FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25050
Contents
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 |
|---|---|
| Crop Rotation Cost Estimates | Response Attachment |
| WIN-PST Soil/Pesticide Interaction: Loss Potential and Hazard Ratings Report | Response Attachment |
| 25050 Narrative | Narrative |
| 25050 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Provide incentives to convert to direct seed/no-till farming in Sherman County, Oregon |
| Proposal ID | 25050 |
| 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 | Sherman Co. SWCD will provide incentive for two of three crop years for farmers to convert to no-till/direct seed farming. Conservation Plans will be written by SWCD or NRCS personnel. No-till provides improvement in watershed hydrology & sedimentation. |
| Target species | Middle Columbia River Steelhead, resident red band trout, upland wildlife, including elk, deer, antelope, bighorn, upland game birds and migratory waterfowl |
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 |
| 45.41 | -120.69 | Sherman county |
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. |
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. |
| 1998-2000 | Gerking Canyon Watershed Council. Two years ($90,000) of upland conservation practices and a technical runoff analysis for the watershed. |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 25006 | Provide Coordination and Technical Assistance to Watershed Councils and Individuals in Sherman County, Oregon | This No-till/Direct Seed project will require planning assistance to landowners, which could be provided by SWCD planners funded through project #25006. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Provide conservation plans to no-till/direct seed cooperators on 7500 acres in Sherman County | Note: Tasks a-c are contingent on receipt of funds under Project #25006 a. Inventory Resources & Analyze Data | 1 | $0 | |
| b. Formulate & Evaluate Alternatives | 1 | $0 | ||
| c. Present to Landowner | 1 | $0 | ||
| d. Contract w/ landowner | 1 | $1,600 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Note: Objectives 1-3 are contingent on receipt of funds under Project #250006 | $0 | ||
| 1. Provide conservation plans to 20 direct seed cooperators. | 2002 | 2004 | $0 |
| 2. Revise conservation plans as needed. | 2003 | 2004 | $0 |
| 3. Revise contracts as needed. | 2003 | 2004 | $1,600 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $800 | $800 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Provide $20/acre/year incentive on 7500 acres for three years to cooperators that convert to no till/direct seed. | 3 | $150,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Provide $20/acre/year incentive on 7500 acres for three years to cooperators that convert to no till/direct seed. | 2002 | 2004 | $300,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $150,000 | $150,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Outreach | Write and publish newsletter | 1 | $250 | |
| 2. Accept and process applications | Accept applications from individual farmers and rank applications based on funding availability. | 1 | $5,000 | |
| 3. Pay cooperators upon completion | Verify completion and write checks | 3 | $200 | |
| 4. Reconcile project finances | Complete audit requirements for State | 3 | $7,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Outreach | 2002 | 2004 | $400 |
| 2. Accept and process applications | 2002 | 2002 | $0 |
| 3. Pay cooperators upon completion | 2002 | 2004 | $400 |
| 4. Audit | 2002 | 2004 | $14,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $7,400 | $7,400 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Annual inspection of fields by NRCS or SWCD technical personnel. | Note: This task is contingent on receipt of funds under Project #250006. Annually visit and inspect each crop field on which incentive is received and confirm that fields wer not tilled and standing stubble exists after seeding. | 3 | $0 | |
| 2. Measure and record infiltration | Note: This task is contingent on receipt of funds under Project #250006 Placement of an infiltration ring and recording rate of infiltration on one field per contract | 2 | $0 | |
| 3. Equipment | Infiltration rings, timer | 1 | $150 | |
| 4. Compilation of data | Compile infiltration and economic data | 3 | $240 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Annual inspection of fields by NRCS or SWCD technical personnel (task contingent on funds in Project #25006) | 2002 | 2004 | $0 |
| 2. Measure and record infiltration (task contingent on funds in Project #25006) | 2002 | 2004 | $0 |
| 3. Equipment | 2002 | 2002 | $0 |
| 4. Compilation of data | 2002 | 2004 | $480 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $240 | $240 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: accounted for in Project #25006 | $0 |
| Supplies | $150 | |
| Indirect | $14,290 | |
| Other | Incentives | $150,000 |
| $164,440 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $164,440 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $164,440 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| NRCS | planning | $3,000 | in-kind |
| SWCD | planning, and administration | $1,000 | in-kind |
| landowners | labor and farm management | $74,250 | in-kind |
| OSU Extension | $500 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns. This proposal is to provide monetary incentives to farmers to convert to no-till farming. The proposal presents good justification for performing the experiment with no-till farming; however, it is sparse in information on objectives, tasks, and methods.
The proposal should take an experimental approach to the question of the economic viability of no-till farming, rather than asserting that it hopes to demonstrate the economic viability of no-till farming. Does the no-till method require the long-term use of herbicides? What is the potential for negative effects on water quality, fish and wildlife from use of herbicides?
Saying "economics will also be monitored" is not sufficient. The economics of alternate farming practices are the basis of this experiment since the stream hydrology benefits are apparently known. The proposal should provide much more detail on who will conduct the economic analysis of no-till results and the methods to be used by the economic analysis. An economic analysis could compare this no-till program to putting cropland subject to high erosion into the CRP and CREP. Should the land subject to high erosion be totally taken out of production via the CRP?
An agricultural economist should be involved from the beginning of the experiment rather than at the end after the data have been collected. The economic analysis should be designed and conducted by a trained economist.
Comment:
Due to the reviewers recommendation that an FTE should be funded through the USDA (Project 25006), Objective 1 (P&D phase) could be jeopardized without the recommended USDA funding.Comment:
Not fundable as stands. The response was inadequate on the role of the economist. Fundable only if an agricultural economist is part of the research team and is responsible for the design and conduct of the experiment regarding the economic viability of no-till farming.Involvement of the NRCS economist is a good first step, but his involvement should not be limited to the provision of spreadsheet software. As we said in our preliminary comments, the economic analysis should be designed and conducted by a trained economist. Continuing involvement of an agricultural economist is necessary to ensure that all economic aspects related to the costs of production - including the influence of wheat prices in willingness to adopt new production methods - are appropriately recognized and analyzed. The project as currently designed is not a rigorous analysis of the economic and biological benefits of converting farming practices to no-till.
This project and project #199401807 are investigations into no-till farming. Project 199401807 is directed at sediment reduction. Project 25050 aims to demonstrate the efficacy of no-till as a farming method based on the premise that no-till is effective in reducing sediment delivery to streams. Both experiments are based on the economics of alternate farming practices. The larger question that both these projects should be helping to answer is "what is the most cost-effective way to reduce sedimentation in streams?" No-till, riparian buffer strips, and CRP set-asides should all be analyzed to address this question. Understanding which incentives are necessary to convert farming practices will depend on the outcome of the analysis. The present county acreage cap on CRP should not prevent analysis of the relative efficiency of CRP as a soil conservation tool. The information provided by conducting this analysis would be useful to those making the decision about increasing the cap.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUProject will permit SWCD to provide incentive for two of three crop years for farmers to convert to no-till/direct seed farming to improve watershed hydrology and reduce sedimentation. Conservation Plans will be written by SWCD or NRCS personnel.
Comments
Project needs an agricultural economist as part of the research team who will be responsible for the design and conduct of the experiment regarding the economic viability of no-till farming -- the project as currently designed is not a rigorous analysis of the economic & biological benefits of converting farming practices to no-till. Better if could feed into an adaptive management loop.
Already ESA Req? no
Biop? yes
Comment:
Under this proposal, the SWCD will provide incentive for two of three crop years for farmers to convert to no-till/direct seed farming. No-till provides improvement in watershed hydrology and reduces sedimentation. Prior to commitment of funding, this proposal needs to be reviewed by the Regional Water Entity.Comment: