FY 2002 Mountain Columbia proposal 200204200
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 |
|---|---|
| 24012 Narrative | Narrative |
| Mountain Columbia: Flathead Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Mountain Columbia: Flathead Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Riparian Habitat Preservation - Weaver Slough and McWinegar Slough |
| Proposal ID | 200204200 |
| Organization | Flathead Land Trust (FLT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Susan How |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 1913 Kalispell, MT 59903 |
| Phone / email | 4067528293 / flt@bigsky.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | Brian Merritts |
| Review cycle | Mountain Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Columbia / Flathead |
| Short description | Protect a range of natural resources compromised by rapid subdivision and development of this area. Acquisition of purchased easements on five properties will extend private protection of Flathead River riparian corridor. |
| Target species | Migratory waterfowl and complement of species utilizing riparian habitat |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.18 | -114.14 | Weaver Slough |
| McWinegar Slough |
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 |
|---|---|
| 2000 | Designated MT land trust for cooperative agreement with AVISTA Corp. on achieving FERC relicensing conservation requirements by negotiating purchased easements and acquisitions. |
| 1991 - | Coordinator for Burlington Northern Environmental Stewardship Area to advance partnership of 17 cooperating agencies, businesses, local government and citizens for environmental protection and enhancement of Middle Fork corridor of Flathead River. |
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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase completed | $0 |
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. Complete acquisition of purchased easements. | a. Negotiate and finalize easements. | 1 year | $1,020,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ongoing monitoring of perpetual easement covered by one-time payment in 2002 to FLT Stewardship Fund. | 2002 | $0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | $0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Perpetual monitoring of easements, as cited above.. | a. At least annual monitoring of project site (visits to five landowners) to assure adherence to easement terms. | Ongoing | $60,000 |
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 | FTE: 15,000 | $15,000 |
| Fringe | 1,800 | $1,800 |
| Supplies | 1,000 | $1,000 |
| Travel | 400 | $400 |
| Indirect | 1,800 | $1,800 |
| Capital | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 |
| NEPA | N/A | $0 |
| Other | 60,000 | $60,000 |
| $1,080,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $1,080,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $1,080,000 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Montana Ag Heritage Commission | Portion of purchased easement cost | $179,000 | cash |
| USDA Farmland Protection Program | Portion of purchased easement cost & expenses | $1,310,000 | cash |
| MT FW&P Wildlife Trust Fund | Subcontractor costs (appraisals, resource baseline, title and mineral search, etc.) | $30,000 | cash |
| American Farmland Trust | Purchase of farmland acres to meet landowner requirement | $1,000,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Feb 9, 2001
Comment:
Fundable but a response is needed. This proposal is for acquisition of riparian easements along the mainstem Flathead River above Flathead Lake. The proposal is extremely brief, and provides no information justifying the purchase relative to other similar proposals. Information provided in the presentation helped alleviate this concern in part, although a more detailed proposal would have been desirable. The substantial cost share is a plus - FWP funds would account for just over $1M of a total of about $3.5M. In general, the ISRP is supportive of purchase of conservation easements like this one if the acquisition can be demonstrated to provide critical habitat to the benefit of fish and wildlife. Additional information providing assurances that a) these lands are, as stated in the proposal, "vital habitat for migratory waterfowl?" and b) assurances are built into the easements and/or other agreements to ensure protection of benefits and to protect them in perpetuity is needed. Conditional on the project sponsors providing adequate justification on these points, the ISRP supports funding.Comment:
There appears to be an inconsistency in the ISRP's requests for M&E among project sponsors. Standards do not appear to be the same from one project to the next. A M&E plan was not requested by the ISRP for this project whereas other projects were required to provide such information for similar projects. This project presents a unique situation where BPA dollars are being requested to maintain land for agricultural use. According to language in the Farm Land Protection Program (USDA-NRCS) which will be used for cost share to fund part of this project, participating landowners must choose to keep their land agriculture. BPA may not be the appropriate match source under this language. If the BPA dollars were tied strictly to the riparian wetland portion of this project, the funding category would have been identified as High Priority.Comment:
Fundable. Information in the response to ISRP comments indicates that the protection of habitat provided by the proposed acquisition would exist in perpetuity. Information provided to show that these lands are "vital habitat for migratory waterfowl" was less convincing. The justification is mostly in the form of comments about the desirability of conservation easements in general, rather than this proposed purchase in particular. It is not clear that this is the "best" place to commit limited resources for acquisitions to help meet fish and wildlife program objectives. Nonetheless, local and migratory populations would likely benefit from the expected habitat protection. The ISRP viewed this as a sound and justified land acquisition/protection request and it was supported by many local and regional groups who either contributed funds or offered data in support of the value of the land to fish and wildlife.CBFWA Comments: There appears to be an inconsistency in the ISRP's requests for M&E among project sponsors. Standards do not appear to be the same from one project to the next. A M&E plan was not requested by the ISRP for this project whereas other projects were required to provide such information for similar projects. This project presents a unique situation where BPA dollars are being requested to maintain land for agricultural use. According to language in the Farm Land Protection Program (USDA-NRCS), which will be used for cost share to fund part of this project, participating landowners must choose to keep their land agriculture. BPA may not be the appropriate match source under this language. If the BPA dollars were tied strictly to the riparian wetland portion of this project, the funding category would have been identified as High Priority.
ISRP clarification on CBFWA comments: There is an important difference between this proposal and those for which the ISRP has stressed the need for scientifically sound ongoing monitoring and evaluation to be in place. The ISRP has recommended for funding many land acquisitions before monitoring and evaluation plans were in place. In these cases, the ISRP has recognized the need to purchase (or otherwise secure for benefit of fish and wildlife) lands of high priority when they are available. The ISRP has supported these proposals, as long as criteria for prioritizing lands were specified, scientifically sound, and in agreement with other ongoing projects and standards. The ISRP has given negative comment to the many ongoing operations and maintenance components that lack monitoring and evaluation. In these cases, there are large ongoing expenditures for much active land management that is assumed to be necessary and to result in improvements, but, in the absence of monitoring and evaluation, these expenditures are not justified. The Flathead Land Trust is a one-time request for funds to complete those needed for a one-time acquisition of rights to land. The future criteria for evaluation and on-going protection were described and there are not continuing management or maintenance costs.
Comment:
This project should be reconsidered for funding after subbasin planning is completed as discussed in our cover letter. We have no comments in addition to the ISRP/CBFWA review comments.Comment:
The Flathead Land Trust's proposal for riparian habitat preservation on the Flathead River (24012) was not in the consensus priorities base, as CBFWA did not rank it high priority. However, the ISRP disagrees with the lower priority assigned by CBFWA, and recommends elevating the project for funding (p. 24). CBFWA had questioned the ISRP's initial positive review for this habitat acquisition proposal when it had been critical of others (see general issue 2 about the review of land acquisition proposals). The difference seems to be that this proposal provided enough information and guidance about how parcels to be acquired in the future will be selected and evaluated to satisfy the ISRP while other projects had not. Thus, the Council must decide if it wishes to rely on the priority statement of the ISRP or CBFWA.
This proposal carries a notable level of cost sharing. Four other sponsors will contribute a total of over $2.5 million in addition to the $1 million requested from Bonneville.
There is a second issue raised by this project. The proposal is for purchase of riparian easements in the Flathead River corridor in coordination with other groups. The purchase of land for wildlife habitat could raise an issue of the applicability of the Montana Wildlife Trust agreement with Bonneville. Staff notes that Bonneville did not raise the Montana Agreement as an issue in its comments on these projects. However, Bonneville comments state its position that this project should be funded only after subbasin planning is completed without offering comments or conditions to support this position.
Council recommendation: Recommend funding. The Council was not provided information as to why this consensus priority project should be deferred as suggested by Bonneville.
[Note: Does not include the perpetual monitoring of easements covered in a one time payment ($60,000) as described in the FY 2002 proposal form (section 7, objective 1)]
Bonneville provided the Council substantial comments on the projects proposed for funding in this province. Bonneville put the project into eight separate categories as follows:
Category 1. Fund - ESA BiOp Projects that meet both the needs of the Council Fish and Wildlife program and the ESA requirements of the US Fish and Wildlife Services Biological Opinion for operation of the Upper Columbia FCRPS dams and should be fully funded with qualifications as needed.
Category 2. Fund - Ongoing Projects, which should be fully funded.
Category 3. Fund In Part or with Qualifications - Ongoing projects that should be funded with the stated qualifications.
Category 4. Fund In Part - New, includes two projects, which are a combination of ongoing projects and new projects designed for wildlife mitigation. The existing portions of these projects should be funded, but the wildlife mitigation objectives should not be funded for the reasons discussed later in this cover letter.
Category 5. Potential Funding After Completion of Subbasin Planning - No Comments/Qualifications, lists projects that should be reconsidered for funding after subbasin planning is completed as discussed in our cover letter. We have no comments in addition to those provided by ISRP/CBFWA.
Category 6. Potential Funding After Completion of Subbasin Planning - With Comments/Qualifications, lists projects that should be reconsidered for funding after subbasin planning is completed as discussed later in this letter.
Category 7. Do Not Fund - Ongoing, lists projects that should not be funded to continue implementation of the current objectives based on our agreement with the technical review of the ISRP.
Category 8. Do Not Fund - New, lists projects that should not be funded based on our agreement with the ISRP comments on the scientific merit of the projects, or with CBFWA on the timing and need for the project.
The following list of six projects all received a fundable rating by the ISRP, and was ranked as high priority by CBFWA. Thus, these projects are all "consensus priorities" and under our proposed decision rule, are parts of the base of projects that the staff proposes the Council recommend funding. However, the Bonneville comments put the first four the following projects into category five, and the last two into category six -- meaning that it does not support funding these projects until after subbasin planning is completed. (As an aside, it is worth noting that the comments or qualifications that it proposes for the two projects in category six are not of the nature or type that they have to be resolved through subbasin planning -- the qualifications presented could be dealt with immediately).
- 24003 Acquire and conserve bull trout and westslope cutthroat habitat in Trestle Creek (Pend Oreille subbasin).
- 24005 Smith Creek Restoration (Kootenai subbasin)
- 24008 Genetic inventory of bull trout and westslope cutthroat in the Pend Oreille subbasin (Pend Oreille subbasin)
- 24012 Habitat preservation -- Weaver and McWinegar sloughs (Flathead subbasin)
- 24015 Wetland/Riparian Enhancement, Protection, Restoration in Coeur d' Alene subbasin
- 24017 Restoring bull trout habitat in Blackfoot River's North Fork (Blackfoot)
The issue presented is what appears to be a Bonneville prioritization or ranking of projects that meet fish and wildlife program standards and have ISRP and CBFWA support that subordinates them to ESA based projects. The staff concern is not that Bonneville is very diligent about trying to meet its ESA obligations, but rather, that it appears that its focus on those obligations may be coming at the expense of other obligations and projects pursuant to the fish and wildlife program, and that Bonneville is doing that sort of prioritizing without consultation with the Council. For example, as staff was developing this memorandum, we received a copy of a letter dated May 25, 2001 from Robert Austin to Chairman Cassidy "informing" the Council that Bonneville was going to fund six research oriented projects to meet what it understands to be the FCRPS Biological Opinion needs.
Thus, the six "fund/fund" projects that Bonneville would defer in the Mountain Columbia may be an indication Bonneville's ESA needs are in fact being advanced over other fish and wildlife program needs. Without any statement of reasons why these projects would be deferred, the fair inference is that Bonneville is doing something of a unilateral budgeting exercise. As a programmatic policy matter, the Council will need consider if and how it wishes to address this matter with Bonneville.
Comment:
Bonneville requested documentation from the Council clarifying and confirming that this project addresses riparian protection/restoration for aquatic purposes with substantial benefits to bull trout and cutthroat trout. This is to avoid duplicating the obligation undertaken by the State of Montana for mitigation for construction and inundation losses to wildlife arising from Hungry Horse and Libby dams through the Montana Trust Agreement. Documentation has been provided referencing the record as established during the Provincial review process including the ISRP site visit. Bonneville is satisfied that this project can be implemented as resident fish mitigation consistent with the resident fish loss assessments and mitigation plans for Hungry Horse and Libby dams.
Comment:
Council rec - 1,020,000. Capital - lands issue
Comment: