FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 27011

Additional documents

TitleType
27011 Narrative Narrative
27011 Sponsor Response to ISRP Response
27011 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleLookingglass Creek land purchase for watershed protection (spawning and rearing habitat continuity and water quality at Lookingglass Hatchery).
Proposal ID27011
OrganizationConfederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameMike Mclean
Mailing addressOne University Blvd., 211 Inlow Hall La Grande, OR 97850
Phone / email5419623777 / mmclean@eou.edu
Manager authorizing this projectGary James
Review cycleBlue Mountain
Province / SubbasinBlue Mountain / Grande Ronde
Short descriptionProtect 2.5 miles of stream and riparian areas in Lookingglass Creek to improve water quality and provide continuity of spawning and rearing areas for spring chinook, summer steelhead, and bulltrout.
Target speciesSpring Chinook Salmon, Summer Steelhead, Bulltrout
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
45.4487 -117.5433 Upper land boundary
45.4504 -117.5263 Lower land boundary
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Habitat RPA Action 150

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
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

YearAccomplishment
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 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
8805301 Northeast Oregon Hatchery Master Plan - NPT Lookingglass Creek is the water supply for Lookingglass Hatchery, the only spring chinook production facility in NE Oregon, which houses threatened spring chinook stocks (Lostine River, Catherine Creek, and Upper Grande Ronde River).
9800704 Northeast Oregon Hatchery Master Plan - ODFW Lookingglass Creek is the water supply for Lookingglass Hatchery, the only spring chinook production facility in NE Oregon, which houses threatened spring chinook stocks (Lostine River, Catherine Creek, and Upper Grande Ronde River).
9801001 Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program - ODFW Lookingglass Creek is the water supply for Lookingglass Hatchery, the only spring chinook production facility in NE Oregon, which houses threatened spring chinook stocks (Lostine River, Catherine Creek, and Upper Grande Ronde River).
9703800 Captive Broodstock Artificial Propagation - NPT Lookingglass Creek is the water supply for Lookingglass Hatchery, the only spring chinook production facility in NE Oregon, which houses threatened spring chinook stocks (Lostine River, Catherine Creek, and Upper Grande Ronde River).
9800701 Grande Ronde Supplementation - CTUIR Lookingglass Creek is the water supply for Lookingglass Hatchery, the only spring chinook production facility in NE Oregon, which houses threatened spring chinook stocks (Lostine River, Catherine Creek, and Upper Grande Ronde River).
9800702 Grande Ronde Supplementation - O&M/M&E - NPT Lookingglass Creek is the water supply for Lookingglass Hatchery, the only spring chinook production facility in NE Oregon, which houses threatened spring chinook stocks (Lostine River, Catherine Creek, and Upper Grande Ronde River).
199405400 Bull trout life history, genetics, habitat needs, and limiting factors in central and northeast Oregon Protects habitat needed for the recovery of bulltrout in the Grande Ronde River basin, also allows for monitoring of the fish throughout their habitat range in Lookingglass Creek.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Not applicable 1 $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Not applicable $0
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Protect and improve water quality above Lookingglass Hatchery and provide continuity of spawning and rearing habitat between privately owned and federally owned land currently managed cooperatively. a. Complete appraisal of property planned for acquisition, negotiate a final purchase price, and complete NEPA documents. 1 $2,250,000 Yes
1. b. Complete a biological assessment of the property including aquatic and wildlife resources and identify the desired future condition throughout the property. 1 $0
1. c. Collect data on water temperature and quality for baseline data, and start a monitoring program to address these specific attributes of this parcel. 1 $0
1. d. Identification of management alternatives that will speed the recovery of the property and protect the watershed quality. 1 $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Maintain bridges on property. a. Maintain existing bridges (2) on property. Ongoing $5,000
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Maintain bridges on property. 2003 2006 $20,000
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$5,000$5,000$5,000$5,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Monitor stream temperatures and quality. a. Install and monitor temperature data loggers in the stream throughout the property. Ongoing $3,700
1. b. Install and monitor water sampling (ISCO) devices in the property. Ongoing $4,700
2. Monitor spawning and rearing fish populations. a. Conduct annual spawning ground surveys for multiple species. Ongoing $0
2. b. Conduct monthly length and weight sampling of resident fish species. Ongoing $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. 2003 2006 $2,000
2. 2003 2006 $0
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$500$500$500$500

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel FTE: 0 $0
Fringe 35% $0
Supplies $8,000
Travel $2,000
Indirect 34% $3,400
Capital Property Purchase $2,245,000
NEPA $5,000
Subcontractor $0
$2,263,400
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$2,263,400
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$2,263,400
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Sep 28, 2001

Comment:

A response is needed. This proposal is to purchase an identified parcel of land along Lookingglass Creek for the purpose of riparian protection. The relationship of this project to other projects comes primarily through the issue of water supply to the Lookingglass Hatchery. The Lookingglass Creek purchase is justified in terms of value to Lookingglass Hatchery, and it could very well lead to benefit to fish and wildlife. Further, the area to be acquired is in good condition and should require little if any active restoration. The technical background of the proposal is brief and does not address whether there are any alternatives to land purchase for riparian protection, why access on this parcel has been limited, and whether fish habitat is an important limiting factor or only "seems to be." The proposal lists one objective, which is to protect and improve water quality and provide habitat continuity between private and federally owned land. It lists four tasks, none of which include any explanation of methods. The proposal leaves a number of large questions unaddressed: How will the biological assessment be done? What variables will be measured? How will the "desired future condition" be identified? How will water monitoring be conducted? How will management alternatives be identified? Further, the proposal does not present a clear plan for use of the purchased stream. The proposal and presentation noted that Lookingglass Creek was a top production area for chinook and that is was the installation and operation of Lookingglass Hatchery itself that extirpated the upper creek populations. Without a comprehensive plan for restoration of natural production in Lookingglass Creek, the purchase would seem to be of low scientific priority. Further, the purchase price per acre is very high. The purchase needs to be justified in the context of a plan for restoring salmonids of the Lookingglass basin.

The review group also suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made compatible with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the Columbia Plateau.


Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

This project is consistent with RPAs 150 and 400. This proposal will allow for the protection and enhancement of property that is contributing sediment to the system which is inhabited by bull trout, steelhead and chinook. Based on their experience with the land owner, the sponsors indicate that if the property is not purchased by a fish and wildlife manager the property will be available for purchase by others. The existing conditions have resulted in a 303d listing. The reviewers expressed concern because sponsors did not indicate intentions relative to habitat rehabilitation and that there has been a lack of coordination with local managers. The Wildlife Committee rated the project as having significant wildlife benefits using the criteria of permanence, size, connectivity to other habitat, and juxtaposition to public lands.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Not fundable. The response was inadequate. A specific plan for future land uses was not presented and was judged to be a critical omission from the proposal and response.

This proposal is to purchase an identified parcel of land along Lookingglass Creek for the purpose of riparian protection. The relationship of this project to other projects comes primarily through the issue of water supply to the Lookingglass Hatchery. The Lookingglass Creek purchase is justified in terms of value to Lookingglass Hatchery, and it could very well lead to benefit to fish and wildlife. Further, the area to be acquired is in good condition and should require little if any active restoration. The response adds detail to the basic fish and wildlife value of the property, which apparently includes good quality and relatively limited habitats. The major weakness in the proposal remains the lack of a specific plan for use of the expensive property after purchase. The possibility of reselling after easements are in place is mentioned in the response. However, the response does not explain the restoration plans for fish above the hatchery and so does not justify the value of the property acquisition that is proposed. There are no solid plans for resolving the conflict the project proponents see between water supply to the hatchery and availability of the above-hatchery habitat they propose to acquire to fish. The methods remain very sketchy and are not adequate for review of scientific soundness. It is not adequate to simply state that EMAP or NRI sampling will be used. The specific sample areas, methods, and sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what type where and when) need to be specified. The biological objectives are vague and it is not clear how they would be addressed and evaluated. There is no management plan.

Responses are vague as to how the overall management goal - the "desired future condition" - will be determined, and how management alternatives to reach this goal will be identified.


Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Project is to purchase an identified parcel of land along 2.5 miles of Lookingglass Creek for the purpose of riparian protection, which should at least maintain current survival rates in that reach.

Comments
Proposal technical background is brief. What is scientific justification for specified purchase, is fish habitat a limiting factor to restoration of natural production in Lookingglass Creek? Although the objective of the proposal is to protect and improve water quality and provide habitat continuity between private and federally-owned land, no methods are described as to how the objective will be accomplished.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes


Recommendation:
D
Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend. Agree with ISRP and CBFWA that the proposal does not include an adequate property management plan. Agree with NMFS that the project may not address limiting factors.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
150


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment: