Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Oregon CREP Improvement Project |
| Proposal ID | 25099 |
| Organization | Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Kenneth F. Bierly |
| Mailing address | 775 Summer St. NE, Suite 360 Salem, OR 97301-1290 |
| Phone / email | 5039860182 / Ken.Bierly@state.or.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Kenneth F. Bierly |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Mainstem Columbia |
| Short description | This project provides outreach and technical assistance for the CREP program in Oregon. The project will also develop a long-term easement option for the CREP Program. |
| Target species | all salmonids |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 44.83 |
-119.9 |
Columbia Plateau south (Oregon section) |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
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
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| CREP Technical Assistance |
|
2 |
$180,000 |
Yes |
| CREP Outreach |
|
2 |
$180,000 |
Yes |
| CREP Program Improvement |
|
1 |
$73,725 |
|
| Long Term Easements |
|
|
$0 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $360,000 | $360,000 | $360,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation 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 Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance 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 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: 1.0 |
$38,500 |
| Fringe |
OPE @ 40% |
$15,500 |
| Supplies |
|
$5,000 |
| Travel |
|
$10,000 |
| Indirect |
rent & phone |
$4,725 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$360,000 |
| $433,725 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $433,725 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $433,725 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| OWEB |
CREP Program Suppost |
$80,000 |
in-kind |
| OWEB |
CREP Payments |
$200,000 |
cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required
Date:
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Do not fund. No response warranted. Although, the project could offer real benefits, the proposal does not provide enough information to evaluate its merits. It is not clear that merely developing the capacity to offer long-term easements will benefit salmonid production. Developing greater public awareness and providing outreach information may increase riparian restoration and protection if that information is a limiting factor for involvement with CREP. That connection needed to be made in the proposal.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 10, 2001
Comment:
Do not fund. No response was warranted. Although, the project could offer real benefits, the proposal does not provide enough information to evaluate its merits. It is not clear that merely developing the capacity to offer long-term easements will benefit salmonid production. Developing greater public awareness and providing outreach information may increase riparian restoration and protection if that information is a limiting factor for involvement with CREP. That connection needed to be made in the proposal.
Recommendation:
Date:
Oct 1, 2001
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Project will provide outreach and technical assistance for the CREP program in Oregon. The project will also develop a long-term easement option for the CREP Program.Comments
Strong Conditional support. Proposal must identify how the goals will be met, provide assurances that the funds and technical staff will be dedicated solely to achieving objectives of action 153. If proposed FTEs not dedicated and annual performance accountable to 153, the benefit to meeting action agency responsibilities in the FCRPS is unclear. The budget needs better description and justification. Great opportunity to be a model for implementation across all subbasins. Proposal would be stronger if focused on implementation of 153 through CREP, identified process, and accountability.
Already ESA Req? no
Biop? yes
Recommendation:
Rank A
Date:
Oct 16, 2001
Comment:
Good match with RPA #153. If BPA is going to help fund this effort, it would be important for the soil and water conservation districts, states, tribes, etc. and CREP folks to get together to identify the issues that are preventing the federal programs from being implemented more efficiently. There have been no convincing arguments to date as to why funds are so limited.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jan 3, 2002
Comment: