Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Increase CREP Enrollment and Enhance Riparian Protections in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha basins |
| Proposal ID | 27005 |
| Organization | Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Ken Bierly |
| Mailing address | 775 summer St., Suite 360 Salem, OR 97301-1290 |
| Phone / email | 5039860182 / Ken.Bierly@state.or.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Ken Bierly |
| Review cycle | Blue Mountain |
| Province / Subbasin | Blue Mountain / Grande Ronde |
| Short description | This project will increase enrollment in the CREP program and improve the program to add permanent protection to the restored riparian areas. |
| Target species | Spring Chinook, Summer Steelhead, Bull Trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 45.52 |
-117.76 |
Grande Ronde Subbasin |
| 45.4 |
-116.87 |
Imnaha Subbasin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Habitat RPA Action 153 |
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 |
|---|
| 1998 |
Developed CREP Application and Successfully negotiated with USDA |
| 1999 |
NMFS and USF&WS completed BiOP for the CREP program |
| 2000 |
Doubled previous enrollment |
| 2001 |
Funded technical assistance for the program |
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 |
|---|
| 1. Develop a mechanism for Permanent Protection of CREP restored areas |
|
1.0 |
$57,960 |
|
| 2. Provide Outreach and Technical Assistance in the two basins |
|
5.0 |
$112,920 |
Yes |
|
|
4.0 |
$0 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 2. Provide Outreach and Technical Assistance |
3 |
6 |
$449,160 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|
| $112,920 | $112,920 | $112,920 | $112,920 |
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 |
|---|
| 3. Fund Initial Permanent Easements |
3 |
6 |
$250,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|
| $62,500 | $62,500 | $62,500 | $62,500 |
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: 3.0 |
$115,200 |
| Fringe |
|
$46,080 |
| Supplies |
|
$1,500 |
| Travel |
|
$4,500 |
| Indirect |
|
$3,600 |
| $170,880 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $170,880 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $170,880 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| OWEB |
cash for technical assistance |
$35,000 |
cash |
| OWEB |
monitoring |
$50,000 |
cash |
Other budget explanation
Monitoring and Evaluation is the responsibility of OWEB and will be summarized annually.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
A response is needed. This proposal is brief and provides too little detail to evaluate the need, the relationship to the FWP, or the methods. The presentation was helpful in expanding on the basic idea and proposed actions, but a response must provide more detail. For example, the abstract is a single sentence. The rationale to the FWP is not well developed; the proposal describes some of the program environment but does not provide rationale for the proposed work. Three objectives are provided, with very short descriptions of methods under each. Under the 1st objective to "develop a permanent protection mechanism", it states that OWEB needs to develop an economic methodology for acquiring permanent easements, but does not say what that methodology would look like or how it would be developed. The proposal adds staff to 2 county SWCDs in order to increase enrollment through the provision of technical assistance. The PIs need to provide detail on methods of implementation.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Nov 30, 2001
Comment:
Proposed work would address RPA 153 if it involves CREP. Although the proposal presented a potentially good concept, the proposal was not developed well enough to assess the technical and management merits. The reviewers suggest the 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.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Dec 21, 2001
Comment:
Not fundable. A timely response was not provided to address the ISRP concerns. This proposal is brief and provides too little detail to evaluate the need, the relationship to the FWP, or the methods. The presentation was helpful in expanding on the basic idea and proposed actions, but a response must provide more detail. For example, the abstract is a single sentence. The rationale to the FWP is not well developed; the proposal describes some of the program environment but does not provide rationale for the proposed work. Three objectives are provided, with very short descriptions of methods under each. Under the 1st objective to "develop a permanent protection mechanism", it states that OWEB needs to develop an economic methodology for acquiring permanent easements, but does not say what that methodology would look like or how it would be developed. The proposal adds staff to 2 county SWCDs in order to increase enrollment through the provision of technical assistance. The PIs did not provide adequate detail on methods of implementation.
Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits are indirect. Project is to increase enrollment in the CREP Program and improve the program to add permanent protection to restored riparian areas. Comments
This project is the same as project #25099 in the Columbia Plateau Province. Project will implement RPA 153 if permanent or long term (>15 years) easement is secured. 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. Project proposes to increase riparian restoration implementation & develop tools for long-term protection of restored areas, but doesn't specify rationale for the program being proposed or how what is being proposed will be implemented.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Recommendation:
D
Date:
Feb 11, 2002
Comment:
Do not recommend BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
400 (153)
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Apr 19, 2002
Comment: