FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 200303100

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

The Travel budget may appear high because, in part, the NPT charges all vehicle leases and mileage to this line item rather than the Supply and Materials line item. Additionally, because of the extremely remote location of the project, field crews must camp on site during the week so are provided with per diem ($15.00 per day) for meals. At approximately $60.00 per week per employee, these costs escalate quickly and 'inflate' the Travel budget. Very little money is actually budgeted for training or in-state travel.

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

This is the acquisition component of the wildlife proposal above. It is for funding to double the area for wildlife habitat. The target habitat is canyon grassland and the area targeted for acquisition encompasses all the quality canyon grassland habitat in the Blue Mt province. The process of prioritizing potential purchase parcels was not described in the proposal but was described in the presentation. It would consist of an identification of available parcels, an evaluation of habitat values (riparian, wetlands, 303d listed streams, number of listed species present, ponderosa pine communities and canyon grasslands preferred), ecological condition and restorability, consideration of the size of the parcel, and assessment of the relationship to other conservation areas, economic value. A third-party appraisal would be conducted. The Council's program includes a Land and Water Acquisition, how would this project fit in?

The project proposes over the long run to improve land use practices, restore degraded communities, protect and enhance habitat values, monitor and evaluate management practices, and provide habitat quality for wildlife. As with the proposal above, these longer-term management goals and actions are not yet well-justified in terms of science, as concrete and detailed management plans and objectives are yet to be completed. According to the presentation, a management plan would specify the desired outcomes and include measurable objectives for species composition. How will these objectives be derived? Some economic uses of this land may be allowed, but no specifics were given. These should be included in the management plan and the management plan should itself be subject to outside scientific review.

The review group suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made compatible with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the Columbia Plateau.

Comment:

Comment:

This is the acquisition component of the wildlife proposal above. It is for funding to double the area for wildlife habitat. The target habitat is canyon grassland and the area targeted for acquisition encompasses all the quality canyon grassland habitat in the Blue Mt province. The process of prioritizing potential purchase parcels was not described in the proposal but was described in the presentation. It would consist of an identification of available parcels, an evaluation of habitat values (riparian, wetlands, 303d listed streams, number of listed species present, ponderosa pine communities and canyon grasslands preferred), ecological condition and restorability, consideration of the size of the parcel, and assessment of the relationship to other conservation areas, economic value. A third-party appraisal would be conducted. The Council's program includes a Land and Water Acquisition, how would this project fit in?

The project proposes over the long run to improve land use practices, restore degraded communities, protect and enhance habitat values, monitor and evaluate management practices, and provide habitat quality for wildlife. As with the proposal above, these longer-term management goals and actions are not yet well justified in terms of science, as concrete and detailed management plans and objectives are yet to be completed. According to the presentation, a management plan would specify the desired outcomes and include measurable objectives for species composition. How will these objectives be derived? Some economic uses of this land may be allowed, but no specifics were given. These should be included in the management plan and the management plan should itself be subject to outside scientific review.

To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.

Comment:

Comments

Already ESA Req?

Biop?

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
NA

Comment:

The three projects [199608000, 27023, 200002100] are grouped together because they present essentially the same set of issues. Project 199608000 represents The Nez Perce Tribe's ongoing operations and maintenance and a new monitoring and evaluation component for the Precious Lands wildlife mitigation project. Project 27023 is a new project seeking to expand the Precious Lands wildlife mitigation by 5000 acres. The Nez Perce Tribe has voluntarily downsized project 27023 from its original scope of a 16,500-acre acquisition. ODFW proposed Project 20002100 as both ongoing operations and maintenance of the existing Ladd Marsh mitigation area and an expansion of that area.

ISRP recommended Fund in Part to complete a management plan on both ongoing projects. Without a management plan and monitoring and evaluation plan, ISRP believed long-term funding could not be justified and the projects were not amenable to scientific review. ISRP supported the Precious Lands expansion and commented favorably on the Ladd Marsh expansion as justified. Bonneville echoed the ISRP comments on the development of a management plan as part of their conditional funding recommendation on the ongoing aspects of Precious Lands and Ladd Marsh. Bonneville, however, could not support the expansion of either property citing "future funding of wildlife mitigation in this area will be contingent upon resolution of wildlife crediting issues. It appears that there are no further construction/inundation credits available to be applied against this proposed project."

The Council supports funding these ongoing projects. ODFW has indicated they are in the process of developing a management plan for the Ladd Marsh area and that the management plan will justify the request for additional dollars above the FY01 base budget for operations and maintenance and monitoring and evaluation. Similarly, the Nez Perce Tribe have not completed their management plan, but are in the stages of developing that plan. They have requested new money to enhance the monitoring and evaluation component of 199608000, which should help address ISRP concerns about the overall M&E aspects of the project. The Council would recommend these management plans should be completed within the first year of the funding cycle and should receive ISRP review, but activities in FY02 should go forward on these projects prior to completion of the management plan. Requiring a management plan prior to securing the habitat is at odds with past Council practice in implementing these types of projects. Rather, the Council expects a project sponsor to articulate why a particular piece of property if immediately protected, and eventually enhanced, would contribute to meeting program goals. If that showing is made, the Council has supported the project, and left the development and review of a management plan to the sponsor and Bonneville as a contracting condition.

ISRP emphasized numerous contracting issues in which it questioned specific cost elements of the proposed work in project 199608000. Specific questions of ISRP and some Council staff relate to the fencing costs associated with the project, justification for a full time manager, and expenditures on NPT offices as an element of indirect cost. Both ISRP and the Council would recommend that the sponsor and Bonneville address these elements through contracting.

Expansion of both properties appears justified. Bonneville's website lists the Lower Snake projects, where wildlife credits would be applied for these projects, standing at 52 percent mitigated. Discussions with Bonneville staff indicate that not all projects credited to the Lower Snake projects have received an accounting. The projects Bonneville notes as still outstanding would not appear to account for 48 percent of the mitigation for the Lower Snake projects. Both Precious Lands and Ladd Marsh would represent high quality habitat that would enhance the value wildlife mitigation credited against the Lower Snake projects and we believe available under the Council's fish and wildlife program. The areas to be acquired are modest, and almost certainly within the remaining crediting that is available.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website