Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Holliday Ranch Easement |
| Proposal ID | 200100400 |
| 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 / kenruthe@oregonvos.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | Susan P. Barnes |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Action Plan |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / John Day |
| Short description | Fence 17.7 miles of mainstem John Day River and tributaries, protect 15,532 acres of uplands two miles east of John Day, Oregon under perpetual conservation easement, and retire forest grazing allotment adjacent to wilderness. |
| Target species | Spring chinook, steelhead, bull trout, mule deer, elk, antelope, California quail, bald eagle, mink, great blue heron, passerine birds |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 44.4287 |
-118.8358 |
Approximately 2.5 miles east of John Day, Grant County, Oregon, split by State Highway 26 and the John Day River within the John Day River Basin. About 7 miles north to south by about 6 miles east to west. |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
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 |
|---|
| Purchase Perpetual Easement |
a. private appraisal results, subject to review by BPA specialist. |
three |
$4,545,000 |
|
| Retire USFS grazing allotment |
a. purchase rights to forest allotment. Methodology for assessing fair market value not yet determined. There is no estimate of cost at this time. |
five |
$0 |
Yes |
|
b. make formal application to USFS for non-use short-term, and retirement in the upcoming forest planning process |
eight |
$0 |
Yes |
| Protect all riparian areas |
a. purchase riparian fence materials |
two |
$94,700 |
Yes |
|
b. purchase off-site water development materials |
one |
$30,000 |
Yes |
|
c. construct riparian fence |
twelve |
$275,600 |
Yes |
|
d. construct off-site water developments |
one |
$2,000 |
Yes |
| Montor and Evaluation |
a. operate 12 thermographs placed above and below each stream on project area |
two |
$40,000 |
Yes |
|
b. establish and retake photopoints |
two |
$14,500 |
Yes |
|
c. check for livestock in riparian areas |
one |
$25,000 |
Yes |
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 |
|
$4,545,000 |
| PIT tags |
# of tags: construct 21.4 mi. of fence @ $5,500/mi. |
$275,600 |
| Subcontractor |
construct off-site water developments |
$2,000 |
| $5,026,800 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $5,026,800 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $5,026,800 |
| 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.
Recommendation:
Fundable?
Date:
Jun 21, 2001
Comment:
Fundable? This proposal was recommended for funding by the ISRP, CBFWA, and the Council in the High Priority Review. Since that review, the ISRP favorably reviewed the proposal in the Columbia Plateau Province review process. The proposal appears to be time sensitive and the ISRP emphasizes this project as high priority.
This project is primarily an acquisition project and as such its focus is not within the narrow scope of this Action Plan solicitation. Benefits are likely long-term rather than immediate for target species affected by the power emergency. Increases of stream flows through dedication of instream water rights are not described in the proposal. Despite the imperfect fit to this solicitation, this proposal is one of the best. It addresses many of the points raised by the ISRP in its previous reviews, including a full description of the proposed reduction in grazing AUMs on federal land adjacent to a wilderness area. With this noteworthy addition to the proposal, the following review comments remain pertinent and germane. They were taken from our recently released (June 15, 2001) Preliminary Review of Fiscal Year 2002 Project Proposals for the Columbia Plateau Province:
"Fundable. High priority. This proposal was given a high rank in the high priority review. The site visit confirmed and enhanced the conclusion that this acquisition provides many benefits to fish and wildlife. In addition to the conservation benefits described in the proposal, this project provides an excellent example of the types of win-win solutions to restoration problems that are possible through good working relations with landowners, and through the development of incentives that make sense both in terms of conservation goals and the economic goals of the landowner. The project is a complicated mix of actions and incentives that make both biological and economic sense. This project will achieve far-reaching demonstration benefits to other landowners of the positive outcomes possible from restoration actions. There is a limited window of opportunity to for this project, dependent on the time period of the option to buy. Delay in funding will risk the project. The costs of not funding this project will be realized not only in conservation and restoration terms, but also in the erosion of trust and working relationships between landowners and agencies responsible for resource recovery actions. See review comments from the ISRP's recent High Priority Review. It received an "A" category and was recommended for funding without reservation.
Additional information about the complexity of this project and its potential benefits were provided during the site visit. The proposal should be modified to adequately represent the complexity of the project and the magnitude of potential benefits. The ISRP visited the Holliday Ranch as part of the Columbia Plateau South Site Visit on 8 May 2001. We were able to see the many conservation actions the landowners have undertaken with assistance from regional resource managers. On-site discussions with the land owners and resource managers from ODFW, CTWSR, and SWCD were informative and provided insights into the biological benefits, as well as the important aspect of local landowner-resource manager relationship benefits that would be gained from implementation of the Holliday Ranch perpetual easement. Many ranchers in the area are familiar with the Holliday Ranch and its conservation activities and are waiting and watching the process before deciding whether or not they will participate in similar programs.
Of particular note in the project, but not described in the proposal, is the large grazing allotment (~700 AUMs) that the Holliday family presently uses on forested public lands in the lower reaches of the Strawberry Mountains, an area adjacent to a wilderness area. The family's initial motivation for seeking the perpetual easement was to reduce their use of and reliance on the grazing allotment by 80% in exchange for purchase of the Crown Ranch property, which would provide them with summer pasture lands for their cattle operation. This portion of the easement agreement was not described in the proposal, but the ISRP feels it is an important part of the entire easement package."
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 29, 2001
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jul 12, 2001
Comment:
Defer to Columbia Plateau: the criteria established for this solicitation did not include land acquisitions. Furthermore, these types of global watershed actions would be better defined within the context of their respective subbasins and best prioritized through upcoming subbasin assessments and revised subbasin plans.
