FY 1999 proposal 9124

Additional documents

TitleType
9124 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titlePurchase Conservation Easement from Plum Creek Timber
Proposal ID9124
OrganizationMontana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameBrian Marotz
Mailing address490 N. Meridian Rd. Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone / email4067514546 / marotz@digisys.net
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinUpper Columbia / Kootenai
Short descriptionPurchase perpetual conservation easement or similar agreement on thousands of acres of Plum Creek Timber Company (PCTC) lands in Thompson and Fisher River basins which precludes subdivision/commercial developmentsā€¦
Target species
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 1999 cost
Capital $2,000,000
Subcontractor $0
$2,000,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$2,000,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$2,000,000
FY 1999 forecast from 1998$0
% change from forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: This proposal recognizes that both MFWP and PCTC could terminate discussion and negotiation of this proposed project at any time. MFWP believes this project has a moderate to high chance of successful completion. This proposal also recognizes that the cost of this project is high and could fail for lack of sufficient funds. MFWP has allocated up to $6 million from the Wildlife Mitigation Trust Fund to use as seed money to leverage additional funds. If BPA Fisheries Mitigation Program matches this amount, then the project has an increased probability of success. Total costs are unknown at this time but could range from $12 to $30 million depending on project size and terms. We have the opportunity to reduce the size of this project to match available funds. Other funding sources including: private foundations and other organizations or other public funds such as Habitat Montana (MFWP?s wildlife habitat conservation fund) federal or stateside Land and Water Conservation Funds, Montana coal tax fund, etc. MFWP and PCTC would like to complete this conservation easement by the end of FY 1999. If negotiations break down or if any party withdraws from the process, there would be no need for these funds. If negotiations take longer than expected or the project is divided into phases of implementation, the same amount of funds might be needed over a longer period of time perhaps out to 2005.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Technical Issue: Explain how this expenditure is not excessive for a conservation easement.

Technical Issue: Has potential value, but need more detail on the specific measurable objective and how this action addresses a critical limiting factor; and what parameters will be monitored to determine if the expected results are achieved.


Recommendation:
Not fundable
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Presentation: The bottom line is that Plum Creek is selling all of its property that touches water. It is difficult to determine how much this project will cost but it will not need $2 million for 3 years. The FY 99 budget should be reduced to $250,000. It might be possible to use unallocated money identified in the BPA Quarterly review. The Montana Wildlife Mitigation Trust Fund will contribute $6-$8 million for 50-foot riparian easements which will cover a lot of stream frontage in the Thompson and Fischer River drainages. Target species are bull trout, interior redband trout and cutthroat trout in the headwaters.

Questions/Answers:

What is an "easement"? Answer: Plum Creek is a private landowner, the "easementā€ restricts the use of the land in perpetuity, even if the property is sold. The easement will specify what can and cannot be done with the land. If the area gets developed, we won't be able to protect the habitat in the future. These easements will protect the core areas for native species. Plum Creek is currently on a voluntary best management timber practices but these are not always the best. The land is too expensive to buy outright. The dollars requested are for the fish portion of the cost share, wildlife has money for their part.

Does the easement include water rights? Answer: In Montana, the law is first in time, first in right. Some streams are over appropriated.

What is the tie between Libby mitigation and the Fisher River basin?

Are the perceived benefits in excess of the Libby Loss Assessment? Do other projects fully mitigate for Libby? Answer: Yes.

How does the Thompson River work fit in? Answer: The Thompson River is a tributary to the Clark Fork downstream from Hungry Horse Dam. This is offsite mitigation for the loss of low gradient habitat.

Screening Criteria: No. The project is not tied to a specific Council Measure.

Technical Criteria: No. There is not enough specific information to determine the benefit to fish. The proposal lacks a definition of a conservation easement and is not tied to specific loss statement.

Programmatic Criteria: No. This is not a priority under the Hungry Horse Mitigation Plan.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

See CBFWA Committee Comments
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This highly ranked proposal appears to be a valuable opportunity that may not come around again to protect threatened bull trout. However, it does not describe what the constraints on timber harvest will be; the status quo may not be good enough to ensure long-term benefits to fish and wildlife. It is directly linked to mitigation for Libby and Hungry Horse dams. The map does not clearly show the specific site. The shared cost between BPA and other parties does not appear disproportionate.