FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding

Proposal 200202600: Morrow County Riparian Buffers Umatilla County Riparian Buffers

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
January 10, 2006 Finalized Cory Cooley

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 200202600
Proposal Name: Morrow County Riparian Buffers Umatilla County Riparian Buffers
BPA Project Manager: Jamie Swan
Agency, Institution or Organization: Morrow County Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD)
Short Description: The Morrow County Riparian Buffers Initiative is requesting funding during fiscal years 2007 through 2009 in conjunction with the Columbia Basin F&W Program and addressed needs identified in the subbasin plan.
Information Transfer: Information will be transferred through quarterly and annual reports to the Bonneville Power Administration describing progress on all work elements.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Cory Cooley Morrow SWCD P.O. Box 127 430 Heppner/Lexington HWY
Heppner
Ph: 1-541-676-5452
Fax: 1-541-676-9624
Email: cory.cooley@or.nacdnet.net
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Cory Cooley Morrow SWCD P.O. Box 127 430 Heppner/Lexington HWY
Heppner
Ph: 1-541-676-5452
Fax: 1-541-676-9624
Email: cory.cooley@or.nacdnet.net
Form Submitter
Janet Greenup Morrow County SWCD PO Box 127, 430 Heppner/Lexington HWY
Heppner, OR 97836
Ph: 541-676-9624
Fax: 1-541-676-9624
Email: Janet.Greenup1@or.nacdnet.net
Project Lead

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Columbia Plateau ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Umatilla ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
Umatilla County Umatilla, Oregon Umatilla No
Morrow County Morrow, Oregon Umatilla Yes

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
All Wildlife
Bull Trout
Pileated Woodpecker, White-Headed Woodpecker, Red-naped Sapsucker, Ferruginous Hawk, Sage Sparrow, Grasshopper Sparrow, Columbia spotted Frog, Great Blue Heron, Yellow Warbler, American Beaver

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 Accomplishments towards RPA 153 for fiscal year 2005 are as follows; 33 contracts were obtained, 732.4 acres and 42.31 stream miles were enrolled as buffers.
2004 Accomplishments towards RPA 153 for fiscal year 2004 are as follows; 11 contracts were obtained, 271.2 acres and 15.37 stream miles were enrolled as buffers.
2003 Accomplishments towards RPA 153 for fiscal year 2003 are as follows; 17 contracts were obtained, 227.4 acres and 16.75 stream miles were enrolled as buffers.
2002 Accomplishments towards RPA 153 for fiscal year 2002 are as follows; 4 contracts were obtained, 47.9 acres and 3.6 stream miles were enrolled as buffers.

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
OWEB - State 18-04-013 McKay Creek Stream Restoration Coincides with objectives and strategies in subbasin plan.
BPA 198343500 Umatilla Hatchery O&M - CTUIR Coincides with objectives and strategies in subbasin plan.
BPA 198710001 Umatilla Anad Fish Hab - CTUIR Coincides with objectives and strategies in subbasin plan.
BPA 198710002 Umatilla Anad. Fish Hab - ODFW Coincides with objectives and strategies in subbasin plan.
BPA 200201900 Wasco Riparian Buffers Funds buffer technician position, salary and office/field costs. Provides monetary incentive for enrollment.
BPA 200202600 Morrow County Riparian Buffers Funds buffer technician position, salary and office/field costs. Provides monetary incentive for enrollment.
BPA 200203400 Wheeler Co Riparian Buffers Funds buffer technician position, salary and office/field costs. Provides monetary incentive for enrollment.
BPA 200203500 Gilliam Co Riparian Buffers Funds buffer technician position, salary, and office/field costs. Provides monetary incentive for enrollment.
OWEB - State 204-419 Morrow Co OHV Park WS Improvem Coincides with objectives and strategies in subbasin plan.

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
Aquatic Biological Objectives and Strategies The aquatic working group developed 16 qualitative management objectives that are used to guide more specific quantitative objectives and strategies. These 16 qualitative management objectives fall under 5 categories as follows: Population and Environmental Status, Natural Production, Hatchery Program, Flow and Passage and Fisheries. Umatilla Aquatic strategies are found in section 5.3 of the Subbasin Plan. The related strategies consist of Natural Production Strategies, Willow Creek QHA Management Plan, Areas of Production, Passage Problems, Artificial Production, and Taxa of Interest Pages 4-46
BPA Work Elements Objectives include: Outreach & education to the private landowners, coordinate with private landowners & partner agencies, produce conservation plans for landowners, sign CCRP/CREP agreements with landowners, manage & administer projects, provide technical review on implementation of conservation plans, prepare FY04 annual reports, prepare & submit NRCS environmental checklist, and produce Pisces status reports-Red/Yellow/Green. Umatilla A few of the strategies the Morrow SWCD will use to satisfy the objectives are as follows; Make phone calls to landowners, schedule meetings on-site, help landowner with installation of projects after obtaining a signed contract, and coordinate w/ Pisces [Pg no blank]
Morrow SWCD Objectives Objective 1. The principal objective of this proposal is to implement at least 80 new CCRP/CREP riparian buffer system agreements with participating landowners covering 100 miles of anadromous fish streams and approximately 2,000 riparian acres. Workload associated with this effort in the Umatilla/Willow Subbasin is greater per contract when compared other subbasins due to the comparatively larger size of the land ownerships and considerable travel involved in just getting on-site. Objective 2. Provide technical assistance during implementation as necessary. Task a. "After contract approval, provide additional technical assistance as may be required by the landowner to implement the approved plan.” The level of effort under this task is estimated at 13%. Objective 3. Implement minimum protective measures needed to protect high quality riparian areas contiguous with CCRP/CREP program eligible reaches. Objective 4. Verify that installed practices are functioning according to plan. Umatilla To achieve our objectives we will comply with all BPA work elements, and will specifically apply practices such as: plant trees and shrubs, use exclusion of cattle, upland wildlife habitat protection, weed control, and maintenance of practices. [Pg no blank]
Terrestrial Biological Objectives & Strategies Objectives and strategies were driven by the vision of the subbasin, the current biological and ecological conditions, and the economic and social realities described in the assessment. The objectives and strategies were described in terms of changes needed in focal habitats, rather than in population-related attributes of focal or obligate species. The eight focal habitats consist of Mixed Conifer, Ponderosa Pine, Quaking Aspen Forest, Western Juniper Woodlands, Shrub-Steppe Habitat, Interior Grasslands, Herbaceous Wetlands, and Riparian Wetlands. Umatilla Terrestrial wildlife strategies are found in section 5.4 of the Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan. Numerous strategies fall under the General Objective and specifically the eight focal habitats. Pages 46-89

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Prepare & Submit NRCS Environmental Checklist Do necessary Cultural Resource and Threatened and Endangered Specie file work to comply with NEPA rules and other Federal regulations. 1/1/2007 12/31/2009 $15,902
Biological Objectives Metrics
Morrow SWCD Objectives
No Metrics for this Work Element

Coordination Coordinate With Private Landowners & Partner Agencies Meet with landowners to discuss the program, obtain signatures and implement on ground practices. Comply with all program rules and procedures through daily communication with partner agencies to produce contracts. 1/1/2007 12/31/2009 $21,203
Biological Objectives Metrics
Morrow SWCD Objectives
No Metrics for this Work Element

Coordination Produce Conservation Plan For Landowners Do all necessary file work to present a plan of operations to the producer, agree on the plan and get a landowner signature on a contract. 1/1/2007 12/31/2009 $339,258
Biological Objectives Metrics
Morrow SWCD Objectives
No Metrics for this Work Element

Coordination Sign CCRP/CREP Agreements With Landowners, NRCS, SWCD & FSA Get signatures on CRP'2, Plan and Contract from landowner, NRCS and FSA. 1/1/2007 12/31/2009 $5,300
Biological Objectives Metrics
Morrow SWCD Objectives
No Metrics for this Work Element

Manage and Administer Projects Manage & Administer Project Make site visits for the implementation and certification of on ground projects. 1/1/2007 12/31/2009 $58,309
Biological Objectives Metrics
Morrow SWCD Objectives
No Metrics for this Work Element

Outreach and Education Outreach & Education To The Private Landowners Technician will continue to use various forms out outreach including; phone calls, mailings, informational workshops, word of mouth, USDA monthly bulletins and the local newspaper. 1/1/2007 12/31/2009 $21,203
Biological Objectives Metrics
Morrow SWCD Objectives
* # of general public reached: 300
* # of teachers reached: 20
* # of students reached: 175

Provide Technical Review Provide Technical Review On Implementation Of Conservation Plan Make annual spot checks and status reviews on all projects. 1/1/2007 12/31/2009 $58,309
Biological Objectives Metrics
Morrow SWCD Objectives
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Annual Report Prepare FY04 Annual Report Prepare and submit annual report to BPA. 1/1/2007 12/31/2009 $5,300
Biological Objectives Metrics
Morrow SWCD Objectives
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Pisces Status Report Produce Pisces Status Report-Red/Yellow/Green Perform Quarterly Pisces Status Reports 1/1/2007 12/31/2009 $5,300
Biological Objectives Metrics
Morrow SWCD Objectives
No Metrics for this Work Element


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
Personnel Salary/2FTE $82,415 $84,615 $86,815
Fringe Benefits Other payroll expenses/2FTE $28,624 $29,615 $30,315
Supplies Office/Field $1,700 $1,000 $1,000
Travel Required planning course, BPA travel & training $2,802 $360 $360
Capital Equipment Computer purchase $1,500 $ 0 $ 0
Overhead 10% $15,370 $15,225 $15,515
Other Landowner sign-up incentive $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
Other Vehicle lease, fuel, maintenance $12,660 $12,660 $12,660
Other Office rent $4,000 $4,000 $4,000
Other Project management $7,400 $7,622 $7,851
Totals $176,471 $175,097 $178,516

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$530,084
Total Work Element budget$530,084

Cost sharing
Funding Source or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status
Contractor Monetary $165,000 $120,000 $105,000 Cash Confirmed
FSA Monetary $250,000 $220,000 $200,000 Cash Confirmed
Landowner Monetary $230,000 $200,000 $170,000 Cash Confirmed
OWEB Monetary $150,000 $110,000 $90,000 Cash Confirmed
Totals $795,000 $650,000 $565,000

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$175,600 $177,800 Increase in living affects yearly budget totals.
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
Operation and maintenance costs will vary year to year pending Salary changes and field/office requirements.
 
Termination Date Comments
Open Termination will be determined by program demand and funding available.
 
Final Deliverables
Deliverables will be quantitative and qualitative focusing on tangible data accomplishments, resource improvements, and social and economic development. Program goals will be 80 contracts, 100 stream miles and 2000 acres total from 2007-2009.

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
Location:
Province: No Change
Subbasin: No Change
Primary Focal Species
Anadromous
ARG Comments:


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$ 0
FY 2008 Budget
$ 0
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Do Not Fund
Comments:


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$ 0
FY 2008 Budget
$ 0
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Comments:

Local or MSRT Comments: OSPIT notes DEQ's support for buffer projects as a TMDL implementation and habitat benefits, but the budget will not permit implementation at this time.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC Comments: The project entails parallel efforts in Umatilla and Morrow Counties to enroll 80 new sections of riparian buffer systems (covering >2000 acres of lands and >100 miles of stream). The proposal identifies the disconnection of the streams with the land as a major ongoing habitat threat to fish and wildlife due to runoff effects, temperature effects, sedimentation, and so on associated with agricultural land uses. The project is primarily an effort to coordinate efforts among agencies (including USDA through CRP and CREP), outreach and promotion with landowners, and implementation monitoring following enrollment. The project's history is relatively short (2002). The two counties involved have had differing success in enrolling landowners in the program, but there is some stated opportunity that has promise.

A response is needed to address ISRP questions posed on the set of SWCD riparian buffer proposals in Oregon below (also see comments on 200201900). Especially needed is reporting of past results in terms of benefit to fish and wildlife, which should show that enrollment is helping. Doing the actual habitat / fish response monitoring is not reasonable for a project like this considering the ongoing M&E effort in the basin by the co-managers. This project states that they will do some basic implementation monitoring; this should include photo-points.

This is a well-prepared proposal and thought-out project. The project is expected to improve habitat quality for bull trout and summer steelhead through watershed and in-channel improvements to water quality, temperature, reduced sedimentation, etc. Benefits to secondary focal species, especially wildlife, are expected from the creation of extra habitat complexity. Implementation will be a challenge depending on willingness of landowners and stability of USDA conservation programs, but population responses are expected.

Ultimately, favorable earlier review comments by ISRP still apply:

"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.”

The proposed project directly addresses objectives in the Umatilla Subbasin Plan with regard to focal species and non-focal species (both fish and wildlife). The project directly addresses current limiting factors and also water quality issues.

The objectives are clearly presented. The primary overarching objective is to increase enrollment in USDA buffer programs. The objectives also include monitoring of plant species composition and implementation monitoring. The measures for these objectives are primarily in relation to enrollment and coverage, but are suitable for this kind of proposed project.

The methods are clearly stated, albeit not especially science-based -- planning, outreach, promotion, coordination, and implementation monitoring. That said, the project is based on needs identified in the subbasin plan from modeling (two modeling approaches were indicated without specific reference, this could be bolstered to strengthen the compelling need), but are based on long-standing scientific information about the benefits of riparian habitats.

Monitoring of plant species composition is included as work element as is implementation monitoring. By and large success of the program will be measured against ability to enroll the 80 systems (and associated coverage).

Missing is some coordination with fish and wildlife co-managers regarding the responses of the focal and non-focal species to these expected habitat improvements (these should show up as positive responses in the EDT and other models).

General Comment on Oregon SWCD Riparian Buffer Projects:

As with other riparian buffer projects the evaluation aspect could be enhanced by evaluating factors influencing enrollment (although this proposal is notable for having included some discussion of this aspect in the rationale section) and lessons learned from the development and implementation of these contracts. The ISRP recommends that the Oregon SWCDs work together to identify general findings as well as outcomes that vary by SWCD. The evaluation could identify ways to tie in outreach and education with landowner incentives and constraints. Additional thinking might be developed on how to target new audiences.

The ISRP requests a response clarifying the following issues identified in the review:

1. The potential to develop a cooperative effort with ODFW to monitor fisheries and stream habitat response to the implementation of riparian buffers.

2. How enrollment objectives are determined.

3. Whether the conservation plans developed as part of CREP enrollment are kept confidential or are reported as part of the project results. If conservation plans are not reported, can they be synthesized in a way that will allow monitoring of progress toward meeting their objectives?

4. The potential for SWCD collaborative development of a report assessing the determinants of successful implementation processes for riparian buffer contracts and other USDA voluntary conservation programs.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC Comments: The project entails parallel efforts in Umatilla and Morrow Counties to enroll 80 new sections of riparian buffer systems (covering >2000 acres of lands and >100 miles of stream). The proposal identifies the disconnection of the streams with the land as a major ongoing habitat threat to fish and wildlife due to runoff effects, temperature effects, sedimentation, and so on associated with agricultural land uses. The project is primarily an effort to coordinate efforts among agencies (including USDA through CRP and CREP), outreach and promotion with landowners, and implementation monitoring following enrollment. The project's history is relatively short (2002). The two counties involved have had differing success in enrolling landowners in the program, but there is some stated opportunity that has promise.

A response is needed to address ISRP questions posed on the set of SWCD riparian buffer proposals in Oregon below (also see comments on 200201900). Especially needed is reporting of past results in terms of benefit to fish and wildlife, which should show that enrollment is helping. Doing the actual habitat / fish response monitoring is not reasonable for a project like this considering the ongoing M&E effort in the basin by the co-managers. This project states that they will do some basic implementation monitoring; this should include photo-points.

This is a well-prepared proposal and thought-out project. The project is expected to improve habitat quality for bull trout and summer steelhead through watershed and in-channel improvements to water quality, temperature, reduced sedimentation, etc. Benefits to secondary focal species, especially wildlife, are expected from the creation of extra habitat complexity. Implementation will be a challenge depending on willingness of landowners and stability of USDA conservation programs, but population responses are expected.

Ultimately, favorable earlier review comments by ISRP still apply:

"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.”

The proposed project directly addresses objectives in the Umatilla Subbasin Plan with regard to focal species and non-focal species (both fish and wildlife). The project directly addresses current limiting factors and also water quality issues.

The objectives are clearly presented. The primary overarching objective is to increase enrollment in USDA buffer programs. The objectives also include monitoring of plant species composition and implementation monitoring. The measures for these objectives are primarily in relation to enrollment and coverage, but are suitable for this kind of proposed project.

The methods are clearly stated, albeit not especially science-based -- planning, outreach, promotion, coordination, and implementation monitoring. That said, the project is based on needs identified in the subbasin plan from modeling (two modeling approaches were indicated without specific reference, this could be bolstered to strengthen the compelling need), but are based on long-standing scientific information about the benefits of riparian habitats.

Monitoring of plant species composition is included as work element as is implementation monitoring. By and large success of the program will be measured against ability to enroll the 80 systems (and associated coverage).

Missing is some coordination with fish and wildlife co-managers regarding the responses of the focal and non-focal species to these expected habitat improvements (these should show up as positive responses in the EDT and other models).

General Comment on Oregon SWCD Riparian Buffer Projects:

As with other riparian buffer projects the evaluation aspect could be enhanced by evaluating factors influencing enrollment (although this proposal is notable for having included some discussion of this aspect in the rationale section) and lessons learned from the development and implementation of these contracts. The ISRP recommends that the Oregon SWCDs work together to identify general findings as well as outcomes that vary by SWCD. The evaluation could identify ways to tie in outreach and education with landowner incentives and constraints. Additional thinking might be developed on how to target new audiences.

The ISRP requests a response clarifying the following issues identified in the review:

1. The potential to develop a cooperative effort with ODFW to monitor fisheries and stream habitat response to the implementation of riparian buffers.

2. How enrollment objectives are determined.

3. Whether the conservation plans developed as part of CREP enrollment are kept confidential or are reported as part of the project results. If conservation plans are not reported, can they be synthesized in a way that will allow monitoring of progress toward meeting their objectives?

4. The potential for SWCD collaborative development of a report assessing the determinants of successful implementation processes for riparian buffer contracts and other USDA voluntary conservation programs.

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.