FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25090
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 |
|---|---|
| 25090 Narrative | Narrative |
| 25090 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Determine Quantitative Values for the Perpetual Timber Rights on the WDFW Oak Creek and Wenas Wildlife Areas. |
| Proposal ID | 25090 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | John Mcgowan |
| Mailing address | 16601 Highway 12 Naches, WA 98937 |
| Phone / email | 5096532390 / mcgowjgm@dfw.wa.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | John McGowan |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Assess feasibility of re-acquiring ownership of habitat (timber rights) to refocus land management from timber production and harvest to fish and wildlife habitat protection and enhancement. |
| Target species | Bull Trout, Mid-Columbia Summer Steelhead, Spring Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| T15N, R15E, all odd sections 7 through 35; T15N, R16E, all odd sections 3 through 29; T15N, R17E, Section 17; T16N, R16E, all odd sections 25 through 35; T16N, R17E, Section 15. Area lies 4 to10 miles west of Naches, WA on Hwy 12 and Hwy 410. | ||
| 46.79 | -120.64 | Wenas |
| 46.73 | -120.93 | Oak Creek |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1999-2001 | Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation(RMEF) - Revegetation of 10 miles of closed roads to reduce erosion and 100 acres of disturbed soils (skid trails and landings). |
| 1998 | Priority Habitat Survey - Surveys identified snag rich areas and other priority wildlife habitats for protection and restoration |
| 1998 | RMEF Catch Basin Improvement Project, Catch Basins were constructed to limit siltation in Type 4 streams above fish-bearing perennial streams. |
| 1992 | RMEF Road Management System, Green dot road management system on 250 miles of road were designated for public use to reduce road damage and erosion and increase habitat for wildlife. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Yakama Indian Nation Coho plants | Cooperative salmon restoration with WDFW | |
| Wenas Wildlife Area | Adjacent to primary project area, share common boundary |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Establish biological parameters | a. Gather documentation to plan project. | 2001 | $0 | |
| 2. SEPA , NEPA requirements | a Determine need for review, permits | 2002 | $10,000 | Yes |
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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Establish habitat evaluation goals for PTR acres. | a. Assess current value of merchantable timber on Boise Cascade PTR acres. | 2002 - Cruise | $45,000 | Yes |
| b. Assess potential value of future timber on Boise Cascade PTR acres. | 2002 - Appraisal | $30,000 | Yes | |
| c. Assess value of non-commercial Boise Cascade PTR acres. | 2002 - Staff time | $10,000 | ||
| 2. Establish habitat evaluation goals on potential WDFW exchange parcels. | a. Assess current value of merchantable timber on WDFW exchange parcel(s). | 2002 - Cruise | $45,000 | Yes |
| b. Assess current land value of WDFW exchange parcel(s) | 2002 - Appraisal | $30,000 | Yes | |
| 3. Define alternatives. | a. Provide contingency costs and partial acquisition appraisals. | 2002 - Staff time | $35,000 | |
| 4. Establish baseline wildlife and habitat values | a. Perform Habitat Evaluation Process on PTR lands | 2002 | $25,000 | |
| b. Perform fish & wildlife surveys | 2002 | $5,000 |
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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N / A | N / A | $0 |
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 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $75,000 | |
| Subcontractor | 160,000 | $160,000 |
| $235,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $235,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $235,000 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
N / A
Reason for change in scope
N / A
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| WDFW | In-kind staff time. | $20,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required
Do not fund - no response required
Date:
Jun 15, 2001
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Do not fund. A response is not warranted. Benefits and priority of the project are not justified. The proposal provided inadequate justification for use of Bonneville funds in this manner. Defining values is a necessary prerequisite to future negotiations between WDFW and Boise Cascade. Re-acquisition would allow better management of forested and shrub-steppe habitat. Little monitoring and evaluation proposed except, "perform wildlife surveys" and HEP to determine habitat conditions prior to acquisition and even these minimal efforts are not justified as integral to the project. This is not a very compelling proposal because the damage to the habitat for this growth cycle of timber has been done. Further disturbance in the near future seems unlikely.Comment:
Comment:
Do not fund. A response was not warranted. Benefits and priority of the project are not justified. The proposal provided inadequate justification for use of Bonneville funds in this manner. Defining values is a necessary prerequisite to future negotiations between WDFW and Boise Cascade. Re-acquisition would allow better management of forested and shrub-steppe habitat. Little monitoring and evaluation proposed except, "perform wildlife surveys" and HEP to determine habitat conditions prior to acquisition and even these minimal efforts are not justified as integral to the project. This is not a very compelling proposal because the damage to the habitat for this growth cycle of timber has been done. Further disturbance in the near future seems unlikely.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUNo direct benefits. Project could lead to trade for high quality habitats
Comments
Timber inventory is basic management responsibility of timber land owner. No clear vision as to goal(s) of potential land trade. Would this be primarily driven to benefit fish, big game, or non-game species?
Already ESA Req? no
Biop? no
Comment:
This proposal would determine the quantitative value of the Perpetual Timber Rights on WDFW’s Oak Creek and Wenas Wildlife Areas. This proposal does not include actual acquisition of easement. Costs are high for little direct benefit. Defer for now.Comment: