FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25077
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 |
|---|---|
| 25077 Narrative | Narrative |
| 25077 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Umatilla County Conservation Buffer Project |
| Proposal ID | 25077 |
| Organization | Umatilla County Soil and Water Conservation District (Umatilla SWCD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Ray Denny |
| Mailing address | 1229 SE Third Pendleton, OR 97801 |
| Phone / email | 5412768170 / ray-denny@or.nacdnet.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | Ray Denny |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Umatilla |
| Short description | Implement buffer program using cost share provided by Confederated Tribes Umatilla Indian Reservation, USDA, State of Oregon, and private landowners. |
| Target species | Mid Columbia Steelhead, Bull Trout, Columbia Spotted Frog, Pacific Lamprey, Red Band Trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| East and North boundaries of the CTUIR and service area for Umatilla SWCD | ||
| West and South boundaries of the CTUIR and service area for the Umatilla SWCD | ||
| 46.65 | -118.75 | Umatilla County |
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. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 2001 | SWCD: EPA,ODEQ,OWEB & NRCS: Direct Seeding Incentive program 1997 to Present 21000 acres, 85 % adoption rate of practice- Ongoing |
| 2001 | NRCS & SWCD: Continuous Conservation Reserve Program and CREP 177 acres for 14 contracts |
| 2001 | NRCS: Conservation Reserve Program 22, 622 acres for 128 contracts |
| 2001 | SWCD: OWEB/EPA/ODA & NRCS EQIP: Butter Creek Range and Riparian Enhancement Project, 100,000+ acres, riparian fence, grazing management, off stream water, streambank stabilization, animal feeding area improvement, floodplain reconnection - Ongoing |
| 2001 | NRCS EQIP & SWCD: George Canyon; 17,000 acres cropland to implement intensified crop rotations and direct seeding- Ongoing |
| 2001 | NRCS EQIP: South Reservation GPA31, 040 acres cropland to implement direct seeding, annual cropping, and hayland conversion |
| 2001 | SWCD, ARS, NRCS Umatilla County; Long Term Direct Seeding Program and Sediment Monitoring Research Project - Ongoing |
| 2001 | NRCS EQIP: Moonshine Creek Tribal GPA; 3800 acres Range & Riparian to implement grazing mgmt, fencing, water developments |
| 2000 | NRCS: CRP 6595 acres for 73 contracts |
| 2000 | NRCS & SWCD: CCRP & CREP 827 acres for 37 contracts |
| 2000 | NRCS EQIP: Patawa-Tutuilla Tribal GPA; 10000 acres cropland to implement annual cropping and direct seeding |
| 1999 | NRCS: CRP 14, 029 acres for 99 contracts |
| 1999 | NRCS & SWCD: CCRP & CREP 176 acres for 10 contracts |
| 1999 | NRCS EQIP: Buckaroo Creek Tribal GPA; 14,372 acres Rangeland & Riparian to implement grazing mgmt., fencing and water development |
| 1998 | NRCS: CRP 56, 168 acres for 311 contracts |
| 1998 | NRCS: CCRP & CREP 238 acres for 17 contracts |
| 1998 | NRCS EQIP: Mission Creek Tribal GPA; 3000 acres cropland and range to implement direct seeding, annual cropping and grazing mgmt. GPA-Geographic Priority Area, EQIP-Environmental Quality Incentive Program, |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 8710001 | Anadromous habitat enhancement in the Umatilla Basin | Complimentary, ODFW * CTUIR Riparian lease agreement |
| 9604500 | Instream and riparian habitat enhancement in Buckaroo, Mission, Wildhorse, and McKay Creek | Complimentary, CTUIR 1996 |
| 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 | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Implement new CRP/CREP buffer agreements with participating landowners to improve 1600 riparian acres | Market Buffer program to landowners(10%) | 3 | $15,237 | |
| Meet with interested landowner on site to assess eligibility of stream reach for program. (10%) | 3 | $15,237 | ||
| Obtain landowner sign-up for program(2%) | 3 | $3,047 | ||
| Develop CRP\CREP plan for review and approval, planting prescriptions, design development, fencing design and other practice elements as necessary(50%) | 3 | $76,184 | ||
| Report progress, complete documentation Umatilla Subbasin Action Plan(5%) | 3 | $7,618 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implement Buffer Agreements | 2003 | 2003 | $120,843 |
| Implement Buffer Agreements | 2004 | 2004 | $124,468 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $120,843 | $124,468 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Provide technical assistance during implementation as necessary | After contract approved, provide additional technical assistance as may be required by the landowner to implement the approved plan(15%) | 3 | $22,856 | |
| Provide technical assistance for project inspection, approval and annual status review | After project installation, provide technical assistance for inspection, project approval and annual status review (8%) | 3 | $12,189 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provide technical assistance | 2003 | 2003 | $36,096 |
| Provide technical assistance | 2004 | 2004 | $37,179 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $36,096 | $37,179 |
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. | $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: 2.0 | $84,000 |
| Fringe | Incl. all other pers. exp. FICA, WC, PERS, Health | $25,200 |
| Supplies | Field and Office equipment | $12,000 |
| Travel | Technical training NRCS | $3,000 |
| Indirect | Administration/Overhead (10%) | $15,208 |
| NEPA | All NRCS plans written to meet NEPA | $0 |
| Subcontractor | Vehicle lease and operations | $9,360 |
| Subcontractor | Office space rental | $3,600 |
| $152,368 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $152,368 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $152,368 |
| 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%) | $70,752 | cash |
| USDA Farm Service Agency | Implementation cost share(50%) | $566,400 | cash |
| Private Landowners | Implementation cost share(25%) | $212,800 | in-kind |
| USDA Farm Service Agency | Lease Payments over 10-15 | $1,648,000 | cash |
| USDA Farm Service Agency | Bonus Payments (100%) est. | $771,200 | cash |
| Umatilla Co. SWCD & NRCS | Telephone, copier, field Equipment | $750 | in-kind |
| CTUIR | Vehicle cost share, CTUIR Management Support, Project & Technical Support, office space, planting materials and field equipment. | $24,500 | in-kind |
| USDA NRCS | Training & Supervision | $31,000 | in-kind |
Other budget explanation
Budget projections are for 3 years of funding. This project will definitely continue beyond this 3 year cycle; 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.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns. This seems like a worthwhile project, and one with a lot of cost sharing. Three basins are covered here. A restoration plan is required, with all of its components. The proposal suggests M&E is not applicable. We disagree, there is a need some indication of success - consider an evaluation process and a demonstration site. Here and elsewhere, an alternative to the 15-yr lease should be explored, if any. Streamline the watershed rehabilitation process into a standardized approach, regardless of agency involved. Protection of riparian areas is an important element in restoration and stabilization of watershed processes. However, data are not provided to show that the strategy proposed here has potential for protecting enough of the total riparian area on any given stream to significantly improve habitat for salmonids. Proposals in all provinces need to be based on knowledge that there is a solid relation between substrate composition in a stream and the miles of stream bank in protection, and on knowledge that there is a strong relation between substrate composition and salmonid habitat productivity. These relations can provide a basis for estimating benefits expected from an investment. Can project personnel show that there is great potential, in the foreseeable future, for protecting enough riparian area at each site to cause significant increase in valuable fish populations? How will this be evaluated?
Comment:
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.Comment:
Fundable with the set of proposals requesting FTE's to help secure CRP, CREP funding for riparian buffer projects on agricultural lands. However, the response did not adequately address the ISRP's concerns. These concerns apply to the set of riparian buffer projects. This project highlighted the need for a tie to a watershed assessment, a monitoring plan for performance (implementation) and effectiveness monitoring, as part of a basinwide effectiveness monitoring design.See detailed ISRP Comments on CRP, CREP, Buffer, and No-till Proposals
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUProject will implement a riparian buffer program using cost share provided by Confederated Tribes Umatilla Indian Reservation, 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
Comment:
This is an outstanding program with substantial cost-sharing capability. This work should be coordinated with the Morrow County proposal to address priority needs. Work needs to be prioritized on fish and water quality needs and not just landowner interest. Again, the more expensive state and tribal work in the Umatilla and Walla Walla sub-basins should be deferred pending use of the USDA funds. The riparian work should be guided by fish distribution and need and needed improvements in water quality (lower temperatures). This work might better be focused by completion of the aerial FLIR evaluation proposed for the Walla Walla to determine temperature “hot spots”.Comment: