FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 200201500

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
25006 Narrative	Narrative
Columbia Plateau: Deschutes Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map
Columbia Plateau: Deschutes Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Provide Coordination and Technical Assistance to Watershed Councils and Individuals in Sherman County, Oregon
Proposal ID	200201500
Organization	Sherman County Soil & Water Conservation District (Sherman SWCD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Krista Coelsch
Mailing address	PO Box 405 Moro, OR 97039
Phone / email	5415653216 / krista-coelsch@or.nacdnet.org
Manager authorizing this project	Krista Coelsch
Review cycle	Columbia Plateau
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / John Day
Short description	One watershed council coordinator and two planner/designers will provide support to five watershed councils in Sherman County. All future conservation projects will be based on watershed plans and individual ranch plans developed by these positions.
Target species	Middle Columbia Summer Steelhead (John Day and Deschutes runs), Resident Redband Trout, Wildlife, including elk, deer, antelope, bighorn, upland game birds and migratory species

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
45.6	-120.9	Sherman County, defined approximately by the following 4 points: Mouth of Deschutes River
45.7	-120.6	Mouth of John Day River
45.25	-121	Mouth of Buck Hollow on Deschutes River
45.1	-120.5	John Day River, River Mile 94

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 153	NMFS	BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001.
NMFS/BPA	Action 153	NMFS	BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
1996-2001	Pine Hollow Watershed Council. Five years ($280,000) of upland conservation practices and monitoring on private farm and range land.
2000	Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, Pine Hollow Watershed, 23 stream miles, including seven miles mainstem.
1998-2001	Grass Valley Watershed Council. Three years ($200,000) of upland conservation practices and monitoring on private farm and range land.
1998- 2001	Fulton and Gordon Canyons Watershed Council. Three years ($50,000) of upland conservation practices and monitoring on private farm land.
1999-2001	Mack's Canyon Watershed Council. Two years ($30,000) of upland conservation practices and monitoring on private farm and range land.
1990-2001	Buck Hollow Project. Eleven years (~$2,000,000) of upland and riparian conservation practices and monitoring on private farm and range land.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
-1999010	Pine Hollow/Jackknife Watershed Project	Ongoing progress will rely on coordination and technical assistance from SWCD personnel. In the past, Sherman SWCD has contracted for range planning, using BPA and OWEB funds. The contractor is not available for these services any longer.
	Direct Seeding Incentives, Sherman County OR	Sherman SWCD is requesting funding to assist farmers in converting to direct seed in order to reduce sediment and improve watershed hydrology. All cooperating farmers will require planning assistance.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Employ two full-time conservation planners to provide Resource Management System Plans (including NEPA) to project participants in Pine Hollow/Jackknife Watershed Council, Grass Valley WC, Fulton & Gordon WC, Spanish Hollow WC, and others.	a. Provide new range conservationist with appropriate tools & equipment.	1	$29,000
	b. Employ conservation planners.	5	$53,270
2. Train conservationist in NRCS planning method, hydrology, watershed assessment methods, other subjects.	a. On-the-job training from existing NRCS and SWCD personnel.	3	$0
	b. Send new conservation planner to Rosgen Classes.	1	$4,200
	c. Send new conservationist to NRCS Resource Management System Planning Certification Course	1 (2003)	$0
3. Produce at least 60 Resource Management System Plans (with associated NEPA documentation) upon which future conservation projects will be based.	a. Collaborate with individual farmers and ranchers on resource management systems which reduce or eliminate negative impacts on the environment and particularly on perennial streams and rivers.	5	$0
	b. Provide practice designs called for in RMS plans based on NRCS standards and specifications.	5	$0
4. Coordinate five watershed councils which provide local input to conservation programs throughout Sherman County.	a. Employ one watershed council coordinator to assist watershed councils in writing and implementing watershed action plans	5	$8,400
	b. Develop action plans for two watershed councils which currently have none.	3	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Employ one full-time range conservationist to provide Resource Management System Plans (including NEPA) to project participants in Pine Hollow/Jackknife Watershed Council, Grass Valley WC, Fulton & Gordon WC, Spanish Hollow WC, and others.	2002	2006	$230,000
2. Train conservation planner in NRCS planning method, hydrology, watershed assessment methods, engineering designs, other subjects.	2002	2004	$0
3. Produce at least 100 Resource Management System Plans (with associated NEPA documentation) over five years upon which future conservation projects will be based.	2002	2006	$0
4. Coordinate five watershed councils which provide local input to conservation programs throughout Sherman County.	2002	2006	$50,000

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$64,170	$66,737	$69,406	$72,182

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
Future private lands conservation in Sherman County will be based on RMS plans developed by the range conservationist or other NRCS/SWCD planning staff. Budgets for such work will be requested in future grant applications to both BPA and other sources.			$0

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 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Maintain and/or replace equipment required by planners.	a. Maintain vehicles & ATVs.	5	$800
	b. Maintain computer and other equipment.	4	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Maintain and/or replace equipment required by planners.	2002	2006	$10,800

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2006	FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005
$5,400	$1,600	$1,600	$1,600

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 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 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 1	$45,170
Fringe	insurance, payroll taxes, etc.	$16,500
Supplies	Laptop computer, printer, accessories, field tools	$4,000
Travel	gasoline, insurance, mileage on personal vehicles, depreciation & maintenance	$800
Indirect	adminstration, telephone, etc	$0
Capital	4wd pickup, ATV	$25,000
NEPA	NEPA is part of NRCS planning method	$0
Subcontractor		$0
Other	Rosgen training	$4,200
		$95,670

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$95,670
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$95,670
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
NRCS	Training	$7,500	in-kind
NRCS	Office Supplies	$3,500	in-kind
Watershed Councils	Priority setting/direction	$1,280	in-kind
SWCD	Funds and administers existing planning position and watershed council coordinator position.	$91,000	cash

Other budget explanation

Increasing personnel budget reflects projected annual salary increases.

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-6)

Recommendation:
Fundable - no response required

Date:
Jun 15, 2001

Comment:

Fundable. This proposal from the Sherman County SWCD is another cost-effective SWCD proposal that would provide a watershed coordinator and two planners for 5 watershed councils to help them implement conservation projects with agricultural landowners. The predominance of agricultural use of the land means that conservation plans must fit within the overall operating plan for the agricultural enterprise. The project would produce resource management plans that would be implemented with cost-share funding from state and federal agencies. The new FTE would replace services that were formerly contracted or provided in-kind by NRCS. The proposal provides a convincing case for the need to fund these activities, and presents good detail on objectives and methods. It also supports project 25050 (conversion to direct seed/no till wheat agriculture). It is unclear if the planned personnel would also help landowners to prepare the paperwork to establish CRP and CREP proposals for streamside buffers or to take upland cropland out of production. Provisions should be in place to monitor and evaluate the success of these personnel.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:

This proposal requests staffing to coordinate and perform activities that are performed by watershed councils. Reviewers suggest these activities should be funded through the USDA. This raises an in-lieu issue. This project needs to be implemented consistent with limiting factors and problem locations identified in subbasin summaries and eventually subbasin planning to insure fisheries benefits to target species. There needs to be oversight by the COTR to insure that actions taken will benefit fish and wildlife. If activities are not consistent with those described above, funding should be eliminated.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-8)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 10, 2001

Comment:

The set of proposals grouped below includes several proposals from local and county soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs) that ask for relatively modest amounts of financial support (~$70K) for an additional FTE in order to support processing of requests for riparian buffers and habitat enhancement through federal CRP programs (CRP, CREP, CCRP). While there exists a policy question in these projects about the use of BPA funds to support basic personnel in other federal and state agencies, the cost effectiveness of these projects for accelerating habitat restoration activities is impressive. A compelling aspect of the program and the project request is the ability to leverage significant amounts of federal support ($3-4 million) through the well-established CRP programs with a modest investment by BPA.

Habitat restoration under these programs has important stakeholder considerations. Landowners in the middle Columbia area (like those in the upper Columbia and upper Snake) are cautious about their support for and involvement in federal aid programs. This caution is often overcome by the personal relationship of local fish, wildlife, and land managers with local landowners. Presently, most of the SWCD offices appear to have more requests from local landowners for assistance with riparian buffer enhancement than they can process in a timely manner. Enthusiasm for and participation in the program could be jeopardized if the lag time between landowner request and project implementation is too great.

SWCDs should consider lumping their proposals. The basin has made a decision through the provincial review process to approach project review and funding through a geographical hierarchical structure of provinces and subbasins. The SWCDs should also adopt this approach within the NPPC-BPA funding arena. If partitioning of funding to individual SWC districts is needed for cost accounting within the SWC agency hierarchy, this can be accomplished within the budgeting portion of the proposal solicitation form (Part 1).

What fails to emerge from the suite of presentations is an overview of the magnitude of the problem at the subbasin level (the unit of management for fish and wildlife), the role of the SWCDs in addressing the problem, and the progress that the SWCDs have made in resolving the problem. In future, these relationships should be addressed by the SCWDs and the relevant resource agencies in the Council's subbasin planning process. ]

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Indirect -- Proposal requests staffing to coordinate & perform activities that are performed by watershed councils. Activities should be funded through the USDA -- this raises an in-lieu issue. Assurance of fisheries benefits to target species?

Comments
Proposal would provide staffing to help watershed councils implement conservation projects with agricultural landowners. Predominance of agricultural use of the land means that conservation plans must fit within the overall operating plan for agricultural enterprise. Project would produce resource management plans that would be implemented with cost-sharing from state and Federal agencies. The new FTE would replace services that were formerly contracted or provided in-kind by NRCS. Proposal needs to clarify whether planned personnel would also help landowners to prepare paperwork to establish CRP & CREP proposals for streamside buffers or to take upland cropland out of production. Need M&E to evaluate success of project.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Rank C

Date:
Oct 16, 2001

Comment:

Under this proposal, one watershed council coordinator and two planner/designers would provide support to five watershed councils in Sherman County.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment:

Proposals 25073, 25080 and 25006 may all be relevant to resolving the approach to implementing Biological Opinion RPA 153NMFS commented that these projects will implement RPA 153 only through permanent or long term easements. Bonneville commented that all proposals would meet RPA 153 and ranked 25073 and 25080 in the A funding category. Bonneville placed proposal 25006 in the C category. Staff Recommendation: Staff believes these proposals will help implement RPA 153 and Oregon places great emphasis on these types of locally driven proposals in implementing the Oregon Plan. The proposals would be strengthened if Bonneville, though its contracting process, encouraged coordination of SWCD personnel with the local fish and wildlife managers to develop priorities for contracting and enrolling participants in the CREP programs. Bonneville's comments on these proposals would appear to further emphasize this necessary coordination.

Staff recommends that 25006 would enable the Council to anticipate subbasin planning under the program by providing technical assistance to watershed councils that will be focal points in helping develop subbasin plans in the John Day. Proposal 25006 budgeted for purchase of a vehicle and an ATV during FY 2002. Staff does not find the purchase of these vehicles necessary to implement this project and has decreased the budget for FY 2002 to reflect that change.

Budget effect on base program (Project 25006):

FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004
Increase $71,000	Increase $65,770	Increase $68,337

Budget effect on base program (Project 25073):

FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004
Increase $75,086	Increase $77,337	Increase $79,657

Budget effect on base program (Project 25080):

FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004
Increase $75,086	Increase $77,337	Increase $79,657

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Mar 6, 2002

Comment:

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

05 costs are personnel cost increases. Accruals on schedule. Project on track.

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Amounts consistent with budget requested in original grant application. Our budget forecasts show these amounts as sufficient for FY 04 and 05.

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$68,337	$68,337	$68,337

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website