FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29035
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
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Okanogan River Riparian and Upland Fish and Wildlife Habitat Aquisition |
| Proposal ID | 29035 |
| Organization | Stewardship Partners, formerly Resource Action Council (SP) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | David Burger, Executive Director |
| Mailing address | 1411 4th Avenue, Suite 1425 Seattle, WA 98101 |
| Phone / email | 2062929875 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | David Burger, Executive Director |
| Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Okanogan |
| Short description | Protect and restore existing high quality riparian, floodplain, and adjacent upland from development, and preserve important spawning, rearing and holding habitat in the Okanogan River through property acquistion and development of long term research. |
| Target species | Upper Columbia Spring Chinook ESU, upper Columbia steelhead ESU, summer/fall Okanogan chinook, and sockeye salmon; waterfowl (ducks, geese), upland game birds, passerines and terrestrial wildlife needing riparian and shrub-steppe habitats. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.57 | -119.48 | Western shore river frontage riparian habitat, islands and western shore uplands from approx RM 46 to 52, beginning approximately 2 miles upstream of Riverside at McAllister Rapids. |
| 48.62 | -119.45 | The property acquistion would include McAllister Falls, and continue upstream above Janis Rapids, approximately 1 mile downstream of Janis bridge. The lat and long. coordinates to the left represent the upstream (northern) boundary of the property. |
| The land is currently owned by three parties (Pariseau, Sherrard and Voelckers) who have all agreed to continue tax payments on the properties should their parcels sell for the habitat and educational values proposed in this grant (see attachment 1). |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| #150 |
| #153 |
| #155 |
| #180 |
| #178 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 150 | NMFS | In subbasins with listed salmon and steelhead, BPA shall fund protection of currently productive non-Federal habitat, especially if at risk of being degraded, in accordance with criteria and priorities BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 2001 | Stewardship Partners (SP) coordinated an appraisal of the properties proposed for purchase (Eisenhard 2001). This appraisal estimated the gross sellout value of the properties in question at $6,100,000, the conservation value (public use) at $7,000,000. |
| 2000 | Kennedy Creek salmon trail--Mason County. SP spearheaded an education and habitat restoration program and stewardship program to involve the local community in salmon restoration. |
| 1999 | Broughton Ranch Habitat Management -- SP is working with the Washington Agriculture and Forestry Education Foundation to develop a habitat conservation plan for 38,000 acres near Dayton, including important Snake River tributary habitat. |
| 2000 | Non-timber forest products stewardship training program: SP developed training to minimize tensions over non-traditional uses of forest products, including Best Management Practices (BMPs), harvester training, and partnerships. |
| 2000 | Lower Skykomish Habitat Conservation Group: SP is facilitating HCP negotiations with farmers to restore salmon habitat. The farmers want to enhance salmon habitat but are concerned about potential farming restrictions from renewed access. |
| 2000 | Working with the Mid Puget Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group, SP coordinated and implemented stream restoration on spawning grounds in Newaukum Creek. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| RPA Action Item 150 | NMFS stresses the importance of protecting quality, non-federal habitat in this action item. This purchase would secure 6 miles of river where nearly 50% of all Okanogan mainstem chinook spawning routinely occurs. | |
| RPA Action Item 155 | The proposed project will establish permanent Okanogan mainstem reaches for monitoring and research purposes, and will initiate direct habitat enhancements through riparian restoration. | |
| RPA Action Item 153 | This proposal will directly protect and restore (where needed) over 6 miles of highly functional riparian buffers. | |
| RPA Action Item 178 | This acquisition will secure high quality habitat important for the rearing of at risk upper Columbia steelhead in the Okanogan. | |
| RPA Action Item 180 | Data acquired from the monitoring proposed in the educational and stewardship component of this proposal will be integrated into other basin-wide data repositories. | |
| Development Of Additional Summer/Fall Chinook Acclimation (proposed as OK-14-01 by Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT), 2001) | This project would seek direct integration with tribal and state supplementation efforts. Horseshoe lake and other smaller ponds on the property could serve as acclimation ponds to spread out acclimation througout the mainstem. | |
| Re-connection of High Quality Habitat found in Isolated Oxbows and Adjacent Riparian Areas (proposed by CCT as OK-48-01, 2001) | Project proposed this cycle by CCT. Oxbow lake on proposed property acquistion is within floodplain and offers good potential for reconnection with mainstem. Engineering could provide for both spawning or rearing in connected channel. | |
| Propogation Of A Late Arriving Summer/Fall Chinook Stock In The Okanogan Basin (proposed as OK 15-01 by CCT, 2001) | Long term use of the acquired property, with off-channel enhancements, could integrate with this supplementation objective, but is not proposed directly with this application. | |
| Assessment Of Waterfowl Habitat Suitability In The Potholes Area Of The CCT Reservation (proposed as OK-32-01 by CCT, 2001) | Habitat and wildlife surveys associated with this proposal would gather similar data that could be integrated with the tribe's efforts to link data from off and on-reservation lands. | |
| Priority Habitat Assessment For Endangered Species Act (ESA) Wildlife Species (proposed as OK 33-01 by CCT, 2001) | Habitat and wildlife surveys proposed in this project would collect information on priority habitats and species that could be integrated with the studies proposed by the tribe. | |
| Noxious Weed Control (proposed as OK 27-01 by CCT, 2001) | Stewardship and monitoring inherent to the management and educational components of the proposal will include noxious weed control and thereby link to this project proposed by the CCT. | |
| Reconnaissance Review To Identify Possible Rehabilitation Of Okanogan Basin Riparian Habitat (proposed as OK 19-01 by CCT, 2001) | Biological and habitat inventories proposed within the overall strategy of this project will incorporate quantitative assessments of riparian habitat. These data can be incorporated into the study proposed by the CCT. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Acquire property along Okanogan River | a. Verify property boundaries for acquistion and delineate final acreage for purchase. | 1 | $0 | |
| b. Finalize property assessment if boundaries change | 1 | $0 | ||
| c. Notarize Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between land owners and county re: tax payments | 1 | $0 | ||
| d. Finalize purchase agreement | 2 | $2,905,000 | ||
| 2. Plan and Coordinate Biological Inventory and Monitoring to identify Enhancement Opportunities and Research Needs | a. Plan baseline Habitat Enhancement Plan (HEP), and plant and wildlife survey, include interagency and tribal coordination. | 1 | $12,000 | Yes |
| b. Plan and identify appropriate protocol for assessment of aquatic habitats, include interagency and tribal coordination. | $12,000 | Yes | ||
| 3. Plan Strategy for Development Field Research Educational Program and Mobile Facility by Central Washington University (CWU) | a. Stewardship Partners to assemble advisory committee of local, university, state agency, tribal and federal interests. | 2 | $0 | |
| b. CWU to develop vision of low/no impact field research center with objectives pertinent to Upper Columbia natural resource issues | $0 | |||
| c. Explore funding opportunities and procure additional grant funds for design, construction and operation. | $0 | |||
| 4. Develop long-term Stewardship/Management Plan for property. | a. Work with Advisory committee established under objective 3 to develop and assign stewardship responsibilities irrespective of CWU educational and research visions for property | 2 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Plan and coordinate future biological monitoring of terrestrial and aquatic biota and habitats based on year 1 results. | 2004 | 2004 | $0 |
| 2. Plan new research and monitoring of reach water quality, fish and wildlife use, invasive and noxious species, and salmonid habitat (SP and CWU internal costs). | 2004 | 2007 | $0 |
| 3. Design low-impact research facility. | 2004 | 2005 | $0 |
| 4. Plan and Coordinate Upper Columbia mobile field research program on property for stewardship by CWU using existing footprint of mobile buildings on site. Develop long-term Operation and Maintenance plan. | 2004 | 2004 | $0 |
| 5. Develop habitat restoration designs to integrate with other basin programs (e.g., restore riparian conditions damaged from grazing, evaluate reconnection feasibility of horseshoe (oxbow) lake, maximize fish and wildlife value of spring waters). | 2004 | 2006 | $75,000 |
| 6. Finalize acquisition, final purchase payment. | 2004 | 2004 | $2,905,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|
| $2,955,000 | $25,000 | $25,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Baseline Biological Inventory Research | a. implement HEP protocols for baseline terrestrial biota and habitat surveys | 1 | $16,000 | Yes |
| b. implement aquatic protocols for baseline aquatic biota and habitat surveys | 1 | $12,000 | Yes | |
| 2. Habitat Enhancement Implementation (see #4 in out year budget Section 4) | Construct possible habitat enhancements (as defined from design feasibility study). | 4 | $0 | |
| 3. CWU Educational Field Research Facility Construction | Construct facility on existing disturbed habitat footprint | 3 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Baseline biota and habitat inventory--terrestrial and aquatic | 2004 | 2004 | $28,000 |
| 2. Habitat Enhancement Implementation | 2004 | 2007 | $0 |
| 3. Construct field research facility (CWU) | 2005 | 2007 | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| $28,000 | $60,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Implement Land Stewardship Plan | a. noxious weed control | 5 | $0 | |
| b. land management (artifact preservation and monitoring) | 5 | $0 | ||
| 2. Research facility maintenance | 5 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Implement Stewardship Plan (noxious weed control) | 2004 | 2007 | $20,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Research and Monitoring | a. annual fish use surveys of reach habitats (after baseline established) | 5 | $0 | |
| b. monitoring of habitat enhancement projects (after implementation) | 3 | $0 | ||
| c. water quality monitoring | 5 | $0 | ||
| d. data management and integration with other programs in subbasin (initiate infrastructure for data sharing) | 5 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Research and Monitoring (tasks listed above) | 2004 | 2007 | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 0 | $0 |
| Capital | $2,905,000 | |
| Subcontractor | $52,000 | |
| $2,957,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $2,957,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $2,957,000 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stewardship Partners | Finalize Purchase Agreement Develop and coordinate advisory committees Fundraising | $25,000 | in-kind |
| CWU | Develop, design and construct research facility Plan new research and monitoring Land management and facility maintenance | $1,384,500 | in-kind |
| Property Owners | 15% reduction in cost | $1,144,000 | in-kind |
| Okanogan Conservation District | Water Quality Monitoring | $10,000 | in-kind |
Other budget explanation
The total cost of the project is estimated at $8,775,500. Of this total, $2,563,500 is in cost-sharing from other funding sources. The remaining funding, expected from Bonneville Power Administration will be spread over a four-year period, with much of the expenses occurring in 2003 and 2004. The budget outlined above assumes one bulk payment in 2003 to initiate the process and another to finalize the purchase in 2004. Stewardship Partners anticipates the procurement of additional funding sources as well, such as tribes and government agencies.
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 property appears to contain excellent habitat for both fish and wildlife, although the property was not visited as part of the site visit. The proposal would retire certain spring water rights that come with the property. That action should provide habitat enhancement within the Okanogan River. The proposed acquisition accounts for approximately 1/3 of a WDFW index site for which significant summer/fall chinook spawning has been documented.Acquisition of property in the Columbia Cascade Province needs to be coordinated and prioritized in watershed assessments and subbasin summaries. Has this property been identified as high priority by a watershed assessment or by a watershed council? If so, the response should clarify. Also, the ISRP needs to be assured that the property is included in an acceptable long-term monitoring program for both aquatic and terrestrial resources.
A conservation easement is needed that will protect the property for the benefit of fish and wildlife for the indefinite future. Based on the reviewer's experiences, ownership by a university without legal assurance of conservation is not adequate. The sponsor might consider working through or with the Nature Conservancy to specify the details of a conservation easement. Evidence also needs to be provided that the university is committed to the biological station. The sponsor might consider contacting the Organization of Biological Field Stations (http://www.obfs.org) for further information on operating costs and potential for use of the property for educational purposes.
The response needs to include a HEP analysis for value to wildlife, and identification of mitigation credit to BPA. See proposal #199609400 for an example of an ongoing project.
The proponents are referred to the ISRP Review of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes' Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Plan (19910600) ( http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2001-4addendum.htm). The project was reviewed in the Mountain Columbia Province to determine whether it provided scientifically sound criteria and protocol to prioritize habitat acquisitions. The ISRP found that document described a good plan for habitat acquisition and restoration of wildlife habitat in mitigation for lost aquatic and riparian habitat due to the Kerr Project No. 5 located on the Flathead River and could serve as a useful model to other habitat and restoration proposals with some minor revision of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) component of the plan. The M&E component has subsequently been reviewed and approved subject to minor modifications in ISRP report (www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2001-4AlbeniFalls.pdf). The proponents are also referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.
Comment:
Portions of this proposal have been submitted through the Washington SRFB process. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.Comment:
Fundable at high priority for establishment of options to purchase the property. This property has very high potential for long-term value for benefits to fish and wildlife species. The property contains a significant proportion of mainstem spawning chinook habitats in one of the last roadless riparian sections of the mainstem of the Okanogan River. The proponents provided an excellent response to ISRP concerns and questions regarding prioritization within watershed assessment and protection of conservation values. However, they did not reference or provide adequate detailed plans for monitoring and evaluation of results of the project including establishment of baseline conditions at the time of purchase. Detailed plans for M&E should be developed and reviewed by the ISRP before purchase of the property. Also a binding agreement with a public land trust that would establish a conservation easement in perpetuity should be in place before purchase.The ISRP believes that it is not appropriate to recommend unconditional funding for projects when one of the four primary ISRP review criteria is that we review and recommend only projects that "have provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results."
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUIf necessary agreements are secure, project could ensure long-term protection of substantial amount of riparian habitat and protect current survival rates.
Comments
Most of the benefits would accrue to terrestrial species. Applicant has identified only a potential long-term owner (CWU). Does not appear that CWU is willing to commit to long term ownership at present. Unless owner can be identified and unless owner can commit to long-term protection of the land, purported preservation benefits are speculative.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Recommend deferral to Subbasin PlanningComment: