FY07-09 proposal 200701300
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Convert BPA Term Riparian Lease Agreements to Permanent Riparian Conservation Easements |
| Proposal ID | 200701300 |
| Organization | John Day Basin Trust |
| Short description | The John Day Basin Trust requests program operations funding and a "set aside" allocation of purchase funding to pursue the conversion of current and expired riparian lease agreements to permanent riparian conservation easements. |
| Information transfer | The John Day Basin Trust conducts regular and ongoing outreach within the local community to disseminate information pertaining to the subject proposal. Our collaboration with local and regional agencies, organizations, and individuals provides an effective foundation for distributing information regarding the process and successes of our approach to others with parallel interests in the conservation of watershed resources. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Shaun Robertson | John Day Basin Trust | swrobertson@centurytel.net |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Shaun Robertson | John Day Basin Trust | swrobertson@centurytel.net |
| Shaun Robertson | John Day Basin Trust | swrobertson@centurytel.net |
| Shaun Robertson | John Day Basin Trust | swrobertson@centurytel.net |
| Shaun Robertson | John Day Basin Trust | swrobertson@centurytel.net |
| Shaun Robertson | John Day Basin Trust | swrobertson@centurytel.net |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / John Day
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| John Day River mainstem | Multiple Reaches | ||
| John Day River tributaries | Multiple Reaches |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Chinook Mid-Columbia River Spring ESUprimary: Steelhead Middle Columbia River ESU
secondary: Westslope Cutthroat
secondary: Pacific Lamprey
secondary: Bull Trout
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 198402100 | John Day Habitat Enhancement | We propose converting riparian corridor fence agreements completed under the John Day Habitat Enhancement Program to permanent riparian conservation easements. In addition, the Field Conservation Coordinator position will be used to support the ongoing operations and maintenance program of the John Day Habitat Enhancement contract. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Restore & Mainstain Suitable Habitat | Restore and maintain suitable habitat conditions for all bull trout life history stanges and strategies | John Day | Strategy G: Protect Existing High Quality Habitat Areas Strategy E: Riparian Habitat Improvements |
| Restore Freshwater Productivity | Restore the freshwater productivity of steelhead and chinook populations to the 25-year levls identified in Table 68 | John Day | Strategy G: Protect Existing High Quality Habitat Areas Strategy E: Riparian Habitat Improvements |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Land Purchase | Purchase easements | Purchase conservation easements | 6/1/2007 | 8/30/2009 | $750,000 |
|
Biological objectives Restore & Mainstain Suitable Habitat Restore Freshwater Productivity |
Metrics * # of acres of new purchase/easement: 360 * # of riparian miles protected: 20.7 |
||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Acquire land surveys | Acquire land surveys for generating legal descriptions and recording deeds. | 4/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $80,060 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Complete ESA consultation | Complete ESA consultation (programmatic) or consultations (easement specific). | 4/1/2007 | 8/30/2009 | $18,824 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Conduct HazMat | Conduct or have conducted, hazardous materials surveys. | 4/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $8,329 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Prepare environmental review documents | Prepare environmental review document (programmatic) or documents (easement specific) consistent with BPA standards and protocols. | 4/1/2007 | 8/30/2009 | $17,248 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Conduct Pre-Acquisition Activities | Acquire appraisals | Acquire appraisals; acquire BPA review and approval of appraisals. Conduct appraisals consistent with Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. | 12/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $95,791 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Conduct Pre-Acquisition Activities | Draft conservation easements | Draft conservation easements | 12/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $38,331 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Conduct Pre-Acquisition Activities | Draft option agreements | Draft option agreements describing responsibilities of each party, option period, costs (surveys, clear encumbrances, title insurance, recording fees, stewardship fund). | 12/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $21,128 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Conduct Pre-Acquisition Activities | Obtain preliminary title reports | Obtain preliminary title reports | 12/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $8,350 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Prepare HEP Report | Distribute final HEP report | Upload final HEP report to BPA's website and distribute to landowner and cooperators | 9/30/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $1,731 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Prepare HEP Report | Obtain HEP data | Obtain HEP data from regional HEP team or conduct HEP analysis | 7/1/2007 | 8/30/2009 | $20,325 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Prepare HEP Report | Perform HEP Analysis | Perform analyses on HEP data | 8/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $9,916 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Prepare HEP Report | Submit HEP report | Submit draft HEP report to BPA for review | 9/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $1,422 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Other | Close and Record | Close and record easement deeds and any other documents necessary to clear encumbrances | 6/1/2007 | 8/30/2009 | $10,818 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Other | Open Escrow | Open escrow account for each easement | 6/1/2007 | 8/30/2009 | $2,474 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Other | Prepare closing instructions | Prepare closing instructions for each easement | 6/1/2007 | 8/30/2009 | $2,487 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Other | Provide Indirect Costs | Provide indirect costs for normal and routine overhead. | 9/30/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $71,040 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Coordination | Support ODFW O&M program | Support existing ODF&W fence maintenance program | 6/1/2007 | 9/1/2009 | $56,358 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | Complete reporting requirements | Complete all other BPA programmatic administrative requirements for reporting consistent with BPA reporting rules. Report end of each fiscal year. | 9/1/2007 | 9/30/2007 | $7,027 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | Draft conservation easement template | Draft conservation easement template to be used as starting point in negotiations with landowners. Update as needed. | 11/1/2006 | 12/15/2007 | $4,478 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | Prepare contract documents | Prepare and submit contract documents including statement of work, budget, and spending plan to BPA consistent with BPA process rules. Update beginning of each fiscal year. | 11/1/2006 | 12/1/2006 | $4,447 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Outreach and Education | Conduct meetings | Conduct targeted meetings, tours, presentations, and seminar(s) for the purpose of information exchange on topices relevant to the initiative. | 12/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $16,871 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics * # of general public reached: 45 local landowners in attendance |
||||
| Outreach and Education | Prepare development materials | Prepared development materials summarizing information regarding trust and estate planning, conservation easements, and riparian conservation. Use direct mailings and cooperating agency handouts to disseminate development materials. | 12/1/2006 | 4/1/2009 | $8,982 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics * # of general public reached: 250 mailings distributed |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Complete mapping | Complete mapping of existing riparian fenced areas by digitizing boundaries from low-altitude aerial photos and acquiring GPS locations at existing fences. Update annually. | 11/1/2006 | 12/1/2006 | $16,338 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Complete mapping | Complete digitizing of private lands parcel maps; rectify topology. Update quarterly consistent with tax assessor's updates. | 11/1/2006 | 4/1/2007 | $6,722 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Refine existing GIS coverages | Refine existing GIS coverages for project locations on file in JDBT and OWRI offices; meet standards set by OGEO for prepared data. Update annually. | 11/1/2006 | 4/1/2007 | $5,699 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Conduct compliance monitoring | Conduct annual review of each easement area, compliance monitoring, and reporting on vested easements. | 6/1/2008 | 9/30/2010 | $9,450 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: % Compliance with conservation easement terms Primary R, M, and E Type: 100% Annual compliance monitoring |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | JDBT Ex Dir (.25 FTE) | $16,640 | $17,139 | $17,653 |
| Personnel | JDBT Gov Aff (.125 FTE) | $7,800 | $8,034 | $8,275 |
| Personnel | JDBT Field Con Cord (1.0 FTE) | $52,000 | $53,560 | $55,167 |
| Personnel | JDBT GIS Coord (.125 FTE) | $3,000 | $1,545 | $1,591 |
| Supplies | Books/Reprints | $250 | $258 | $265 |
| Supplies | Dues & Subscriptions | $950 | $979 | $1,008 |
| Supplies | Field supplies | $250 | $258 | $265 |
| Supplies | Office Supplies | $500 | $515 | $530 |
| Supplies | Phone Charges | $1,500 | $1,545 | $1,591 |
| Supplies | Photocopies & Printing | $200 | $206 | $212 |
| Supplies | Postage | $50 | $52 | $53 |
| Supplies | Photo Development | $75 | $77 | $80 |
| Travel | Mileage | $8,400 | $8,652 | $8,912 |
| Travel | Meals | $500 | $515 | $530 |
| Supplies | Lodging | $500 | $515 | $530 |
| Capital Equipment | Handheld/ArcPad | $1,775 | $0 | $0 |
| Capital Equipment | Laptop w/docking station | $2,195 | $0 | $0 |
| Capital Equipment | Monitor | $595 | $0 | $0 |
| Capital Equipment | Keyboard, mouse, etc. | $350 | $0 | $0 |
| Capital Equipment | Plotter | $2,700 | $0 | $0 |
| Capital Equipment | Software | $500 | $0 | $0 |
| Other | Appraisals | $30,000 | $30,900 | $31,827 |
| Other | Title Reports | $500 | $515 | $530 |
| Other | Land Surveys | $25,000 | $25,750 | $26,523 |
| Other | Closing costs | $3,500 | $3,605 | $3,713 |
| Overhead | 15% of total program costs | $23,960 | $23,193 | $23,889 |
| Other | Purchase Funds | $250,000 | $250,000 | $250,000 |
| Totals | $433,689 | $427,808 | $433,138 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $1,294,635 |
| Total work element budget: | $1,294,646 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JDBT | Personnel Salaries | $8,320 | $8,570 | $8,827 | Cash | Confirmed |
| JDBT | Personnel Salaries | $7,800 | $8,034 | $8,275 | Cash | Confirmed |
| JDBT | Personnel Salaries | $13,000 | $13,390 | $13,792 | Cash | Under Development |
| JDBT | Personnel Salaries | $1,500 | $773 | $796 | Cash | Under Development |
| JDBT | Supplies | $950 | $979 | $1,008 | Cash | Confirmed |
| JDBT | Mileage | $2,100 | $2,163 | $2,228 | Cash | Confirmed |
| JDBT | Plotter | $2,700 | $0 | $0 | Cash | Confirmed |
| JDBT | Overhead | $5,456 | $5,086 | $5,239 | Cash | Under Review |
| Totals | $41,825 | $38,992 | $40,159 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $250,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $250,000 |
Comments: Includes program administration and easement purchase costs. |
Future O&M costs: Future O&M costs will be allocated to landowners under the terms and conditions of the conservation easements and absorbed by the JDBT under their annual compliance monitoring stewardship fund.
Termination date: Unknown
Comments:
Final deliverables:
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: This proposal requests funding to purchase and administer the conversion of riparian area protections (fenced areas) to permanent conservation easements. The proposal lacks detail to support the request, including justification for why conservation easements are the most effective tool, identification of the specific amount of easements needed, or details of the approach. The proposal links conservation easements to the achievement of subbasin plan objectives but should be able to demonstrate why conservation easements would be the most cost-effective approach to long-term protections in the John Day Subbasin. The sponsors’ response should better justify the easement approach and present information about the costs and benefits of this approach relative to other protection tools. It would be helpful to include citations to studies that demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of conservation easements in contributing to subbasin goals. In addition to responding to the areas identified in the paragraph above, sponsors are also asked to respond to the concerns and questions identified in the sections below. The technical and scientific background includes an extensive description of the project area and its existing riparian protections. Several questions pertaining to the project context are left unaddressed. 1. What proportion of priority and habitat streams are fenced by existing projects? (e.g. What does 76 miles of fence mean in context?) 2. What proportion (actual %) of the existing riparian fenced areas are within the Subbasin Plan’s high priority areas? 2. The proposal shows a trend of increasing numbers of conservation easements in the John Day Basin (Figure 3). What influenced the relatively low number in 2004? 3. What is the basis for the statement that conservation easements (compared to fee-simple acquisitions) may be one of the most efficient approaches? How has this evaluation been made? 4. How are standards for continuing fence maintenance monitored and enforced under easements? Proposal objectives are quite generally specified. They sound reasonable for the development of conservation easements, but more detail should be provided. Work elements pertain to the objectives but are also quite general. More information should be provided as to the specific of developing and implementing conservation easements. No detail on monitoring and evaluation is provided. Added to these concerns are the following specific questions: 5. How are conservation easement targets (size, locations) determined? 6. What are the likely constraints? 7. What is the function of the HEP reports - do the conservation easements then become associated with wildlife credits? 8. What monitoring and evaluation of the conservation easement process – both development and post-implementation – will be done? More information should also be provided as to why the John Day Basin Trust is the best entity to perform this work and how the information produced by this project will be shared. Information transfer is only generally described. It would be helpful to have more specifics as to how this will be done, especially given the potentially controversial nature of this activity.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: This proposal requests funding to purchase and administer the conversion of riparian area protections (fenced areas) to permanent conservation easements. The proposal lacks detail to support the request, including justification for why conservation easements are the most effective tool, identification of the specific amount of easements needed, or details of the approach. The proposal links conservation easements to the achievement of subbasin plan objectives but should be able to demonstrate why conservation easements would be the most cost-effective approach to long-term protections in the John Day Subbasin. The sponsors’ response should better justify the easement approach and present information about the costs and benefits of this approach relative to other protection tools. It would be helpful to include citations to studies that demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of conservation easements in contributing to subbasin goals. In addition to responding to the areas identified in the paragraph above, sponsors are also asked to respond to the concerns and questions identified in the sections below. The technical and scientific background includes an extensive description of the project area and its existing riparian protections. Several questions pertaining to the project context are left unaddressed. 1. What proportion of priority and habitat streams are fenced by existing projects? (e.g. What does 76 miles of fence mean in context?) 2. What proportion (actual %) of the existing riparian fenced areas are within the Subbasin Plan’s high priority areas? 2. The proposal shows a trend of increasing numbers of conservation easements in the John Day Basin (Figure 3). What influenced the relatively low number in 2004? 3. What is the basis for the statement that conservation easements (compared to fee-simple acquisitions) may be one of the most efficient approaches? How has this evaluation been made? 4. How are standards for continuing fence maintenance monitored and enforced under easements? Proposal objectives are quite generally specified. They sound reasonable for the development of conservation easements, but more detail should be provided. Work elements pertain to the objectives but are also quite general. More information should be provided as to the specific of developing and implementing conservation easements. No detail on monitoring and evaluation is provided. Added to these concerns are the following specific questions: 5. How are conservation easement targets (size, locations) determined? 6. What are the likely constraints? 7. What is the function of the HEP reports - do the conservation easements then become associated with wildlife credits? 8. What monitoring and evaluation of the conservation easement process – both development and post-implementation – will be done? More information should also be provided as to why the John Day Basin Trust is the best entity to perform this work and how the information produced by this project will be shared. Information transfer is only generally described. It would be helpful to have more specifics as to how this will be done, especially given the potentially controversial nature of this activity.