FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 31029
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 |
|---|---|
| 31029 Narrative | Narrative |
| 31029 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Clark County ESA Outreach Program |
| Proposal ID | 31029 |
| Organization | Clark County, Washington (Clark Co.) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Joel Rupley, Esa Program Coordinator |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 5000 Vancouver, WA 98666 |
| Phone / email | 3603972022 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Joel Rupley |
| Review cycle | Lower Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Columbia Lower |
| Short description | Work with willing landowners to develop, record and implement stewardship plans on 5 to 20 acre rural residential parcels in priority watersheds. |
| Target species | Steelhead, ESA "threatened"; Chinook, ESA "threatened"; Coho, ESA candidate for listing as "threatened". |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Clark County sub-basins including Lewis R., Washougal R. and Columbia Lower. | ||
| 45.79 | -122.49 | Clark County |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| 150 |
| 152 |
| 153 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1997 | Co-sponsored regional conference on potential ESA fish listings. |
| 1998 | Founding member, Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board |
| 1999 | Established ESA Program within the Board of County Commissioners' Office |
| Ongoing | Continuing work on Regulatory Compliance, Operational BMP's, Education, Outreach, and Regional Coordination. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| NMFS BIOP RPA Action # 150 | This project will develop, record and implement stewardship plans for protection of riparian habitat forming processes. | |
| NMFS BIOP RPA Action # 152 | This project is an offsite habitat enhancement measure undertaken by a local government. | |
| NMFS BIOP RPA Action # 153 | This project extends the efforts of the Clark Conservation District to establish protected riparian corridors in rural areas. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Secure funding for project | a. Prepare BPA grant application | 1 | $0 | |
| b. Conduct NEPA process | 1 | $5,000 | ||
| c. Execute contract | 1 | $0 | ||
| d. Administer project | 3 | $31,000 | ||
| 2. Identify parcels for project | a. Conduct GIS search | 1 | $0 | |
| b. Check assessor lists for current use. | 1 | $0 | ||
| 3. Determine high priority parcels | a. Identify priority watersheds | 1 | $0 | |
| b. Identify priority reaches | 1 | $0 | ||
| c. Designate priority parcels | 1 | $0 | ||
| 4. Develop an incentive package | a. Identify potential incentives | 1 | $0 | |
| b. Determine political and fiscal impacts | 1 | $0 | ||
| c. Groundtruth with landowners | 1 | $2,000 | Yes | |
| d. Initiate incentives | 1 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2004 | 2005 | $62,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| $31,000 | $31,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5. Identify participants and arrange for plans | a. Contact priority parcel owners | 3 | $8,000 | Yes |
| b. Follow-up | 3 | $8,000 | Yes | |
| c. Execute plan development agreements | 3 | $12,000 | Yes | |
| 6. Develop and record plans | a. Conduct field assessment | 3 | $8,000 | Yes |
| b. Identify enhancement and protection actions | 3 | $36,000 | Yes | |
| c. Design implementation plan | 3 | $44,000 | Yes | |
| d. Record the plan | 3 | $4,000 | Yes | |
| 7. Implement the plans | a. Assist landowners with the work | 3 | $6,000 | Yes |
| b. Share out-of-pocket expenses | 3 | $35,000 | Yes | |
| c. Initiate incentives | 3 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 2004 | 2005 | $110,000 |
| 6 | 2004 | 2005 | $274,000 |
| 7 | 2004 | 2005 | $130,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| $257,000 | $257,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| None | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| None | 2004 | 2005 | $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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 Conduct monitoring program | a. Certify completion of plans | 3 | $6,000 | Yes |
| b. Determine if predicted outcomes are achieved. | 3 | $0 | Yes | |
| c. Assess progress toward properly functioning processes | 3 | $0 | Yes | |
| d. Report as required by grant | 3 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 2004 | 2005 | $32,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| $16,000 | $16,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 75,000 | $25,000 |
| Fringe | 18,000 | $6,000 |
| Supplies | 170,000 | $35,000 |
| Travel | 5000 | $1,000 |
| NEPA | 5000 | $5,000 |
| PIT tags | # of tags: 0 | $0 |
| Subcontractor | 120,000 | $26,000 |
| Subcontractor | 420,000 | $107,000 |
| $205,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $205,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $205,000 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clark County | 1a,1c,2,3,4a,4b,4d,8d | $25,000 | in-kind |
| WSA Extension W/S Stewards | 6a,7a | $105,000 | in-kind |
| Participating Landowners | 7b | $50,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Do not fund - no response required
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
Not fundable. This proposal is to work with landowners to implement stewardship plans for riparian habitat restoration on small rural residential parcels in Clark County priority watersheds. It extends the Clark Conservation District's farm plan project into rural residential areas. Currently, Clark County habitat protection ordinances are applied only when landowners voluntarily change land use and become subject to development permitting requirements. Many parcels are already developed to the limits of the zoning code. There are approximately 3700 of these parcels over 1500 miles along priority streams.The goal of the project is to create a series of functional riparian areas that generate more riparian habitat. It will develop stewardship plans along 100 of the 1500 stream miles. The proposal does not indicate whether this is enough to establish connectivity.
Objective 4 is to develop an incentive package to encourage landowner participation. The proposal does not make a convincing case that this approach is the only or best alternative. It lacks detail as to the nature of the incentives and is not specific about what "review the possibilities" to determine political and fiscal implications means. If tax or permitting incentives are a possibility, wouldn't an ordinance change also be possible?
According to the proposal, The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board is charged with developing a recovery plan for listed fish in this region, and will assign the responsibility for various actions to the entities with authority over those actions. Clark County has authority over land use decisions but rather than create new land-use requirements it is taking the more politically feasible approach of offering financial incentives for improved riparian practices.
Comment:
Reviewers question the timing of the proposed work relative to subbasin planning and TRT work.Comment:
Not fundable. A response was not needed. This proposal is to work with landowners to implement stewardship plans for riparian habitat restoration on small rural residential parcels in Clark County priority watersheds. It extends the Clark Conservation District's farm plan project into rural residential areas. Currently, Clark County habitat protection ordinances are applied only when landowners voluntarily change land use and become subject to development permitting requirements. Many parcels are already developed to the limits of the zoning code. There are approximately 3700 of these parcels over 1500 miles along priority streams.The goal of the project is to create a series of functional riparian areas that generate more riparian habitat. It will develop stewardship plans along 100 of the 1500 stream miles. The proposal does not indicate whether this is enough to establish connectivity.
Objective 4 is to develop an incentive package to encourage landowner participation. The proposal does not make a convincing case that this approach is the only or best alternative. It lacks detail as to the nature of the incentives and is not specific about what "review the possibilities" to determine political and fiscal implications means. If tax or permitting incentives are a possibility, wouldn't an ordinance change also be possible?
According to the proposal, the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board is charged with developing a recovery plan for listed fish in this region, and will assign the responsibility for various actions to the entities with authority over those actions. Clark County has authority over land use decisions but rather than create new land-use requirements it is taking the more politically feasible approach of offering financial incentives for improved riparian practices.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUIndirect. Will develop habitat restoration plans and identify willing landowners, potentially increasing survival.
Comments
Will develop unspecified management plans for willing landowners.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No
Comment:
Recommend not funding. Concur with ISRP technical comments.Comment: