FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 31018
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 |
|---|---|
| Agreement of Sale | Response Attachment |
| BPA Response | Response Attachment |
| 31018 Narrative | Narrative |
| 31018 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Willamette Basin Riparian Project |
| Proposal ID | 31018 |
| Organization | Marion Soil and Water Conservation District (Marion SWCD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Monte Graham, District Manager |
| Mailing address | 3867 Wolverine Street NE #16 Salem, Oregon 97305 |
| Phone / email | 5033995741 / monte-graham@or.nacdnet.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | Daniel Goffin, Chairman of Marion SWCD |
| Review cycle | Lower Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Willamette |
| Short description | Implement riparian buffering program using cost-share provided by USDA, state of Oregon and private landowners, including urban areas trials. Conduct restoration project planning and implementation with watershed councils, landowners and other interests. |
| Target species | Spring Chinook Salmon, Winter Steelhead Trout, Coho Salmon, Cutthroat trout, Bull Trout, Oregon chub, others |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| northernmost extension of Willamette valley floor at/near Portland | ||
| point representing western edge of valley floor at/near Dallas | ||
| point representing eastern edge of valley floor at/near Silverton | ||
| southernmost extension of valley floor at/near Cottage Grove | ||
| 44.64 | -122.69 | Willamette subbasin |
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 |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1999-2000 | Willamette Basin watershed projects completed under OWEB and other local funding: please reference complete roster contained in table in section 9(d) of narrative. |
| 2001 | Completion of Agriculture Water Quality Management Plan - Marian and Clackamas counties |
| 2001 | Completion of approximately 85 CREP contracts in Willamette Basin (by all SWCDs) |
| 1999-2001 | Completion of approximately 15 Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) contracts in willamette Basin (by all SWCDs) |
| 1999-2001 | Completion of approximately Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) contracts in willamette Basin (by all SWCDs) |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199205900 | Amazon and Willow Creeks | compliments proposed project in Long Tom watershed |
| 199206800 | Willamette Basin Mitigation Program | compliments mainstem/confluence projects and activities being undertaken by ODFW |
| 199607000 | McKenzie River Focus Watershed Coordination | compliments proposed project in McKenzie watershed |
| 199702200 | Assess McKenzie Watershed Habitat and Prioritize Projects, and the Mohawk Watershed Planning and Coordination | compliments proposed project in mcKenzie watershed |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. CREP/CRP Enrollments | a. Outreach and project identification | 3 | $18,595 | |
| b. Enrollments/agreement developments | 3 | $3,719 | ||
| c. Conservation plans, prescription development | 3 | $70,662 | ||
| d. Plan off-stream practices, adjacent reaches | 3 | $13,946 | ||
| 2. Rural residential/urban buffering | a. Outreach and project identification | 3 | $29,500 | |
| b. Enrollments/agreement developments | 3 | $44,250 | ||
| c. conservation plans, prescription development | 3 | $70,799 | ||
| 3. Watershed project planning | a. Project identification | 3 | $18,582 | |
| b. Individual sub-watershed/reach assessments, resource inventories, project planning/design | 3 | $111,489 | Yes | |
| c. Needs assessment: systemic research/analyses FY03 | 1 | $55,745 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. CREP/CRP enrollments | 4 | 5 | $211,539 |
| 2. Rural residential/urban buffering | 4 | 5 | $285,569 |
| 3. Watershed project planning | 4 | 5 | $372,866 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| $430,232 | $439,742 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. CREP/CRP Enrollments | d. Install off-stream, adjacent reach practices | 3 | $13,947 | Yes |
| 2. Rural resident/urban buffering | c. Install buffers and practices | 3 | $70,799 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. CREP/CRP Enrollments | 4 | 5 | $27,592 |
| 2. Rural residential/urban buffering | 4 | 5 | $139,870 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| $82,370 | $85,092 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. CREP/CRP Enrollments | e. Landowner assistance | 3 | $27,893 | |
| 2. Rural residential/urban buffering | c. Weed control | 3 | $35,400 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. CREP/CRP Enrollments | 4 | 5 | $55,184 |
| 2. Rural residential/urban buffering | 4 | 5 | $69,935 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| $61,540 | $63,579 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. CREP/CRPEnrollmants | f. Inspections and monitoring | 3 | $37,190 | |
| 2. Rural resident/urban buffering | d. Inspections and monitoring | 3 | $44,250 | |
| 4. Project reporting | a. Preparation of monitoring and performance reports: buffering projects and planning studies | 3 | $117,999 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. CREP/CRP Enrollments | 4 | 5 | $73,579 |
| 2. Rural residential/urban buffering | 4 | 5 | $87,419 |
| 4. Project reporting | 4 | 5 | $233,117 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| $193,854 | $200,261 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1 project mgr, 8 specialists, 1 admin | $418,121 |
| Fringe | Included in FTE cost above | $0 |
| Supplies | computers, field tools, insurance, office supplies, utilities | $85,950 |
| Travel | vehicle mileage @ IRS rate | $21,126 |
| Indirect | project admin/overhead costs @ 10% | $49,568 |
| Capital | none | $0 |
| NEPA | Included above - staff time, matching resources | $0 |
| PIT tags | # of tags: none | $0 |
| Subcontractor | Planning studies: 3 ea jobs | $150,000 |
| Other | Plants and hardware (planting materials) | $60,000 |
| $784,765 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $784,765 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $784,765 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
N/A
Reason for change in scope
N/A
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| USDA | Construction/implementation, acreage rents, program oversight, materials on 375 eligible projects | $1,600,000 | cash |
| USDA | Office space, oversight, technical assistance, fiscal/admin | $450,000 | in-kind |
| Watershed councils | Riparian buffering project: marketing, field contacts, volunteers, coordination. Planning project: coordination, technical scoping, contract quality assurance. | $290,000 | in-kind |
| Local Landowners | Riparian buffering project: maintenance. Planning project: marketing, technical scoping, contract quality assurance | $120,000 | in-kind |
| State of Oregon | Plan review and inspection by Dept of Forestry | $150,000 | in-kind |
| State of Oregon | Construction/implementation, plant materials - CREP funding from OWEB | $700,000 | cash |
Other budget explanation
Match is calculated as total for FY03-05. While project is scoped from FY03 through FY05, it is our intention to modify and improve the project after its three year pilot period, and continue proposing it as part of the Fish and Wildlife Program in FY06 and out years.
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. This proposal is to implement a riparian buffer program in the Willamette lowlands, with cost-share from USDA, Oregon, and private landowners. The project goal is to establish 500 planting projects on targeted streams over three years to redress riparian habitat problems on private lands. The projects will also address other causes of degraded habitat and fish populations beyond those remedied by the riparian planting. The overall objective is riparian restoration of the lowlands, where agriculture is the predominant land use, through immediate buffering and longer-term cooperative restoration planning.Good background to the problem is given. More than 90% of the riparian land in the basin is privately owned, valuable agricultural land. The basin holds 69% of Oregon's population, expected to double in the next 25-50 years. Critical problems for fish habitat include water pollution, increased peak and reduced base flows, channel erosion, channelization, reduced habitat complexity and availability. Problems include riparian and aquatic habitat loss, sedimentation and erosion, water quality (temperature) and a loss of off-channel habitat. Much of the mainstem and its tributaries are 303(d) listed as impaired due to high summer water temperatures.
The proposal provides a convincing rationale for the benefit of both riparian buffering and project-level restoration planning, and their connection to various basin-level needs identified in numerous plans. In addition to riparian buffering of agricultural lands through USDA incentive programs, the proposal also describes pilot project riparian buffering of rural residential and urban lands for which USDA CRP And CREP programs do not exist.
The proposal describes an ambitious, well-networked project, coordinated among several Willamette Valley SWCD's, with compelling leverage of funds.
One objective of the project is to enroll about 375 landowners in the CREP covering 75 stream miles. How was this target number identified? Were the riparian sections prioritized? What proportion of total riparian mileage in the Willamette Lowlands does 75 miles represent?
A second objective is to enroll 125 rural and urban landowners who are CREP/CRP ineligible in riparian buffer projects along about 20 stream miles. The proposal states that these sites will be "equitably distributed" - what does this mean? Were targeted areas identified through a priority setting process or do they depend more on the identification of willing landowners? If the latter, how can the benefits to fish and wildlife be anticipated? The presentation indicated that enrollment will be distributed across watershed councils. Will this approach result in fragmented, ineffective riparian buffers across the subbasin? How will the project address the need for habitat connectivity?
The M&E efforts need to be more thoroughly explained, particularly concerning responses of the fish community to restoration activities. It is difficult to see how the efficacy of riparian techniques will be demonstrated with respect to fitness of fish. For example, what will be the involvement of fish management agencies in M&E? The project, at least implicitly, seems to be relying on "active," engineered approaches to restoration. Will there be a role for more passive (i.e., operation of natural processes) restoration? How will the two modes of restoration be reconciled? For the response, the proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report, specifically on monitoring and evaluation and prioritization of habitat restoration projects.
The proposal states that the restoration planning, because it takes place on rural/urban residential/agricultural private land, will place a premium on "developing socioeconomic insights": what specifically does this mean?
Comment:
This project should be considered High Priority; however, the budget appears high relative to available funds in this province. Scope and budget should be reduced.Comment:
Fundable, agree with CBFWA that this is High Priority. This is a very thorough response addressing ISRP review questions. This proposal is to implement a riparian buffer program in the Willamette lowlands, with cost-share from USDA, Oregon, and private landowners. The project goal is to establish 500 planting projects on targeted streams over three years to redress riparian habitat problems on private lands. The projects will also address other causes of degraded habitat and fish populations beyond those remedied by the riparian planting. The overall objective is riparian restoration of the lowlands, where agriculture is the predominant land use, through immediate buffering and longer-term cooperative restoration planning.Good background to the problem is given. More than 90% of the riparian land in the basin is privately owned, valuable agricultural land. The basin holds 69% of Oregon's population, expected to double in the next 25-50 years. Critical problems for fish habitat include water pollution, increased peak and reduced base flows, channel erosion, channelization, reduced habitat complexity and availability. Problems include riparian and aquatic habitat loss, sedimentation and erosion, water quality (temperature) and a loss of off-channel habitat. Much of the mainstem and its tributaries are 303(d) listed as impaired due to high summer water temperatures.
The proposal provides a convincing rationale for the benefit of both riparian buffering and project-level restoration planning, and their connection to various basin-level needs identified in numerous plans. In addition to riparian buffering of agricultural lands through USDA incentive programs, the proposal also describes pilot project riparian buffering of rural residential and urban lands for which USDA CRP And CREP programs do not exist.
The response provides good detail to address the question about target figures and how projects will be prioritized. It is clear that a systematic approach was taken to the development of the objective to cover 75 stream miles. The response to the question about distributing enrollment is adequate, indicating a combined objective of achieving a demonstration effect and adding more explicit consideration of habitat connectivity. The explanation of "developing socioeconomic insights" is convincing.
This has more than just the immediate value of planning and has the potential to influence landowners' view of management of land for the benefit of fish and wildlife. The proposal describes an ambitious, well-networked project, coordinated among several Willamette Valley SWCD's, with compelling leverage of funds.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUPotential long-term improvement to riparian habitat capacity to increase rearing benefit
Comments
Well thought out project. Costs seem high given the current cost-share responsibilities of Federal agencies in the identified USDA programs. Limited focus and accountability.
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: