Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites – Oregon |
| Proposal ID | 23061 |
| Organization | Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife on behalf of The Oregon Wildlife Coalition (ODFW, CTWSRO, CTUIR, BPT, USFWS) (ODFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Susan P. Barnes |
| Mailing address | 2501 SW 1st Ave., P.O. Box 59 Portland, OR 97207 |
| Phone / email | 5038725260 / susan.p.barnes@state.or.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Susan P. Barnes |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 High Priority |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / |
| Short description | Develop wildlife mitigation sites in Oregon through habitat acquisition and protection and facilitated by coordination, planning, and assessment by the OWC as specified by the NWPPC's Fish and Wildlife Program. |
| Target species | Numerous federal and state TES fish and wildlife species (e.g., Spring Chinook, steelhead, cutthroat, bull trout, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, northern spotted owl, spotted frog, northwestern pond turtle)
NWPPC Fish and Wildlife Program indicator species |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 44.42 |
-118.94 |
Rick Paige Ranch |
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 |
|---|
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 |
|---|
| $3,000,000 | $3,000,000 | $2,500,000 | $2,000,000 |
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
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $150,000 | $150,000 | $150,000 | $150,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: represents a composite of OWC personnel time |
$600,000 |
| Fringe |
represents a composite of OWC personnel fringe rates proportionate to their individual contracts |
$250,000 |
| Supplies |
represents a composite of OWC supplies (office and field supplies - fence, seed, plantings, pumps |
$570,000 |
| Travel |
represents a composite of OWC travel expenses |
$40,000 |
| Indirect |
represents a composite of OWC indirect rates proportional to their individual contract |
$180,000 |
| Capital |
land acquisition/easement/lease & instream water right acquisition; water control structures; pipes |
$21,820,000 |
| Subcontractor |
hydrologic engineering survey and design, water control structures; earthwork |
$500,000 |
| $23,960,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $23,960,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $23,960,000 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| OWC entities |
staff time, facilities, equipment, |
$0 |
in-kind |
| Public agencies (e.g., USFS, BLM, DSL, ACOE, Metro, NRCS) |
staff time, facilities, equipment, monetary contribution to assist with acquisition/easement/lease and enhancement costs |
$0 |
cash |
| Private organizations (e.g., The Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Lands, Clearwater Land Exchange, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, etc.) |
Assistance in land acquisition processes, monetary contribution to assist with acquisition and enhancement costs; exact contribution not known at this time. |
$0 |
cash |
| Landowners |
Acquisition, easement and/or land donation agreements; land values vary; exact contributions not known at this time |
$0 |
cash |
| Federal Wetlands Reserve Program |
Acquisition assistance with wetland easements |
$0 |
cash |
| City of Canby, Clackamas Co., Trust For Public Lands, Oregon Parks and Recreation Dept. |
partners on the potential Mollala State Park project |
$1,700,000 |
cash |
| Lane County |
partners on the potential Crocker project |
$500,000 |
cash |
| BLM, Marion Co., Oregon Wetland Joint Venture |
partners on the potential Stout Mountain project |
$2,000,000 |
cash |
| NOTE: Most cost-sharing partners services to be provided, and amounts to be contributed are unknown at this time |
|
$0 |
cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
D
Date:
Feb 1, 2001
Comment:
This proposal is not amenable to scientific review. Each parcel is not specifically justified with respect to the criteria or benefits to ESA listed anadromous fish. The deficiencies of the proposal may be obscuring some opportunities. For example, the Wagner property listed in this proposal is well justified in a separate proposal. This raises an issue of the budget for this proposal, as funding for the Wagner property is requested in two proposals.
Recommendation:
HP "A"
Date:
Feb 1, 2001
Comment:
The wildlife committee determined that the project be restricted to the acquisition of Rick Paige Ranch. With this modification the project would primarily benefit aquatic resources but would also provide significant benefits to wildlife. The total cost for the Rick Paige Ranch acquisition to BPA will be $1,500,000.
Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 15, 2001
Comment:
ISRP Comment: The proposal is not amenable to scientific review. Each parcel is not specifically justified with respect to the criteria or benefits to ESA listed anadromous fish. The deficiencies of the proposal may be obscuring some opportunities.
Response: The CBFWA Wildlife Committee met on Jan 22-23 to review and discuss high priority project proposals, including the OWC's project "Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites-Oregon" (Project No. 23061). As it was proposed, about $24 million was requested by the OWC to fund habitat acquisition of and enhancement on 14 properties identified by the Oregon wildlife managers as high priority potential mitigation sites in Oregon. The Wildlife Committee decided that this programmatic type of acquisition could not be adequately evaluated using the Northwest Power Planning Council's 13 high priority project screening criteria. Based on the Wildlife Committee's comments and suggestions, the OWC intends to refocus their proposal to address only one property, the Page Ranch. A high priority project proposal for the Rick Page ranch is provided with this response for reviewers' consideration.
The Wildlife Committee (WC) conducted an initial review of the Page property on January 22 using the NWPPC's 13 screening criteria. The WC responded "Yes" to the first three of the criteria, as well as to all the other criteria with the exception of #8. The Wildlife Committee requests that Project #23061 be re-evaluated as the "Page Ranch Acquisition and Conservation Agreement" proposal, and ranked as Category A.
The revised proposal will be sent to NWPPC under separate cover.
Abstract: Page Ranch Acquisition and Conservation Easement
The Page ranch lies in the John Day Valley, approximately 17 miles west of John Day, Oregon. The ranch runs north of the John Day River to the top of the mountain range. South of the river are 2,200 acres that connect to USFS boundary. Along the valley floor, the deeded lands include 1½ miles of river frontage on both sides of the river with flood and sprinkler irrigated hay meadows. A gravel extraction and wetland creation project has been approved by ODFW, and would be expanded over the pasture acreage. Revenues generated from this activity and sale of a sprinkler wheel line will contribute to project O&M costs this section of the mainstem John Day River provides migratory and rearing habitat for spring chinook and summer steelhead. Priority water rights (6.4 cfs) would be converted to instream water rights or used to charge the wetlands as the river level drops. A 31,000-acre Malheur National Forest grazing allotment is permitted commensurate to the approximate 260 acres of pasture. The allotment encompasses seven miles of summer steelhead spawning habitat in upper Murderers Creek and Tex Creek, and spawning habitat for west slope cutthroat in Buck Cabin Creek and Fields Creek above private land. About 10 miles of spawning and raring habitat currently unfenced and degraded by livestock grazing would be protected. Winter and summer range supports California bighorn sheep, Rocky Mountain elk, and mule deer.
Approximately 6,800 acres of uplands would be placed under conservation easement restricting development and describing management restrictions. Cost-sharing partners will be pursued to purchase the pasture planned for wetland restoration, engineering and design, fence maintenance, and upland habitat improvement projects. This area will be cooperatively managed to protect and enhance habitat values. The anticipated costs of the Page Acquisition, Easement and Enhancement project is $1.5 million. Other species that will benefit from this project include osprey, mink, mallard, Canada goose, yellow warbler, spotted sandpiper, bald eagle, great blue heron, yellow-headed blackbird, pronghorn antelope, and wild turkey.
: The proposal is not amenable to scientific review. Each parcel is not specifically justified with respect to the criteria or benefits to ESA listed anadromous fish. The deficiencies of the proposal may be obscuring some opportunities.