FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 200002100

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleSecuring Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Ladd Marsh WMA Additions
Proposal ID200002100
OrganizationOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameBruce Eddy
Mailing addressLadd Marsh Wildlife Area, 59116 Pierce Road La Grande OR 97850
Phone / email5419632138 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this projectSusan P. Barnes
Review cycleBlue Mountain
Province / SubbasinBlue Mountain / Grande Ronde
Short descriptionProtect and restore wetland and riparian habitats on parcels acquired and added to the Ladd Marsh Wildlife Area.
Target speciesSteelhead, chinook salmon, 200 species of birds, 40 species of mammals, 10 species of reptiles and amphibians.
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
45.25 -118 Approximately 6 miles SE of La Grande , Oregon
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Habitat RPA Action 150
Habitat RPA Action 151

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
1993 Completed Oregon Trust Agreement Planning (OTAP) Project
1996 Conducted project scoping and developed partnerships with The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, USFWS, and others.
1997 Completed draft Assessing OTAP Project using Gap Analysis: Potential Mitigation for Impacts to Oregon Wildlife Resources Associated with Relevant Mainstem Columbia River and Willamette River Hydroelectric Projects.
1997 TNC began landowner negotioations for land acquisitions adjacent to Ladd Marsh Wildlife Area.
1997 FY97 OWC Programmatic proposal for $250,000 for mitigation planning and coordination was approved by the NWPPC. OWC coordination/planning occurred, data was gathered on priority projects, and the securing of properties began.
1998 FY98 OWC Programmatic Project proposal for $500,000 for mitigation planning and coordination was approved by the NWPPC. OWC coordination/planning occurred, potential projects were investigated, funding for Ladd Marsh projects were obtained
1998 The 308-acre Wallender and 160-acre Conley Lake parcels were acquired by The Nature Conservancy.
1998 GWEB project proposal was approved for planning and design, restoration, supplies and materials for the Ladd Marsh restoration project
1999 FY99 Ladd Marsh project proposal for $8,000 to enhance the Wallender and Conley Lake properties was approved by the NWPPC.
1999 The 375-acre Simonis parcel was acquired by The Nature Conservancy
1999 Federal Wetlands Reserve Program easement was conveyed to the Conley Lake, Wallender, and Simonis properties.
1999 BPA reviewed and approved the existing Wallender and Simonis property appraisals
1999 BPA NEPA checklists for Wallender and Simonis were completed by ODFW and submitted to BPA
2000 FY2000 Ladd Marsh project proposal for continued acquisition ($216,000) was approved by the NWPPC.
2000 FY2000 Ladd Marsh enhancement and O&M proposal ($144,637) was approved by the NWPPC.
2000 BPA NEPA checklist for Conley Lake was completed by ODFW and submitted to BPA.
ODFW/BPA Oregon Columbia Basin (Excluding the Willamette Basin) Wildlife Mitigation Memorandum of Agreement completed and signed
2000 NEPA surveys (Hazardous materials, cultural resources, and biological analysis) completed; Wrote BA and submitted to NMFS and USFWS; initiated consultation.
2000 Coordination occurred between ODFW, BPA, and TNC to prepare for transfer of funds and fee-titles.
2001 Completed easement agreements with the City of La Grande for management of portions of Becker property; other agreements in progress.
2001 BPA funds transferred to TNC as reimbursement for expenses incurred; title for all three properties transferred to ODFW.
2001 Developed Statement of Work; Contracted first-year restoration and O&M funds
2001 Conducted baseline HEP with multi-agency HEP Team
2001 Five-Year Management Plan and Baseline HEP Report in progress.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
Status Review of Wildlife Mitigation at Columbia Basin Hydroelectric Projects, Col. Mainstem and Lower Snake Facilities (BPA 1984) Reviewed past, present and proposed future wildlife planning and mitigation programs at BPA's hydrofacilities. Called for quantitative and qualitative assessment of wildlife losses attributable to the dams and implementation of mitigation plans.
Special Report: Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Compensation; Wildlife Habitat Compensation Evaluation for the Lower Snake River Project (ACOE 1991) Quantified and described wildlife habitat conditions pre- and post- hydroproject construction/inundation, evaluated contribution of Habitat Mgmt. Units to current conditions, defined compensation goals in terms of habitat.
199208400 Oregon Trust Agreement Planning Project A mitigation planning tool that includes methods for assembling a trust agreement and a list of potential mitigation projects. The LMWA was identified as a priority site.
199506500 Assessing Oregon Trust Agreement Planning Project Using Gap Analysis A mitigation planning tool used to analyze and rank potential mitigation projects within the basin. The LMWA was identified as a priority site.
199705900 Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon Programmatic project; explains intent for mitigation planning, coordination and implementation by Oregon wildlife managers within Oregon. Served as the project through which Ladd Marsh acquisitions were originally identified, proposed and funded.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Engineering and design a. Survey, design and management services for wetland restoration and water control structure installation for Simonis parcel one $20,000 Yes
b. Survey, design and management services for wetland restoration and water control structure installation for 400 acres of Becker parcel one $20,000 Yes
2. Assess Baseline Conditions a. Complete HEP survey on 400 acres of Becker and write HEP report one $4,286
b. Collect other baseline information one $2,597
3. Complete Pre-Conservation Easement Activities for lands adjacent to the LMWA a. Conduct appraisals; prepare easement agreements with cooperators one $8,000 Yes
b. Complete NEPA surveys and obtain compliance one $10,000 Yes
4. Develop Management Plans a. Evaluate baseline data to develop site management goals and objectives one $1,264
b. Amend existing management plan one $2,000 Yes
c. Develop cooperative management agreement with the City of La Grande one $1,437
5. Project Management a. Project oversite one $6,414
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Engineering and Design - survey and design for Hot Lake, and Wallender #2 parcels in FY 2003; for future LMWA project sites in FY 2004-2006 2003 2006 $40,000
2. Assess Baseline Conditions - complete baseline HEP survey, write HEP report; collect other baseline data for Hot Lake and Wallender #2 parcels in FY 2003; for future LMWA project sites in FY 2003-2006 2003 2006 $20,000
3. Complete Pre-Conservation Easement Activities for lands adjacent to the LMWA - conduct appraisals, NEPA compliance, and easement agreements for future LMWA project sites 2003 2006 $18,000
4. Develop Management Plan - evaluate baseline data and amend existing management plan to include Hot Lake and Wallender #2 parcels; amend existing plan to include future LMWA project sites in FY 2004-2006 2003 2003 $12,000
5. Project Management - personnel time, mileage, supplies, indirect rate 2003 2003 $40,000
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$32,500$32,500$32,500$32,500

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Restore Habitat Conditions - Implement Management Plans a. Conduct wetland restoration work through Ducks Unlumited contract for east side of Simonis parcel one $75,000 Yes
b. Install/improve water control structures one $15,900 Yes
c. Plant native grasses, forbs, and shrubs two $5,563
2. Project Management a. Construction management (personnel) one $6,539
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Restore Habitat Conditions - Implement Mgmt. Plans for Wallender #1, Simonis, and Becker: Continue native grass and shrub plantings on Wallender and Simonis (8,000 seedlings & 80 acres of forbs/grasses); Conduct wetland restoration work on Becker 2003 2004 $269,000
2. Project Management - personnel, mileage, supplies, indirect 2003 2006 $40,000
3. Complete easements on lands adjacent to LMWA - Hot Lake and Wallender #2 in FY 2003; other future LMWA project sites in FY 2004-2006 2003 2006 $390,000
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$327,000$44,500$283,000$44,500

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
l. Maintain Current and Enhanced Habitat Values - Implement Operations & Maintenance Plans a. Control habitat enhancement activities as necessary to maintain habitat values (e.g., planting of native vegetation, control of non-native vegetation) on-going $4,412
b. Maintain water control structures on-going $1,040
c. Maintain minimal infrastructure (e.g., sign, fences, gates, roadways, house, etc.) on-going $1,012
d. Prepare annual SOW and budget on-going $1,238
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Maintain Habitat Values - Implement O& M Plans: maintain native vegetation, control non-native vegetation, maintain water control structures; maintain signs, fences, gates, roadways, house, etc. 2003 2006 $37,000
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$10,000$9,000$9,000$9,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
l. Measure Effectiveness of Restoration Plan - Implement M&E Plans a. Conduct vegetation surveys to monitor changes in plant communities (using HEP survey data, photopoints/transects on-going $1,069
b. Conduct wildlife surveys to monitor species response to habitat changes (using HEP survey data from periodic HEP sampling, wildife inventory data, stream surveys on-going $1,069
c. Conduct hydrological surveys to establish most efficient techniques for restoring wetland function on-going $1,069
d. Prepare M&E reports on-going $3,276
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Measure effectiveness of Restoration Plan - Implement M&E Plans utilizing FY 2002 monitoring methods; write reports 2003 2006 $20,000
2. Conduct five year HEP survey and write report 2006 2006 $5,000
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2003
$5,000$5,000$10,000$5,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel FTE: 5.2 months $19,701
Fringe @38% $7,487
Supplies $4,634
Travel $1,339
Indirect @24.5% $8,124
NEPA $10,000
Subcontractor $141,900
$193,185
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$193,185
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$193,185
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$160,000
% change from forecast20.7%
Reason for change in estimated budget

Costs associated with restoration of the 480-acre Becker property aquired by the City of La Grande

Reason for change in scope

The additon of 480 acres to the Ladd Marsh Wildlife Area

Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Natural Resource Conservation Service Wetland Restoration (Secured) $220,000 cash
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Wetland Restoration (Projected) $150,000 cash
North American Wetlands Conservation Act Wetland Restoration (Projected) $200,000 cash
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Restoration (Projected) $20,000 cash
Ducks Unlimited Planning and Design (Secured) $60,000 cash
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Waterfowl Stamp) Wetland Restoration (Projected) $100,000 cash
Other budget explanation

Operations and Maintenance budget reflects 25% of total anticipated O&M budget.


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. The proposed purchases are justified to extend the wetland, and the property is of high priority to migrating waterfowl. The restored wetlands will use treated wastewater from the City of La Grande, a practice in place on a smaller scale since the early 1990s. The project is clearly significant to regional programs, and well tied in with other projects. An extensive project history is provided that illustrates the collaboration among various entities to acquire contiguous lands and restore them as wetlands. This project is clearly tied to wildlife mitigation goals and to limiting water quality and quantity factors in the Grande Ronde Subbasin. The technical background of the proposal gives a good justification of the value of the restoring more of the historic wetlands, which once exceeded 20,000 acres as Tule Lake. Ladd Marsh has been identified as a priority restoration site by many different planning efforts.

However, the proposal still fails to address the previously noted scientific deficiency that the management plan, especially the M and E component, needs to be better described. Sequential restoration goals are provided. Objective 4 refers to a five-year management plan that is in existence and will be amended with the addition of the new properties. Details of this management plan including the plan for monitoring and evaluation are not included in the proposal, and should be submitted in the response to this review.

The review group also 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.


Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

Reviewers question whether ODFW is still operating under a state restriction that prohibits new land acquisitions. The ODFW assured the reviewers that the legislature has given them permission seek funding; however, if ODFW is selected to receive funding they are required to seek legislative approval prior to accepting the funds. Although a large amount of wetland habitat has been lost in this area, the reviewers are unsure whether the proposed work is urgent. The Wildlife Committee rated the project as having significant wildlife benefits using the criteria of permanence, size, connectivity to other habitat, and juxtaposition to public lands.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Fundable for 1 year to develop a long-term management plan, after which the management plan should be submitted for review and subsequent funding should be contingent on that plan being found to be scientifically sound.

The proposed purchases are justified to extend the wetland, and the property is of high priority to migrating waterfowl. The project is clearly significant to regional programs, and well tied in with other projects. An extensive project history is provided that illustrates the collaboration among various entities to acquire contiguous lands and restore them as wetlands. This project is clearly tied to wildlife mitigation goals and to limiting water quality and quantity factors in the Grande Ronde Subbasin. The technical background of the proposal gives a good justification of the value of the restoring more of the historic wetlands, which once exceeded 20,000 acres as Tule Lake. Ladd Marsh has been identified as a priority restoration site by many different planning efforts.

However, the proposal and response still fail to address the previously noted scientific deficiency that the management plan, including the M&E component, needs to be better described. This project should not receive long-term funding without a management plan that includes clear objectives and M&E. The response addresses many review comments, and a good description of the general components of the M&E plan that will be developed is provided in the response. The response to the recommendation to make terrestrial monitoring efforts compatible with national surveys conveys openness to this approach and a willingness to develop it as part of the M&E plan.

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.


Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU

Comments

Already ESA Req?

Biop?


Recommendation:
A Conditional
Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Recommend funding in part only. Recommended funding development of a management plan for current properties. 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 wildlife credits available to be applied against this proposed project.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
NA


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment:

Council Recommendation:

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.


Recommendation:
To be Determine
Date:
Jun 13, 2002

Comment:

Fund ongoing objectives of project. Defer funding on land acquisition until project can be reviewed for possible implementation of RPA 150.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Contract received two weeks ago and project start date was October. Should be on target for expenditures.
Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Project moving to operation, maintenance and monitoring. Given late date of 03 contract award accrual doesn't accurately reflect project at this point.
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$48,000 $48,000 $48,000

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website