FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 200202600

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
25047 Narrative	Narrative
Columbia Plateau: Columbia Lower Middle Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map
Columbia Plateau: Columbia Lower Middle Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Morrow County Buffer Initiative
Proposal ID	200202600
Organization	Morrow Soil and Water Conservation District (Morrow SWCD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Janet Greenup
Mailing address	Post Office Box 127, 430 Heppner/Lexington Highway Heppner, OR 97836
Phone / email	5416765452 / janet-greenup@or.nacdnet.org
Manager authorizing this project	Janet Greenup
Review cycle	Columbia Plateau
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / Umatilla
Short description	Implements ripairan buffer program using cost share provided by USDA, State of Oregon, and private landowners.
Target species

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
46	-119.25	East and North boundaries of the service area for Morrow SWCD
45	-120	West and South boundaries of the service area for Morrow SWCD
		Project will be within the service area for Morrow SWCD
45.5	-119.6	Morrow SWCD

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Action 153
Action 154

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
2001	CRP Signups from 1997 through 2001, #s17, 19, 21, and 22; 15 contracts for buffers on 360 acres (approximately 20 miles).
2001	CRP Singups from 1997 trough 2001 (#s13, 15, 16,18, and 20); 390 contracts retiring 113,629.3 acres of cropland into grassland.
2000	Fire Management Plan contract with Department of the Navy.
2000	Current 45,000 acre grazing plan and grazing monitoring contract w/Department of the Navy on NWTF Boardman (Boardman Bombing Range).
2000	Oregon State Weed Board Grant. $25,000 for control of Yellow starthistle on private lands. 2711.7 ac. treated.
1997	GWEB Education Partnership. $3943 grant to assist area schools and home schools purchase of water quality monitoring equipment.
1997	EQIP Education grant. $20,000 for landowner workshop, display and field visits in the Lower Umatilla Basin Water Quality Management Area to encourage the use of Irrigation Water Management.
1996	Oregon Youth Conservation Corp. $9105 to hire crew leader and 4 crew members to repair hiking trails, remodel a dormitory, weed control, weed survey.
1995	GWEB grant; $4812 for a riparian enhancement project.
1994	Dry Fork Watershed; 32,000 acres benefited; 17,123 acres of non-irrigated cropland treated through residue management, crop rotation and terrace, 14,877 acres of rangeland treated through cross fencing,water developments, and livestock management
1991	GWEB/EPA grant; $27,700 for log weirs and water retention terraces on WF Juniper>Rock Creek..
1990	ODA Information Education grant; $5500 to hire a part time coordinator to deliver conservation information to county schools and other groups.
1990	Oregon Youth Conservation Corp. $10,072 to hire a crew leader and 4 crew members to build a hiking trail and live gabion along Willow Creek in the City of Heppner.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
	B.O. RPA 153	This proposal focuses on accelerating the protection of riparian areas on private lands by utilizating the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.
	B.O. RPA 154	Through this proposal staff assistance will be provided to the Subbasin Assessment and Planning process to coordinate local input and needs.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Implement 40 new CCRP/CREP riparian buffer system agreements with participating landowners on 50 miles of streams to improve 1000 riparian acres during the 3 year duration.	a. Develop interest in programs with outreach program. Meet with interested landowners on site and assess eligibility of stream reach for program. (10%)	3	$7,509
	b. Obtain landowner sign-up for program. (2%)	3	$1,502
	c. Develop CCRP/CREP plan for review and approval, including planting prescriptions, fencing design, and other practice elements as necessary (70%)	3	$52,560
	d. Report progress, complete documentation. (4%)	3	$3,003
2. Subbasin assessment & plan assistance.	a. Provide assistance to BPA & NWPPC with development and update of subbasin plans. (5%)	3	$3,754

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Implement 40 new CCRP/CREP riparian buffer system agreements with participating landowners on 50 miles of streams to improve 1000 riparian acres during the five year project.	2003	2004	$142,865

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004
$70,377	$72,488

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
2. Provide technical assistance during implementation as necessary.	a. After contract is approved, provide additional technical assistance as may be required by the landowner to implement the approved plan. (9%)	3	$6,758

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
FY 2002 objective is continued	2003	2004	$14,129

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004
$6,960	$7,169

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
Operation and maintenance costs are included in the contract payments and are the responsibility of the landowner.			$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
Operation and maintenance costs are included in the contract payments and are the responsibility of the landowner.	2003	2004	$0

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

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	$42,000
Fringe	Includes all personnel exp. (FICA/WC/Med)	$12,600
Supplies	field equipment and office equipment. Includes computer system & software	$4,000
Travel	3 weeks NRCS Planning Course	$1,500
Indirect	adminitrative/overhead (10%)	$6,826
Capital		$0
NEPA	Covered under NRCS planning process	$0
Subcontractor	vehicle lease and operations	$6,240
Other	office rent	$1,920
		$75,086

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$75,086
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$75,086
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Reason for change in estimated budget

New project

Reason for change in scope

New project

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
State of Oregon	Implementation cost share (25%) est.	$44,219	cash
USDA Farm Service Agency	Implementation cost share (50%) est.	$353,750	cash
Private landowners	Implementation cost share (25%) est	$132,656	in-kind
USDA Farm Service Agency	Bonus payments 1 time (100%) est.	$482,000	cash
Morrow SWCD and NRCS	Office supplies/telephone/computer	$1,500	in-kind
USDA Farm Service Agency	Lease payments 10-15 yr. (100%) est.	$1,029,750	cash
USDA NRCS	Training & Technical Supervision	$15,500	in-kind

Other budget explanation

Cost-sharing total is for the life of CCRP and CREP contracts using an average of 12.5 years. Budget projections are for 3 years of funding. This project will definitely continue beyond this 3 year projection. A re-application will be filed in the next funding cycle.

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. See comments above for this set of SWCD proposals. The cost effectiveness of this and similar projects for accelerating habitat restoration activities is impressive. The proposal is well prepared. Protection of riparian areas is an important part of watershed restoration. It is troublesome, however, that some potential participants in the program have declined. The reason offered was a lack of staff. However, there was a proven record of accomplishment and an experienced planner. They should pick at least one buffer site as a model or demonstration "show case" site. A hydro-geomorphological model of a fully buffered system might prove instructive, particularly when 50 or 100-yr flood events are considered. This seems like a worthwhile project to parlay one FTE of BPA funds to attain over $2 million in other funds. The proposed work to foster riparian buffer protection and rehab is surely needed and in the regional plans. Drumming up landowner interest is a big job and one that seems to have slipped recently. Riparian buffers are good in their own right for fish and wildlife, but it would have been good to have the affected fish species listed. Better recognition of other BPA-funded projects in the area would have been useful. There is no M&E, but good riparian improvement may be judged without a specially funded study, or by using a modeling approach and/or demonstration sites. We applaud the partnership approach.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:

If there is a permanent or long-term easement, this proposal will address NMFS RPA 152 . Although money exists in the State of Oregon CREP program, the SWCD is statutorily unable to use the existing money. Managers question the appropriateness of allocating F&W Program money to administer (i.e., fund FTE) USDA projects. This project needs to be implemented consistent with limiting factors and problem locations identified in subbasin summaries and eventually subbasin planning to ensure fisheries benefits to target species. There needs to be oversight by the COTR to ensure that actions taken will benefit fish and wildlife.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-8)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 10, 2001

Comment:

Fundable. See comments below for this set of SWCD proposals. The cost effectiveness of this and similar projects for accelerating habitat restoration activities is impressive. The proposal is well prepared. Protection of riparian areas is an important part of watershed restoration. It is troublesome, however, that some potential participants in the program have declined. The reason offered was a lack of staff. However, there was a proven record of accomplishment and an experienced planner. They should pick at least one buffer site as a model or demonstration "show case" site. A hydro-geomorphological model of a fully buffered system might prove instructive, particularly when 50 or 100-yr flood events are considered. This seems like a worthwhile project to parlay one FTE of BPA funds to attain over $2 million in other funds. The proposed work to foster riparian buffer protection and rehab is surely needed and in the regional plans. Drumming up landowner interest is a big job and one that seems to have slipped recently. Riparian buffers are good in their own right for fish and wildlife, but it would have been good to have the affected fish species listed. Better recognition of other BPA-funded projects in the area would have been useful. There is no M&E, but good riparian improvement may be judged without a specially funded study, or by using a modeling approach and/or demonstration sites. We applaud the partnership approach.

See detailed ISRP Comments on CRP, CREP, Buffer, and No-till Proposals

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Project will implement riparian buffer program using cost share provided by USDA, State of Oregon, and private landowners

Comments
Project will implement RPA 153 only if permanent or long term easement. Support if permanent easement, or at least > 15 years. Easement should be consistent with Oregon CREP. This project needs to be implemented consistent with limiting factors & problem locations identified in subbasin summaries & and eventually subbasin planning to ensure fisheries benefits to target species.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Rank A

Date:
Oct 16, 2001

Comment:

This and similar USDA-backed programs should be supported as the cost-share provisions are substantial. As stated above, we should consider having CTUIR and ODFW staffs integrated into this program on personnel details, thereby eliminating or deferring the fishery agencies proposed riparian habitat work and eliminating the need for the SWCD to hire duplicative personnel at BPA expense.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment:

Morrow County Buffer Initiative, Project 25047

Proposal 25047 may help resolve the implementation of Biological Opinion RPA 153. NMFS has commented that the project will implement RPA 153 only through permanent or long-term easements. Bonneville noted that the project would meet RPA 153 and placed it in its A category.

Staff Recommendation: Staff believes the proposal will help implement RPA 153 and Oregon places great emphasis on these types of locally driven proposals in implementing the Oregon Plan.

Budget effect on base program (Project 25047):

FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004
Increase $77,086	Increase $77,377	Increase $77,657

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Mar 6, 2002

Comment:

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Also delayed by a year, similar situation to Gillam. Project shifted a year.

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

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:
$79,657	$79,657	$79,657

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website