FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 31012
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 |
|---|---|
| Maryland Easement Program | Response Attachment |
| Oregon ESA Letter of Support | Response Attachment |
| Cascade Pacific Letter of Support | Response Attachment |
| Maryland CREP Easement Option | Response Attachment |
| Maryland CREP Deed of Conservation Easement | Response Attachment |
| 31012 Narrative | Narrative |
| 31012 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Leveraging Conservation Easements for Fish and Wildlife in the Willamette Basin |
| Proposal ID | 31012 |
| Organization | Cascade Pacific Resource Conservation and Development, Inc. (CPRC&D) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Karen Strohmeyer |
| Mailing address | 305 SW "C" St., Suite 5 Corvallis, Oregon 97333-4400 |
| Phone / email | 5417574807 / Karen.Strohmeyer@or.usda.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | Cascade Pacific RC&D Board of Directors |
| Review cycle | Lower Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Willamette |
| Short description | Leveraging conservation easements for fish and wildlife protection in the Willamette Basin |
| Target species | Fall and Spring Chinook, steelhead, Oregon Chub, Bald Eagle |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 44.39 | -123.22 | Willamette River Reach from Corvallis to Harrisburg |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Action 150 |
| Action 153: |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1994-2000 | EPA Willamette Initiative Program: CPRC&D administered $312,000 for 23 watershed restoration projects including application and award process, evaluation criteria, contracting, project management and fiscal administration. |
| 2000 | Willamette Floodpain Restoration Project: Adminsitered a $450,000 and implemented four landowner projects that restored water quality, fish and wildlife habitat and floodplain function along the Willamette River. |
| 2000 | McKenzie Watershed Council: Administered $500,000 for council support, education/outreach, project mangement, BPA Sub-basin Assessment and OWEB Habitat Evaluation, stream and riparian projects. |
| 2000 | Coastal Initiative: Administered $197,000 USFS funding for watershed restoration projects |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Willamette River Reach analysis | Will be funded by OWEB to prioritize high value habitat, look at alternatives to dredging, address erosion to roads and other infrastructure | |
| Willamette River Monitoring Program | National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant for $150,000 to develop monitoring protocols for restoration work on the Willamette River. Primary investigator, Stan Gregory | |
| Pacific NW Ecosystem Research Consortium* | Willamette Basin Summary, p. 128 |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Develop a conservation easement and acquisition program that will be used by landowners along the Willamette River.- | a. Facilitate a DRAFT conservation easement document | 1 | $10,300 | |
| b. Implement a reach analysis to identify minimum criteria for mainstem restoration and prioritization . | 2 | $0 | ||
| c. Set up committee of scientist/agencies/ landowners/funders to establish program criteria, sliding scale for funding and prioritization. | 3 | $12,000 | ||
| d. Set up and hold landowner meetings | 1 | $10,000 | ||
| e. Identify and secure at least four landowners to participate in the program. | 2 | $10,210 | ||
| f. Determine costs and seek funding | 5 | $25,580 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Set up a fully functional landowner-driven conservation easement and acquisition program to protect floodplain function and ripariam buffers along the Willamette River. | 2004 | 2007 | $136,320 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $47,790 | $37,580 | $25,580 | $25,580 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Implement Easement Program | Set up easements with at least four landowners | 4 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implement Easement Program | 2004 | 2007 | $170,040 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $42,510 | $42,510 | $42,510 | $42,510 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n/a O&M is landowner responsibility | 5 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 2007 | $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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research, Monitoring and Evaluation | Pacific NW Ecosystem Research Consortium in collaboration with OSU Fish and Wildlife will conduct monitoring and evaluation(See National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant) | 3 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 2007 | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1.0 | $46,000 |
| Fringe | (15%) | $6,900 |
| Supplies | Mailings, printing | $3,000 |
| Travel | Meetings, field visits | $1,000 |
| Indirect | Administrative overhead | $6,190 |
| NEPA | NA | $0 |
| Subcontractor | Lawyer | $5,000 |
| $68,090 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $68,090 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $68,090 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| OWEB | Reach Analysis | $200,000 | cash |
| National Fish and Wildlife Fdn | Monitoring and Evaluation | $15,000 | cash |
| USDA-NRCS | Office, telephone, computer | $10,000 | cash |
| Benton, Linn, Polk, Marion, Lane Counties | Title 2 and 3 funds for easement purchase | $1,000,000 | cash |
| Fundraising:Congress, foundations, capital campaign | Purchase easements | $1,000,000 | cash |
| NRCS staff-RC&D Coordinator 1/4 time | Oversight and management | $17,000 | 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
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed. The proposal cites a lack of adequate state and federal programs to provide options and incentives for landowners to enroll in conservation easement programs. It proposes to develop a conservation easement program along the Willamette River from Corvallis to Harrisburg, an area of large-scale farms with low enrollment in USDA CREP and WRP. This proposal is to have a landowner-developed easement program that protects long-term farming interests while meeting riparian protection objectives.The program proposed would differ from USDA programs in several ways: it would operate under a sliding scale of value according the uses allowed of the land. The land closest to the river would be placed into permanent native vegetation, with land away form the river allowed to be used for some farming. The gradient of uses would vary from farm to farm. A variety of funding sources is identified. The rationale for the Corvallis to Harrisburg target area is that this area has been identified as the most important for biodiversity given historical river patterns.
The main objective of the proposal is to develop an easement and acquisition program that will be used by landowners in the identified reach to enhance and protect riparian buffers. Once an easement program is developed, the project will implement the program with at least four landowners. Monitoring and evaluation of the project will be funded by a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
The proposal should better explain why this program is necessary given that the opportunity exists for landowners to participate in incentive programs such as CREP. The major reason given in the proposal is landowner distrust of government, but a more thorough justification should be provided. Many landowners across the state participate in state and federal programs. What attributes of the USDA riparian protection programs are deemed inadequate for this area? How would the proposed approach address those inadequacies? How will this program differ from CREP and other state and federal landowner incentive programs? How will the proposed program meet conservation objectives? What are the oversight and easement requirements?
What are the benefits to fish and wildlife? Will the standards for participation in the program be comparable to those of federal and state programs? Will the program be more flexible than state and federal programs? What sort of oversight will occur? The sponsors also need to provide a general statement of the guiding principles and standards for the landowner-developed program.
Comment:
Comment:
Fundable as a pilot project, although the investigators should still provide more detail about program operation. The initial proposal and presentation emphasized the lack of trust in government as creating the need for the easement and acquisition program. The response has shifted its emphasis to focus on the benefits of perpetual easements over the 15-year leases. One benefit is the potential to protect larger areas along the riparian corridor than the 150 ft. limit of CREP. The response describes the project as a pilot that will demonstrate benefits to landowners, based on purchase of conservation easements on riparian land at full market value. It also hopes to demonstrate benefits that will lead to changes in CREP.The response does not detail the type of oversight that will occur - citing only that it will be modeled after the Maryland program described in an attached document. Monitoring is not described. Similarly, the response to guiding principles and standards presents a general goal/guiding principle, but does not provide detail on program standards.
Letters of support for the proposal are provided. The USDA letter suggests that should conservation easements on riparian land be purchased, the producer could still qualify for CREP rental payments for the same land under riparian management for 15 years. Is this correct? This is the type of question that the program standards should explicitly address.
The budget for this project is small, and the potential benefits to fish of Willamette riparian corridor restoration are large. If it leads to effective changes in CREP the potential benefits extend beyond the Willamette to other areas of Oregon needing riparian restoration.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUProject intends to enroll willing landowners in riparian easements which could improve habitat and increase survival
Comments
The duration, composition, and characteristics of easements are unclear. Project intends to work outside of USDA programs like CREP.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No
Comment:
Recommend deferring consideration of new anadromous fish mitigation proposals in the Willamette subbasin until issuance of the NMFS/USFWS BiOp for the Willamette Basin federal hydroprojects.Comment: