FY 2001 High Priority proposal 23073
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 |
|---|---|
| Holliday Conservation Easement topographic map | Narrative Attachment |
| 23073 Narrative | Narrative |
| Columbia Plateau: John Day Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Columbia Plateau: John Day Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Letter from R. Sando (CBFWA) to F. Cassidy (NPCC) RE: CBFWA Review of project proposal 23073 | Correspondence |
| Letter from R. Lohn (NPCC) to S. McNary (BPA) RE: NPCC Recommendation to fund project proposal 23073 | NWPPC Funding Recommendations Letter |
| Sponsor response to ISRP comments on project 23073 | Correspondence |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Purchase Perpetual Conservation Easement on Holliday Ranch and Crown Ranch Riparian Corridors and Uplands |
| Proposal ID | 23073 |
| Organization | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Ken Rutherford |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 9 John Day, OR 97845 |
| Phone / email | 5415751167 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Ron Boyce and Susan Barnes |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 High Priority |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / John Day |
| Short description | Fence 17.7 miles of mainstem John Day River and tributaries, and protect 15,532 acres of uplands two miles east of John Day, Oregon under perpetual conservation easement to improve habitat and protect steelhead spawning grounds and big game winter range. |
| Target species | Steelhead, bull trout,spring chinook, mule deer, elk, antelope, California quail, bald eagle and other NWPPC Fish and Wildlife Program indicator species |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 44.4287 | -118.8367 | Holliday Ranch |
| 44.43 | -118.85 | John Day River |
| 44.429 | -118.8584 | Grub Creek |
| 44.4378 | -118.8274 | Pine Creek |
| 44.4428 | -118.8002 | Indian Creek |
| 44.4188 | -118.9019 | Dog Creek |
| 44.4202 | -118.8693 | Dissel Creek |
| 44.4202 | -118.8686 | Dean Creek |
| 44.4381 | -118.8235 | Castle Creek |
| 44.4323 | -118.832 | Deep Gulch |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
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 |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $74,500 | $24,800 | $24,800 | $24,800 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1.0 | $50,000 |
| Fringe | @48.8% | $24,500 |
| Supplies | off-site water development materials fence materials @$3,500/mi. thermographs (12) | $95,700 |
| Indirect | @20.1% | $34,000 |
| Capital | purchase conservation easement | $0 |
| Subcontractor | construct 21.4 mi. of fence @$5,500/mi. | $275,600 |
| Other | construct off-site water developments | $2,000 |
| $481,800 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $481,800 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $481,800 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This is an important, cost-effective project. This project would have the second highest priority of the four John Day Subbasin acquisitions. The technical reviewers recommend dropping the O&M funding if they jeopardize funding the acquisition. This project would provide significant benefits to wildlife.Comment:
This is a proposal to construct and maintain riparian corridor fencing on 15 miles of mainstem and tributary habitat. It appears funding for the easement is available in another project. The combination of legal and physical protection is good. The cost is modest compared to cost of acquisition of the ranches. The ISRP supports this excellent project, but is confused over long-term O&M costs. The budget includes funds for long-term O&M while the text indicates that the responsibility for ongoing fence maintenance falls on the Grantor, the Hollidays. Also, there is inadequate indication of who will pay for long-term M&E. These issues should be clarified during the Council's review.Comment:
ISRP Comment: The ISRP supports this excellent project, but is confused over long-term O&M costs. The budget includes funds for long-term O&M while the text indicates that the responsibility for ongoing fence maintenance falls on the Grantor, the Hollidays. Also, there is inadequate indication who will pay for long-term M&E.Response: Terms of this agreement are currently being negotiated with the Hollidays; however, it has been proposed that the Grantor will be responsible for O&M, while the holder of the conservation easement will accept responsibility for M&E. The proposal should be modified to reflect no O&M request from BPA in FY2001 or out years. Instead, costs should be shifted to M&E, which is estimated to require $12,000 in FY2001 and $10,000 each year over the life of the easement. These costs will include photopoints, aerial monitoring of the river and tributaries, water temperature monitoring equipment, and on-ground inspections.
Comment:
25053 - Wagner Ranch Acquisition, and 23054 - Forrest Ranch Acquisition, 23073 - Holliday Ranch and Crown Ranch conservation easements. All three acquisition proposals plan substantial riparian restoration. These projects could provide excellent opportunities to evaluate different restoration methods and activitiesComment:
Comment:
This project proposes to purchase and then sell perpetual conservation easements on both properties to the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture. NMFS understands that this was a time-limited opportunity, which has expired. Additionally the cost indicated was for riparian fencing only and not the property acquisition. The full cost is about $2.3 million. NMFS interest in this project would be limited to the riparian portion only. Given the timeliness issues, cost estimate differences, and acquisition complexity, if this project is still viable, it should be considered in the Columbia Plateau Provincial Review.REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision
BPA Funding Decision
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund; Defer to Columbia Plateau Provincial Reivew.
Do Not Fund; Defer to Columbia Plateau Provincial Reivew.
Date:
May 8, 2001
May 8, 2001
Comment:
Proposal no. 23073 will not be funded by BPA at this time. Although this appears to be another sound biological proposal, the land arrangements that would allow the acquisition of a riparian easement are not sufficiently mature to go forward at this time. In addition, the budget proposed for this project addresses the riparian fencing costs only and does not include the conservation easement cost. We anticipate that this project will be considered for funding in the Columbia Plateau Provincial Review.