to reduce riparian grazing pressure. Installed 2 pasture cross fences to improve grass stand health and reduce riparian grazing pressure. |
| 2004 | Installed 1 well pumped to a livestock/wildlife watering system to reduce grazing pressure on 1.7 miles of riparian habitat. |
| 2003 | Installed 4 spring developments to reduce grazing pressure on 2 miles of streambanks. Installed 6 WASCBs to reduce peak flows from 1,468 acres of crop/rangeland. Improved 130 acres of pasture grassland to reduce riparian grazing pressure. |
| 2002 | No work was done due to lack of moisture to construct conservation structures. Unable to receive State Historical Preservation Office concurrance before the end of the construction window. |
| 2001 | Installed 1 Spring Development to reduce riparian grazing pressure. Installed 4 pasture cross fences to improve grass stand health and reduce riparian grazing pressure. |
| 2000 | Installed 6 WASCBs, 1 cross fence, 2 spring developments, 1 well development, 1 solar pump, 50 acres of native range seeding and 1 livestock waterline. |
| 1999 | Installed 12 WASCBs, 9 gradient terraces, 2 cross fences, 1 livestock watering facility. Began steelhead spawning surveys, temperature monitoring, and PFC in Pine Hollow. Upland restoration practices began. 20 stream miles enrolled in CREP. |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 200201500 | Provide Coordination and Technical Assistance to Watershed Councils and Individuals in Sherman County, Oregon | This project provides technical assistance and coordinatiion from three planners/designers and one watershed coordinator to implement habitat/water quality improvent projects throughout Sherman County, Oregon. |
| OWEB - State | 204-142 | Sherman Co Conservation Work 2 | Using OWEB and BPA funds combined, this grant implements 6,498 feet of terrace, 22 cropland WASCBs, 10 rangeland WASCBs, 6,800 feet of crossfencing, and 2 spring developments throughout the Sherman County watersheds. |
| OWEB - State | 206-123 | Grass Valley, Pine Hollow/Jack | This project is targeted to help reduce erosion on cropland by implementing 85,162 feet of terrace, and 18 cropland WASCBs. The project also targets rangeland and riparian zone health by implementing 1 rangeland WASCB and 1 spring development for off-channel livestock watering. Without technical assistance and coordination through staff supported by BPA funds, this project would not be accomplished. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Decrease water temperatures to below 64 degrees | Decrease water temperatures to below 64 degrees in Pine Hollow/Jackknife spawning streams by October 2009. | John Day | Riparian habitat improvements including management of riparian grazing and vegetation. Upland improvements obtained through vegetative, structural, or management activities designed to improve water quality. |
| Increase spawning success | To increase the spawning success of steelhead and redband trout in the Pine Hollow and Jackknife Watersheds by October 2009. | John Day | Flow restoration including off-stream storage basins and efforts to improve hydrological connectivity between springs and streams. Upland improvements obtained through vegetative, structural, or management activities designed to improve water quality. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upland Erosion and Sedimentation Control | Construct WASCB | Construct Rangeland WASCBs to reduce water course and gully erosion, trap sediment, and reduce and manage onsite and downstream runoff to improve water quality. BPA funds will be provided to the landowner to cost share the earth moving involved in forming each WASCB structure. Landowners may complete the installation themselves or may hire a subcontractor to complete the installation. NRCS specifications are used on all engineering practices. Technical assistance is provided (before, during, and after) project implementation to ensure adherence to NRCS specifications. WASCBs consist of a constructed berm and spillway designed to capture, store, and safely release runoff within a specified watershed. Funding for project selection, developing plans, designs and technical assistance to landowners for project implementation is paid in part by BPA Project 2002-015-00 and other agencies participating in the cost share of this project and is not covered under this contract. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $24,788 |
|
Biological objectives Increase spawning success |
Metrics |
||||
| Develop Alternative Water Source | Construct Off-Stream Watering Facilities From Developed or Undeveloped Water Source | Uses pipeline, trough, and protective fencing to connect to a water source on an off-stream watering facility. Alternative water development can take the form of a trough to provide water for domestic livestock and wildlife. Alternative watering systems reduce grazing pressure on riparian areas by providing an upland water source that draws cattle away from creek beds. BPA funds will be provided to the landowners to cost share the purchase and installation of the pipe and trough. Landowners may complete the installation themselves or may hire a subcontractor to complete the installation. Materials may include PVC pipe, protective fencing, and a trough. An overflow system is also included to deliver excess water back to the watershed. NRCS specifications are used on all engineering practices. Technical assistance is provided (before, during, and after) project implementation to ensure adherence to NRCS specifications. Funding for project selection, developing plans, designs and technical assistance to landowners for project implementation is paid in part by BPA Project 2002-015-00 and other agencies participating in the cost share of this project and is not covered under this contract. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $26,914 |
|
Biological objectives Decrease water temperatures to below 64 degrees |
Metrics |
||||
| Install Fence | Installation of Cross Fences | Fencing projects will allow better utilization of upland pastures, and separate management of riparian areas. Funding for project selection, developing plans, designs and technical assistance to landowners for project implementation is paid in part by BPA Project 2002-015-00 and other agencies participating in the cost share of this project and is not covered under this contract. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $4,958 |
|
Biological objectives Decrease water temperatures to below 64 degrees |
Metrics |
||||
| Remove vegetation | Brush Control | Brush control projects allow reestablishment of grass cover and will increase infiltration of precipitation. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $4,958 |
|
Biological objectives Increase spawning success |
Metrics * # of acres treated: 250 |
||||
| Plant Vegetation | Pasture Reseeding | Pasture reseeding will be utilized in areas that were cropped or overgrazed earlier in the century to remove annuals and replace them with native perennial grasses. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $4,958 |
|
Biological objectives Increase spawning success |
Metrics * # of acres of planted: 250 |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | Manage & Administer Project | Prepare FY07-FY09 statement of work, budget, spending plan and inventory list. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $1,417 |
|
Biological objectives Decrease water temperatures to below 64 degrees Increase spawning success |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Obtain Environmental Compliance For Upland Projects | NEPA Checklists, T&E and Cultural Resources surveys. Obtain Environmental Compliance for Upland Projects (water and sediment control basins (WASCBs), water/solar/spring developments and fencing). Cost associated with this work element are paid in part by BPA Project 2002-015-00 and other agencies participating in the cost share of this project. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $1,417 |
|
Biological objectives Decrease water temperatures to below 64 degrees Increase spawning success |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Annual Report | Annual Report (October 1, 2006 - September 30, 2009) | Annual Reports will be submitted to BPA each year no later than 90 days after the end of the annual performance period. Cost associated with this work element are paid in part by BPA Project 2002-015-00 and other agencies participating in the cost share of this project. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $1,417 |
|
Biological objectives Decrease water temperatures to below 64 degrees Increase spawning success |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Subcontracts | $21,363 | $21,363 | $21,363 |
| Overhead | Fiscal mangement and project coordination | $2,146 | $2,146 | $2,146 |
| Travel | Travel for project technician | $100 | $100 | $100 |
| Totals | $23,609 | $23,609 | $23,609 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $70,827 |
| Total work element budget: | $70,827 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Landowners | Cost-share on practices | $3,350 | $3,350 | $3,350 | Cash | Confirmed |
| ODFW | Participation in watershed council, spawning survey, other activities | $600 | $600 | $600 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| SWCD | Administration, monitoring, supplies | $4,100 | $4,100 | $4,100 | Cash | Confirmed |
| Totals | $8,050 | $8,050 | $8,050 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $23,609 FY 2011 estimated budget: $23,609 |
Comments: Subcontracts, Administration, Travel |
Future O&M costs: Actual Operation and Maintenance costs are the responsibility of the landowners/operator.
Termination date: 2011
Comments:
Final deliverables: Third Year Deliverables (FY 07 - FY 09): 1) Six alternate water sources 2) 5,000 feet of cross fencing 3) Four rangeland WASCBs 4) 250 acres of brush removal and reseeding
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: Fundable
NPCC comments: This is a well-written proposal for another cost-effective SWCD project that will leverage private and public money to achieve subbasin environmental improvements. The proposal shows good collaboration with other resource agencies and is well integrated with private interests. The proposal does a good job describing the causes and effects of watershed impairment, as well as the history of collaboration among landowners and agencies in addressing problems of aquatic habitat quality and quantity. The project is clearly linked to the limiting factors and restoration priorities identified in the John Day Subbasin Plan, as well as to regional programs. Benefits are clearly defined; however, it would be useful to have more detail on the nature of the linkages among the various riparian buffer projects Specific results of the project’s several years of implementation are reported. The accomplishments are impressive and represent good cost-sharing and leveraging. However, more evaluative detail on the effectiveness of past projects (actual impact, beyond enrollment numbers) would be helpful. It would also be useful to know how the results of the project fit within the overall needs of the watershed to have a better understanding of how recovery is progressing. Objectives are clearly stated in measurable terms, with time lines, in ways that address limiting factors identified in the subbasin plan. The project will use straightforward approaches. M&E is tied to each objective. Methods are clearly described in specific terms and relate well to objectives. Justification for each work element is clearly provided. This project appears to have excellent interagency and landowner coordination in implementing work elements. Effectiveness monitoring is conducted in collaboration with ODFW and landowners. The effect of restoration is monitored in part through redd counts and water temperature. The redd count data presented in the proposal show sensitivity to drought years, and it would be interesting to know the sponsors’ thinking on how this effect might be alleviated. M&E is also a component of the work elements for each habitat improvement project. Lists of indicators and performance standards are provided as a way to monitor habitat improvements. The metrics are measurable and reasonable. Information on project results will be reported on the form of metrics: water quality improvement, number of stream miles, water quality projects, etc. Benefits to focal species in the John Day Subbasin Plan (steelhead and redband trout) are clear and should be long lasting. The changes being made in the process of restoration are likely to be permanent, although the question of how to further protect in-stream flows in drought years should be addressed. Overall, this proposal outlines a practical, on-the-ground approach to protection of focal species. The improvements provided by project activities should also benefit a wide range of non-focal aquatic and terrestrial species. See comments under proposal 200201900 and the programmatic section of this report on SWCD projects.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: This is a well-written proposal for another cost-effective SWCD project that will leverage private and public money to achieve subbasin environmental improvements. The proposal shows good collaboration with other resource agencies and is well integrated with private interests. The proposal does a good job describing the causes and effects of watershed impairment, as well as the history of collaboration among landowners and agencies in addressing problems of aquatic habitat quality and quantity. The project is clearly linked to the limiting factors and restoration priorities identified in the John Day Subbasin Plan, as well as to regional programs. Benefits are clearly defined; however, it would be useful to have more detail on the nature of the linkages among the various riparian buffer projects Specific results of the project’s several years of implementation are reported. The accomplishments are impressive and represent good cost-sharing and leveraging. However, more evaluative detail on the effectiveness of past projects (actual impact, beyond enrollment numbers) would be helpful. It would also be useful to know how the results of the project fit within the overall needs of the watershed to have a better understanding of how recovery is progressing. Objectives are clearly stated in measurable terms, with time lines, in ways that address limiting factors identified in the subbasin plan. The project will use straightforward approaches. M&E is tied to each objective. Methods are clearly described in specific terms and relate well to objectives. Justification for each work element is clearly provided. This project appears to have excellent interagency and landowner coordination in implementing work elements. Effectiveness monitoring is conducted in collaboration with ODFW and landowners. The effect of restoration is monitored in part through redd counts and water temperature. The redd count data presented in the proposal show sensitivity to drought years, and it would be interesting to know the sponsors’ thinking on how this effect might be alleviated. M&E is also a component of the work elements for each habitat improvement project. Lists of indicators and performance standards are provided as a way to monitor habitat improvements. The metrics are measurable and reasonable. Information on project results will be reported on the form of metrics: water quality improvement, number of stream miles, water quality projects, etc. Benefits to focal species in the John Day Subbasin Plan (steelhead and redband trout) are clear and should be long lasting. The changes being made in the process of restoration are likely to be permanent, although the question of how to further protect in-stream flows in drought years should be addressed. Overall, this proposal outlines a practical, on-the-ground approach to protection of focal species. The improvements provided by project activities should also benefit a wide range of non-focal aquatic and terrestrial species. See comments under proposal 200201900 and the programmatic section of this report on SWCD projects.