FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29044

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
29044 Narrative	Narrative
29044 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
29044 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Protecting Habitat on Private Lands in the Methow Watershed
Proposal ID	29044
Organization	Methow Conservancy
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Brad Martin
Mailing address	P. O. Box 71 Winthrop, WA 98862
Phone / email	5099962870 / conserve@methow.com
Manager authorizing this project	Brad Martin
Review cycle	Columbia Cascade
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Cascade / Methow
Short description	Protect and provide long term stewardship of habitat on private lands in the Methow Watershed through the use of perpetual conservation easements.
Target species	Anadromous and resident fish (including federally listed Spring Chinook, Summer Steelhead, Bull Tout , Redband Trout, Pacific Lamprey, and Westslope Cuttthroat. Wildlife/ Bird Species federally listed gray wolf, wolverine, lynx, spotted owl, bald eagle

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
		Washington Resource Inventory Area 48
48.49	-120.22	Methow subbasin

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Action 150
Action 152
Action 153
Action 154

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 152	NMFS	The Action Agencies shall coordinate their efforts and support offsite habitat enhancement measures undertaken by other Federal agencies, states, Tribes, and local governments by the following:

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
1997	Riparian Habitat Program- protected 552 acres of privately owned riparian habitat (nine landowners) with perpetual conservation easements and long term stewardship and monitoring component.
1999	Good Neighbor Handbook- published landowner guide to living in the Methow
2000	Methow Watershed Riparian Habitat Acquisition Program- protecting over 4 miles (seventeen landowners) of riparian habitat with conservation easements including monitoring component.
2001	Partners in Flight Habitat Prioritization project- survey and analysis of 7700 acres bird habitat (72 private landowners) in the Methow with easement development on several important properties

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
9208200	Eastern Washington Landowners Adopt-Stream	complimentary and mutually supportive
199603401	Methow Irrigation District/Yakama Nation Conservation Alternatives	complimentary and mutually supportive
199802500	Early Winters Creek Habitat Restoration	complimentary and mutually supportive
199802900	Goat Creek Instream Habitat Restoration	complimentary and mutually supportive
9026	Respect the River (USFS)	complimentary and mutually supportive
200103700	Arrowleaf Conservation Easement	complimentary and mutually supportive
23024	Hancock Creek Passage and Habitat Restoration	compimentary and mutually supportive

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
N/A			$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
N/A			$0

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost
1. Acquire private anadromous fish habitats through perpetual conservation easements	a. identify possible easements donors b. provide baseline documentation c. create easement document d. record easement document e. provide long term stewardship and monitoring	2002-2005	$500,000
2. Acquire private upland riparian habitats through perpetual conservation easements	a. identify possible easement donors b. provide baseline documentation c. create easement document d. record easement document e. provide long term stewardship and monitoring	2002-2005	$500,000
3. Integrate habitat information	a. gather and organize existing information b. evaluate areas at risk using Nature Conservancy's 5S Method for Ecoregional Conservation planning. c. map, catalog and verify information in GIS format	2002-2005	$20,100

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Acquire private anadromous fish habitat	2004	2005	$1,000,000
2. Acquire private upland riparian habitat	2004	2005	$1,000,000
3. Integrate habitat information	2004	2005	$40,200

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005
$1,020,100	$1,020,100

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost
1. Administer fiscal management	a. process billings and reimbursements b. maintain federal fiscal auditting requirements c. process A 133 audit.	2003-2005	$54,500
2. Negotiate conservation easements	a. meet and educate landowners	2003-2005	$58,000
	b. develop easement objectives with landowners c. craft easement language with landowners involvement		$0
3. Facilitate and implement project outreach	a. educate public and private entities as to scope of work, schools, government b. on site tours c. NEPA	2003-2005	$20,500

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Administer fiscal management	2004	2005	$109,000
2. Negotiate conservation easements	2004	2005	$116,000
3. Facilitate and implement project outreach	2004	2005	$41,000

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2004	FY 2005
$133,000	$133,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost
1. Monitor easement compliance	a. update annual monitoring photopoints	ongoing	$0
	b. visit properties to confirm easement compliance	ongoing	$0
	c. monitor any special or priority species	ongoing	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Monitor easement compliance	2003	2007	$0

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2003 cost
Personnel	FTE: 2.6 (Project facilitator, research coordinator,fiscal administrator, field technician)	$128,000
Capital	transaction costs (purchase of conservation easement, recordation, appraisals,excise taxes,title rep	$1,020,100
NEPA	public involvement, consulting w/local govt., NEPA checklist, ESA,	$5,000
		$1,153,100

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 cost	$1,153,100
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2003 budget request	$1,153,100
FY 2003 forecast from 2002	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
Methow Conservancy	office, vehicles, computers, GIS software,	$50,000	in-kind
Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife	technical expertise	$2,000	in-kind

Other budget explanation

Annual monitoring and stewardship of the project (M&E, Section 7) will be incorporated into Methow Conservancy's Stewardshhip Endowment Fund which is funded by voluntary landowner donations and currently funds the annual stewardship and monitoring of all Conservancy easements. Total estimated landowner donation for project of 20%-50% of appraised conservation value.

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2002-2)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

Fundable if an adequate response is provided. This project demonstrated benefit to fish and wildlife with good local support with non-BPA funding.

The proponents need to also consider the value of protection of terrestrial resources to BPA's mitigation for loss of wildlife habitat. Indication of wildlife habitat units (determined by the HEP procedures) protected would strengthen the proposal.

Monitoring for biological resources is weak. Effectiveness monitoring is planned, but the proponents need to assure that the overall benefits of the cumulative effects of this project and others are being monitored. The response should describe their methods for establishing selection and prioritization of acquisitions. The proponents are referred to the ISRP Review of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes' Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Plan (19910600) ( http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2001-4addendum.htm). The project was reviewed in the Mountain Columbia Province to determine whether it provided scientifically sound criteria and protocol to prioritize habitat acquisitions. The ISRP found that document described a good plan for habitat acquisition and restoration of wildlife habitat in mitigation for lost aquatic and riparian habitat due to the Kerr Project No. 5 located on the Flathead River and could serve as a useful model to other habitat and restoration proposals with some minor revision of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) component of the plan. The M&E component has subsequently been reviewed and approved subject to minor modifications in ISRP report (www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2001-4AlbeniFalls.pdf). The proponents are also referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.

What are the long-term O&M requirements of this project? Will easements eventually be "owned" by a government agency? What is the relationship of this project to the Nature Conservancy, if any?

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

Proposal lacks detail necessary for through technical review (How will properties be selected?) M&E is inadequate and need is questionable. Riparian and salmon habitats are the same thing and would not need separate easements. This project received $424,800 from the WA SRFB funding for 2002. CBFWA supports this project at a reduced rate. The budget has been modified to reflect a reduced rate of implementation of $75,000 per year. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-11)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Fundable with high priority. The response is adequate with regard to ISRP questions about value towards mitigating lost wildlife habitat and procedures for prioritizing properties for inclusion in the project. The key to long-term environmental stewardship of habitat is the willing participation of private landowners. This project, with its further explanation in the response, seems to the ISRP to offer a major step toward that goal. BPA funding would add to an already successful non-BPA effort.

The ISRP appreciated the careful response to most of our questions and concerns; however, the response did not provide adequate detailed plans for monitoring and evaluation of biological results of the project including establishment of baseline conditions at the time of contracting for easements. The ISRP recommends that monitoring and evaluation be contracted to government or tribal agencies, including the WDFW, USFWS, and perhaps others, to expand ongoing monitoring and evaluation efforts to lands included in this project. Detailed plans for M&E should be developed and reviewed by the ISRP before full funding of this project. The ISRP believes that it is not appropriate to recommend unconditional funding for projects when one of the four primary guidelines is that we review and recommend only projects that "have provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results."

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Indirect benefit to aquatic species. Protect high quality riparian/shoreline areas.

Comments
Project could fit with action 153 if riparian easements were secured within the Washington CREP. However, most of the benefits appear to accrue to terrestrial species. Stated objective is to maintain or restore habitat connectivity for terrestrial species. Specific parcels aren't identified making it impossible to assess fish benefits.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
C

Date:
Jul 26, 2002

Comment:

Recommend deferral to Subbasin Planning

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: