FY07-09 proposal 200731100

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: /

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs: The project will bring 40,640 acres into unified management with protected status.

Termination date:
Comments:

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: The sponsors have not made a convincing case that the patchwork of parcels proposed for purchase will provide significant benefits for focal species. In response, the sponsors need to address the unresolved issues and questions identified in the following assessment. The proposed purchase consists of blocks of habitat (size not provided) that apparently have been degraded. The parcels proposed for purchase are interspersed with private land, but there is no assurance that the parcels of private land could be purchased. Land-use activities on the private parcels could impact the areas that were purchased. The sponsors did not provide an estimate of the increase in fish or wildlife production that eventually would be achieved from the purchase. Nor was there an explanation of how the land would be managed after purchase and by whom. A monitoring and evaluation program was not discussed. The sponsors clearly establish the importance of the upper Lochsa and the three watersheds. The sponsors are seeking funding to purchase land in the three watersheds within this area. The watersheds in question should be clearly identified on a map. A major concern is that the area proposed for purchase is a patchwork of parcels interspersed with private land rather than a single large, contiguous parcel. It is unclear just how well the parcels that will be purchased are functionally connected. The interspersed parcels of private land leaves open the possibility that land use activities on the private parcels could impact the areas that were purchased. Has purchase of the private parcels been explored? The habitat to be purchased apparently is in a degraded state and would require substantial restoration over long periods of time. The sponsors do not provide any specifics about the nature of the degradation. The sponsors state that areas degraded by timber harvest have substantial resilience and can recover from habitat degradation faster than areas affected by other human activities. The sponsors need to cite the scientific literature that justifies this assertion. One way the sponsors propose to prioritize is to purchase the areas with highest development potential but they do not define “development.” The prioritized areas are not shown on a map nor is any information provided about them. The sponsors do not indicate how the purchased area will be managed. The sponsors provide no estimate of the gain in fish production that will accrue for this land purchase. Apparently an EDT analysis was not conducted. The sponsors do not address the issue of whether passage through the Clearwater and Lower Lochsa is a limiting factor. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The proposed work generally is consistent with the Clearwater Plan, the Fish and Wildlife Program, the 2000 Biological Opinion, and other management documents. The sponsors do not indicate whether the proposed purchase is clearly identified as a priority in the plans. The proposed project is related to several projects funded through the Fish and Wildlife Program. The sponsors do not indicate whether these projects will link directly to the proposed purchases. A list of references to objectives (document unknown) is referred to, but there is no explanation of the objectives. The work elements are not explained. The only “methods” are those related to arranging for the purchase. There is no stated plan for M&E. No facilities are required. Personnel are listed, but not enough information is provided to judge their qualifications. Information transfer is not discussed. It is uncertain how much the purchase would benefit focal species. No estimates of increases in fish production were given. Impacts on non-focal species are uncertain, but negative impacts are unlikely. Finally, in the response loop, the ISRP recommends that the Nez Perce Tribe suggest a priority and rank of the numerous proposals submitted under the titles “protect” and “restore.” Where do habitat actions and protection in the Clearwater offer the most potential benefit?

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: The sponsors have clarified a number of issues related to this project. The parcels of land in question are interspersed with land managed by the US Forest Service, which answers an important question posed by the ISRP. The amount of land in question is large -- 40,000 acres -- and its purchase would provide 300,000 contiguous acres in the Upper Lochsa that would be under USFS management. Benefits to fish and wildlife were not estimated by the sponsor, but the sponsors argue that they could be substantial by, for example, substantively reducing sediment input into the stream and opening 20-30 miles of potential spawning area. At a broad level this purchase is justified in terms of consolidating management of the area under common conservation goals and should have benefits to fish and wildlife, given that it at the headwaters. Substantial benefits to fish downstream of the proposed area of land acquisition would be likely, however these benefits have not been estimated. The sponsors are to be commended for seeing this opportunity and acting immediately, albeit with incomplete information. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) is a good partner for any future transactions; however, for a project of this scale, other partners may be needed as well and the ISRP urges the Tribe, Forest Service and RMEF to work together to form as broad an alliance as possible to acquire and manage these lands. Such an alliance might also influence USFS decision makers regarding a land exchange. There should be a process in place to acquire this habitat block for future conservation of this headwaters ecosystem as a whole and all of the species that would benefit. This opportunity may never come again. There are two major uncertainties associated with this project. First, the disposition of the land, now privately owned, is not clear. The owner has offered to exchange the land for USFS land elsewhere, but the sponsor does not think this action will occur. If the exchange does not occur, the owner will sell the land. If this is the case, the sponsor will attempt to buy the land and gift it to the USFS, or buy a conservation easement and then sell the land to a conservation buyer. At this point in time, it appears as though there is no certainty that the sponsor can obtain the land. Second, the land apparently will require major active restoration efforts. The sponsors state that there are 200 culverts and 400 miles of road that would require action at some time on the future. Qualification: The sponsors need to provide better biological justification for this project in terms of its potential benefits for fish and wildlife. The sponsors should employ principles of conservation biology in developing this justification. They also need to justify the cost of the land they propose to purchase. Where did the $10 million estimate come from?