FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 31002

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
31002 Narrative	Narrative
31002 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
31002 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Wildlife Habitat Protection, Lower McKenzie Watershed (Jaqua)
Proposal ID	31002
Organization	The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Catherine A. Macdonald
Mailing address	821 SE 14th Ave. Portland, OR 97215
Phone / email	5032301221 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	Catherine Macdonald
Review cycle	Lower Columbia
Province / Subbasin	Lower Columbia / Willamette
Short description	Acquire a wildlife habitat conservation easement over 1240 acres of oak savanna and woodlands, Douglas fir forests, and grasslands to benefit listed and target species in the Lower McKenzie River Watershed.
Target species	Black-capped chickadee, band-tailed pigeons, red-tailed hawk, valley quail, western meadowlark, yellow warbler, cougar, black bear, elk, blacktailed deer, pileated woodpecker

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
44.085	-123	T17N R3W, portions of sections 11, 12, 13, and 14; north of the McKenzie River East of the town of Coburg

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
2001	Negotiated conservation easement over 32 acres of site from Willamette Industries
2001	Initiated negotiations with adjacent private landowner over 1240 acres
2001	Completed an initial wildlife habitat assessment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
	Assess McKenszie Watershed Planning and Prioritize Projects	Watershed assessment called for protection of oak habitat
199607000	McKenzie River Focus Watershed Coordination	Project occurs in the lower McKenzie River Watershed
199205900	Amazon Basin/Eugene Wetlands Phase Two	Both areas are being studied to determine how to best connect protected areas and open space in Lane County to provide for fish and wildlife protection

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1) Establish baseline habitat conditions	a. Complete a target species habitat evaluation	1	$15,000	Yes
	b. Complete NEPA checklist in consultation with BPA staff and other agency staff as appropriate	1	$8,000	Yes
	c. Develop interim (2 year) management plan	1	$750

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Prepare a long-term Operations, Maintenance, Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the property including all detailed inventories and assessments of management needs	4	4	$40,000

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2004
$40,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1. Acquire a wildlife mitigation conservation easement over 1240 acres	a. Complete appraisals, acquire title insurance and complete legal documents to acquire 1240 acres	1	$10,000	Yes
	b. Purchase wildlife mitigation conservation easement over property.	1	$2,250,000

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Improve fences and roads to improve wildlife mitigation values and reduce water quality impacts.	4	5	$40,000
2. Restore oak woodland and douglas fir forests	4	7	$500,000
3. Purchase used truck for management purposes	4	4	$15,000

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$135,000	$170,000	$150,000	$100,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1. Implement interim wildlife habitat management activities	a. Control non-native species	1.5	$10,000
	b. Monitor access and uses to ensure they are consistent with wildlife habitat protection	1.5	$2,275
	c. Maintain fences and roads	1.5	$10,000	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Implement interim wildlife mitigation actions	4	4	$30,000
2. Implement wildlife habitat management activities as outlined in the management plan to maintain wildlife mitigation credits	5	7	$267,963

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$30,000	$87,125	$89,303	$91,535

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1. Monitor implementation of interim management actions		2	$10,000
2. Monitor listed species		2	$5,000

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Monitor implementation of interim management actions	4	4	$10,000
2. Monitor implementation of enhancement and operations and maintenance wildlife habitat management activites	5	7	$61,513
3. Monitor threatened and endangered species.	5	7	$15,000

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$10,000	$25,000	$25,500	$26,013

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2003 cost
Personnel	FTE: .35	$21,585
Fringe		$4,250
Supplies		$500
Travel		$775
Indirect		$4,915
Capital	$2,500,000	$2,250,000
Subcontractor		$39,000
		$2,321,025

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 cost	$2,321,025
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2003 budget request	$2,321,025
FY 2003 forecast from 2002	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Reason for change in scope

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
The Nature Conservancy	Negotiations, real estate and legal assistance	$10,000	in-kind
The Nature Conservancy	Long-term management endowment	$2,000,000	cash
USFWS	Management and monitoring of listed species	$5,000	cash

Other budget explanation

A project-specific stewardship endowment will be established for the property to cover the estimated $100,000 cost for ongoing annual operations and maintenance and monitoring and evaluation for the project.

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2002-2)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

A response is needed. This proposal is to acquire conservation easements over 1240 acres to protect habitat for several bird and animal species. The land is in the Coburg Hills of the Lower McKenzie. An initial habitat assessment has been performed.

Reference is made to the 80000 HUs lost to hydropower in the subbasin. The proposal makes the point that the upper portion of the Basin has received significantly more wildlife habitat mitigation than the lower portion, even though the lower Basin is subject to rapid land use conversion. Restoration actions in the Willamette subbasin have concentrated on the lower elevations. However, oak savanna and prairie habitat, the focus of this proposal, have been identified as priorities for conservation. The proposal lists species to be protected by these easements, but indicates that detailed wildlife surveys have not yet been conducted. Fish habitat protection afforded by this project would be minor. The site is currently subject to subdivision, threatening to fragment the habitat.

Better justification for purchase of this property, the easement approach, and the price is needed. Why are conservation easements the best approach? What are the alternatives to spending $2.2 million? How is this value derived? At $1,815 per acre, shouldn't an outright purchase (rather than easement) be possible? What, exactly, is a wildlife mitigation easement? How much of the habitat type represented by the property still exists within the lower Willamette Valley? What will be the authorized uses of the parcel?

Other questions relate to how this proposal fits within the larger Willamette Subbasin context. Is the purchase of this land a part of a larger landscape-scale plan for wildlife habitat protection within the lower Willamette? If so, exactly how does purchase of this parcel fit into the plan? Is this an isolated patch of habitat or are there other patches of similar habitat nearby? Data should be presented documenting the occurrence and abundance of the species that will benefit from his purchase, especially the listed species. . What is the status of the potentially benefited species within the lower Willamette (the state and federal designations given in the table need to be explained)? Where are the four viable populations of Fender's Blue located? Is there connectivity between the populations? Has a VPA been performed on any of the species to formally assess their status? How much area is needed as a buffer?

The restoration goals for the parcel are unclear. The oak savanna and dry prairie appear justified in terms of rarity, but better justification needs to be provided for the acquisition of oak and pine forest which do not appear to be scarce. Monitoring needs to be better described in terms of how it will lead to evaluation of progress toward stated habitat objectives, rather than monitoring for unauthorized uses.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Recommended Action

Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

This is a good property acquisition that may be focusing on a lower priority habitat type relative to the mitigation responsibilities of BPA.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-11)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Fundable at low to medium priority. This proposal is to acquire conservation easements over 1240 acres to protect habitat for several bird and animal species. The land is in the Coburg Hills of the Lower McKenzie. An initial habitat assessment has been performed but detailed wildlife surveys have not yet been conducted. The site is currently subject to subdivision, threatening to fragment the habitat. Fish habitat protection afforded by this project would be minor. The project appears to be very expensive for the likely benefit. If it is possible to prioritize purchases, decision-makers should consider staggering funding for easement acquisition over several years.

Responses to questions about price per acre and the definition of wildlife mitigation easement are adequate. The response puts the proposed site into the larger context of lower Willamette habitat conservation. The state of knowledge about the distribution and abundance of affected species is explained, particularly of the Fender's Blue butterfly. Justification of the acquisition is explained, including the benefits to an endangered species, a threatened species and two species of concern. The restoration goals for the parcel remain unclear, but the response explains that developing a program to monitor progress toward goals is part of the project's first-year activity.

The current proposal estimates the cost of the easement to be 90% of market value, with title retained by the present owner. It is still confusing as to why it is in the public's interest to obtain easements rather than title. Responses to questions about the need to protect oak and pine forests and the need to provide monitoring are either missing or incomplete.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Potential indirect WQ benefit by maintaining watershed condition

Comments

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
C

Date:
Jul 23, 2002

Comment:

Defer new wildlife proposals to Subbasin Planning where watershed and subbasin priorities for wildlife mitigation can be established.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: