FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 200303100
Contents
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 |
---|---|
27023 Narrative | Narrative |
27023 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Blue Mountain: Grande Ronde Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Blue Mountain: Grande Ronde Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Precious Lands Wildlife Habitat Expansion |
Proposal ID | 200303100 |
Organization | Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Loren Kronemann |
Mailing address | P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540 |
Phone / email | 2088437372 / kronemannla@nezperce.org |
Manager authorizing this project | Keith Lawrence |
Review cycle | Blue Mountain |
Province / Subbasin | Blue Mountain / Grande Ronde |
Short description | Expand the operation of the NE Oregon Wildlife Mitigation Project -- "Precious Lands" to protect, restore, and enhance up to 16,500 acres of additional grassland, riparian and ponderosa pine habitat to benefit fish and wildlife. |
Target species | California quail, downey woodpecker, song sparrow, chukar, mule deer, black-capped chickadee, blue grouse, beaver, western meadowlark, and yellow warbler. Elk, big horned sheep, Mtn. quail, and Snake River steelhead may also benefit. |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
46 | -117.17 | Precious Lands area |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Hydro RPA Action 118 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
199608000 | NE Oregon Wildlife Mitigation Project -- "Precious Lands" | The current proposal is an expansion of this original project and proposes to increase land holdings by an additional 16,500 acres. |
199206900 | Craig Mountain Wildlife Management Area | Compliments canyon grassland and bighorn sheep management in the Snake Hell's Canyon subbasin. |
199609400 | WDF&W Habitat Unit Acquisitions (Chief Joseph Wildlife Area) | Compliments winter range and riparian management in lower Jospeh Creek watershed. |
200002000 | Wenaha Wildlife Management Area Additions | Compliments winter range and habitat management in lower Grande Ronde watershed. |
200123094 | Acquire 27,000 ac. Camp Creek Ranch at Zumwalt Prairie | Compliments management and restoration of prairie and canyon grassland ecosystems. |
199403900 | Watershed Restoration Planner | Help meet watershed improvement goals of this project. |
199702500 | Implement the Wallowa County/Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Habitat Recovery Plan | Salmon recovery plan will be implemented on any acquired lands to help meet recovery goals. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Develop Project Plan and conduct NEPA review of alternatives. | 1. Develop formal Project Plan and conduct NEPA review | 0.5 | $16,105 | |
2. Acquire priority area properties for restoration and long-term management (up to 5,000 acres per year). | a. Planning and research to determine the properties selected for acquisition. | 10 | $40,015 | |
b. Conduct pre-acquisition activities (title searches, appraisals, field visits) | 10 | $19,692 | ||
3. Protect, restore and/or enhance secured lands to increase fish and wildlife habitat values. | a. Develop site-specific restoration plans for acquired properties. | 20 | $13,968 | |
b. Adjust site-specific restoration plans according to monitoring and evaluation results. | 20 | $2,677 | ||
4. Manage properties to retain and improve wildlife habitat benefits | a. Develop site-specific operation and management plans. | 20 | $13,968 | |
b. Adjust site-specific management plans according to monitoring and evaluation results. | 20 | $2,677 | ||
5. Monitor wildlife habitats and populations to ensure benefits of management activities. | a. Develop programatic and site-specific monitoring and evaluation plans | 20 | $13,968 | |
b. Adjust monitoring and evaluation plans based on new information | 20 | $2,677 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Acquire priority area properties for restoration and long-term management (up to 5,000 acres per year). | 2003 | 2006 | $316,000 |
2. Protect, restore and/or enhance secured lands to increase fish and wildlife habitat values. | 2003 | 2006 | $80,000 |
3. Manage properties to retain and improve wildlife habitat benefits | 2003 | 2006 | $80,000 |
4. Monitor wildlife habitats and populations to ensure benefits of management activities. | 2003 | 2006 | $80,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|---|---|---|
$127,000 | $135,000 | $143,000 | $151,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Acquire properties for restoration, enhancement and long-term manaagement (up to 5,000 acres per year). | a. Secure lands in perpetuity to benefit wildlife through direct purchase, easement, or long-term lease. | 5 | $2,750,000 | |
2. Restore and protect properties for increased fish and wildlife values. | a. Implement restoration activities as identified in restoration plans. | 60 | $164,116 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Acquire properties for restoration, enhancement and long-term manaagement (up to 5,000 acres per year). | 2003 | 2006 | $9,075,000 |
2. Restore and protect properties for increased fish and wildlife values. | 2003 | 2006 | $690,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|---|---|---|
$2,915,000 | $2,920,000 | $2,925,000 | $1,005,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Manage properties to ensure benefits to fish and wildlife | a. Perform habitat management activities outlined in site-specific management plans. | 60 | $239,381 | |
b. Adjust management activities in response to monitoring and evaluation results. | 60 | $34,240 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Manage properties to ensure benefits to fish and wildlife | 2003 | 2006 | $1,130,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|---|---|---|
$275,000 | $280,000 | $285,000 | $290,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Monitor wildlife populations and habitats annually to evaluate the effectiveness of habitat improvement measures. | a. Conduct general vegetation monitoring and HEP analysis to evaluate management activities annually. | 60 | $24,847 | |
b. Conduct wildlife population surveys on select populations to measure effectiveness of management activities. | 60 | $35,643 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Monitor wildlife populations and habitats annually to evaluate the effectiveness of habitat improvement measures. | 2003 | 2006 | $270,500 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|---|---|---|
$60,500 | $65,000 | $70,000 | $75,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | FTE: 7.75 | $184,630 |
Fringe | Calculated at 25% | $46,157 |
Supplies | Fencing material, seed, tools, etc. | $211,319 |
Travel | Vehicle leases, mileage, per diem, training | $28,750 |
Indirect | Calculated at 21.9% | $103,118 |
Capital | Land acquisition | $2,750,000 |
NEPA | 50,000 | $0 |
Subcontractor | Property appraisals | $50,000 |
$3,373,974 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost | $3,373,974 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2002 budget request | $3,373,974 |
FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|
Other budget explanation
The Travel budget may appear high because, in part, the NPT charges all vehicle leases and mileage to this line item rather than the Supply and Materials line item. Additionally, because of the extremely remote location of the project, field crews must camp on site during the week so are provided with per diem ($15.00 per day) for meals. At approximately $60.00 per week per employee, these costs escalate quickly and 'inflate' the Travel budget. Very little money is actually budgeted for training or in-state travel.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable - no response required
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
Fundable. The acquisition activities are well justified. A response is not needed. The procedures and priorities for land purchase are well justified, as is the choice of canyon grassland as target habitat to acquire. Longer-term funding for management should follow provision of reviewed and approved management plan that includes M&E.This is the acquisition component of the wildlife proposal above. It is for funding to double the area for wildlife habitat. The target habitat is canyon grassland and the area targeted for acquisition encompasses all the quality canyon grassland habitat in the Blue Mt province. The process of prioritizing potential purchase parcels was not described in the proposal but was described in the presentation. It would consist of an identification of available parcels, an evaluation of habitat values (riparian, wetlands, 303d listed streams, number of listed species present, ponderosa pine communities and canyon grasslands preferred), ecological condition and restorability, consideration of the size of the parcel, and assessment of the relationship to other conservation areas, economic value. A third-party appraisal would be conducted. The Council's program includes a Land and Water Acquisition, how would this project fit in?
The project proposes over the long run to improve land use practices, restore degraded communities, protect and enhance habitat values, monitor and evaluate management practices, and provide habitat quality for wildlife. As with the proposal above, these longer-term management goals and actions are not yet well-justified in terms of science, as concrete and detailed management plans and objectives are yet to be completed. According to the presentation, a management plan would specify the desired outcomes and include measurable objectives for species composition. How will these objectives be derived? Some economic uses of this land may be allowed, but no specifics were given. These should be included in the management plan and the management plan should itself be subject to outside scientific review.
The review group 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.
Comment:
Proposal addresses RPA 150 and 153. Reviewers believe the acquisition of parcels and the development of assessments will likely take at least one year and thus question whether implementation could be initiated during the first year. Although there are no cost-shares identified in the proposal, the sponsors indicate that they are working with TPL to develop cost-shares. Parcels that should/could be purchased have not been identified. 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.Comment:
Fundable. The acquisition activities are well justified. A response is not needed. The procedures and priorities for land purchase are well justified, as is the choice of canyon grassland as target habitat to acquire. Longer-term funding for management should follow provision of reviewed and approved management plan that includes M&E.This is the acquisition component of the wildlife proposal above. It is for funding to double the area for wildlife habitat. The target habitat is canyon grassland and the area targeted for acquisition encompasses all the quality canyon grassland habitat in the Blue Mt province. The process of prioritizing potential purchase parcels was not described in the proposal but was described in the presentation. It would consist of an identification of available parcels, an evaluation of habitat values (riparian, wetlands, 303d listed streams, number of listed species present, ponderosa pine communities and canyon grasslands preferred), ecological condition and restorability, consideration of the size of the parcel, and assessment of the relationship to other conservation areas, economic value. A third-party appraisal would be conducted. The Council's program includes a Land and Water Acquisition, how would this project fit in?
The project proposes over the long run to improve land use practices, restore degraded communities, protect and enhance habitat values, monitor and evaluate management practices, and provide habitat quality for wildlife. As with the proposal above, these longer-term management goals and actions are not yet well justified in terms of science, as concrete and detailed management plans and objectives are yet to be completed. According to the presentation, a management plan would specify the desired outcomes and include measurable objectives for species composition. How will these objectives be derived? Some economic uses of this land may be allowed, but no specifics were given. These should be included in the management plan and the management plan should itself be subject to outside scientific review.
To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUComments
Already ESA Req?
Biop?
Comment:
Do not recommend. Future funding of wildlife mitigation in this area will be contingent upon resolution of wildlife crediting issues. It appears that there are no further construction/inundation wildlife credits available to be applied against this proposed project. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
NA
Comment:
Council Recommendation:The three projects [199608000, 27023, 200002100] are grouped together because they present essentially the same set of issues. Project 199608000 represents The Nez Perce Tribe's ongoing operations and maintenance and a new monitoring and evaluation component for the Precious Lands wildlife mitigation project. Project 27023 is a new project seeking to expand the Precious Lands wildlife mitigation by 5000 acres. The Nez Perce Tribe has voluntarily downsized project 27023 from its original scope of a 16,500-acre acquisition. ODFW proposed Project 20002100 as both ongoing operations and maintenance of the existing Ladd Marsh mitigation area and an expansion of that area.
ISRP recommended Fund in Part to complete a management plan on both ongoing projects. Without a management plan and monitoring and evaluation plan, ISRP believed long-term funding could not be justified and the projects were not amenable to scientific review. ISRP supported the Precious Lands expansion and commented favorably on the Ladd Marsh expansion as justified. Bonneville echoed the ISRP comments on the development of a management plan as part of their conditional funding recommendation on the ongoing aspects of Precious Lands and Ladd Marsh. Bonneville, however, could not support the expansion of either property citing "future funding of wildlife mitigation in this area will be contingent upon resolution of wildlife crediting issues. It appears that there are no further construction/inundation credits available to be applied against this proposed project."
The Council supports funding these ongoing projects. ODFW has indicated they are in the process of developing a management plan for the Ladd Marsh area and that the management plan will justify the request for additional dollars above the FY01 base budget for operations and maintenance and monitoring and evaluation. Similarly, the Nez Perce Tribe have not completed their management plan, but are in the stages of developing that plan. They have requested new money to enhance the monitoring and evaluation component of 199608000, which should help address ISRP concerns about the overall M&E aspects of the project. The Council would recommend these management plans should be completed within the first year of the funding cycle and should receive ISRP review, but activities in FY02 should go forward on these projects prior to completion of the management plan. Requiring a management plan prior to securing the habitat is at odds with past Council practice in implementing these types of projects. Rather, the Council expects a project sponsor to articulate why a particular piece of property if immediately protected, and eventually enhanced, would contribute to meeting program goals. If that showing is made, the Council has supported the project, and left the development and review of a management plan to the sponsor and Bonneville as a contracting condition.
ISRP emphasized numerous contracting issues in which it questioned specific cost elements of the proposed work in project 199608000. Specific questions of ISRP and some Council staff relate to the fencing costs associated with the project, justification for a full time manager, and expenditures on NPT offices as an element of indirect cost. Both ISRP and the Council would recommend that the sponsor and Bonneville address these elements through contracting.
Expansion of both properties appears justified. Bonneville's website lists the Lower Snake projects, where wildlife credits would be applied for these projects, standing at 52 percent mitigated. Discussions with Bonneville staff indicate that not all projects credited to the Lower Snake projects have received an accounting. The projects Bonneville notes as still outstanding would not appear to account for 48 percent of the mitigation for the Lower Snake projects. Both Precious Lands and Ladd Marsh would represent high quality habitat that would enhance the value wildlife mitigation credited against the Lower Snake projects and we believe available under the Council's fish and wildlife program. The areas to be acquired are modest, and almost certainly within the remaining crediting that is available.
Comment:
Defer funding until project can be reviewed for possible implementation of RPA 150.Comment:
Project not funded by BPA. Budget readjusted to fit into capital based budget. 74K in planning, 2.101 K in capital. Capital all in 04, expense in 05. Need for purchase in 04 or it will be lost. Other opportunities could be pursued. CAPITALComment:
This project was not funded by BPA in the 2001-2003 budget cycle. The project was approved through the Provincial review process. This project was recommended for funding in 2004 through the capitalization process.NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
capital
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
$426,000 | $426,000 | $426,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website