FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 27011
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 |
|---|---|
| 27011 Narrative | Narrative |
| 27011 Sponsor Response to ISRP | Response |
| 27011 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Lookingglass Creek land purchase for watershed protection (spawning and rearing habitat continuity and water quality at Lookingglass Hatchery). |
| Proposal ID | 27011 |
| Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Mike Mclean |
| Mailing address | One University Blvd., 211 Inlow Hall La Grande, OR 97850 |
| Phone / email | 5419623777 / mmclean@eou.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | Gary James |
| Review cycle | Blue Mountain |
| Province / Subbasin | Blue Mountain / Grande Ronde |
| Short description | Protect 2.5 miles of stream and riparian areas in Lookingglass Creek to improve water quality and provide continuity of spawning and rearing areas for spring chinook, summer steelhead, and bulltrout. |
| Target species | Spring Chinook Salmon, Summer Steelhead, Bulltrout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.4487 | -117.5433 | Upper land boundary |
| 45.4504 | -117.5263 | Lower land boundary |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Habitat RPA Action 150 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 150 | NMFS | In subbasins with listed salmon and steelhead, BPA shall fund protection of currently productive non-Federal habitat, especially if at risk of being degraded, in accordance with criteria and priorities BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| In subbasins with listed salmon and steelhead, BPA shall fund protection of currently productive non-Federal habitat, especially if at risk of being degraded, in accordance with criteria and priorities BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 8805301 | Northeast Oregon Hatchery Master Plan - NPT | Lookingglass Creek is the water supply for Lookingglass Hatchery, the only spring chinook production facility in NE Oregon, which houses threatened spring chinook stocks (Lostine River, Catherine Creek, and Upper Grande Ronde River). |
| 9800704 | Northeast Oregon Hatchery Master Plan - ODFW | Lookingglass Creek is the water supply for Lookingglass Hatchery, the only spring chinook production facility in NE Oregon, which houses threatened spring chinook stocks (Lostine River, Catherine Creek, and Upper Grande Ronde River). |
| 9801001 | Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program - ODFW | Lookingglass Creek is the water supply for Lookingglass Hatchery, the only spring chinook production facility in NE Oregon, which houses threatened spring chinook stocks (Lostine River, Catherine Creek, and Upper Grande Ronde River). |
| 9703800 | Captive Broodstock Artificial Propagation - NPT | Lookingglass Creek is the water supply for Lookingglass Hatchery, the only spring chinook production facility in NE Oregon, which houses threatened spring chinook stocks (Lostine River, Catherine Creek, and Upper Grande Ronde River). |
| 9800701 | Grande Ronde Supplementation - CTUIR | Lookingglass Creek is the water supply for Lookingglass Hatchery, the only spring chinook production facility in NE Oregon, which houses threatened spring chinook stocks (Lostine River, Catherine Creek, and Upper Grande Ronde River). |
| 9800702 | Grande Ronde Supplementation - O&M/M&E - NPT | Lookingglass Creek is the water supply for Lookingglass Hatchery, the only spring chinook production facility in NE Oregon, which houses threatened spring chinook stocks (Lostine River, Catherine Creek, and Upper Grande Ronde River). |
| 199405400 | Bull trout life history, genetics, habitat needs, and limiting factors in central and northeast Oregon | Protects habitat needed for the recovery of bulltrout in the Grande Ronde River basin, also allows for monitoring of the fish throughout their habitat range in Lookingglass Creek. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not applicable | 1 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Not applicable | $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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Protect and improve water quality above Lookingglass Hatchery and provide continuity of spawning and rearing habitat between privately owned and federally owned land currently managed cooperatively. | a. Complete appraisal of property planned for acquisition, negotiate a final purchase price, and complete NEPA documents. | 1 | $2,250,000 | Yes |
| 1. | b. Complete a biological assessment of the property including aquatic and wildlife resources and identify the desired future condition throughout the property. | 1 | $0 | |
| 1. | c. Collect data on water temperature and quality for baseline data, and start a monitoring program to address these specific attributes of this parcel. | 1 | $0 | |
| 1. | d. Identification of management alternatives that will speed the recovery of the property and protect the watershed quality. | 1 | $0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Maintain bridges on property. | a. Maintain existing bridges (2) on property. | Ongoing | $5,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Maintain bridges on property. | 2003 | 2006 | $20,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Monitor stream temperatures and quality. | a. Install and monitor temperature data loggers in the stream throughout the property. | Ongoing | $3,700 | |
| 1. | b. Install and monitor water sampling (ISCO) devices in the property. | Ongoing | $4,700 | |
| 2. Monitor spawning and rearing fish populations. | a. Conduct annual spawning ground surveys for multiple species. | Ongoing | $0 | |
| 2. | b. Conduct monthly length and weight sampling of resident fish species. | Ongoing | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 2003 | 2006 | $2,000 |
| 2. | 2003 | 2006 | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 0 | $0 |
| Fringe | 35% | $0 |
| Supplies | $8,000 | |
| Travel | $2,000 | |
| Indirect | 34% | $3,400 |
| Capital | Property Purchase | $2,245,000 |
| NEPA | $5,000 | |
| Subcontractor | $0 | |
| $2,263,400 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $2,263,400 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $2,263,400 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
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
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
A response is needed. This proposal is to purchase an identified parcel of land along Lookingglass Creek for the purpose of riparian protection. The relationship of this project to other projects comes primarily through the issue of water supply to the Lookingglass Hatchery. The Lookingglass Creek purchase is justified in terms of value to Lookingglass Hatchery, and it could very well lead to benefit to fish and wildlife. Further, the area to be acquired is in good condition and should require little if any active restoration. The technical background of the proposal is brief and does not address whether there are any alternatives to land purchase for riparian protection, why access on this parcel has been limited, and whether fish habitat is an important limiting factor or only "seems to be." The proposal lists one objective, which is to protect and improve water quality and provide habitat continuity between private and federally owned land. It lists four tasks, none of which include any explanation of methods. The proposal leaves a number of large questions unaddressed: How will the biological assessment be done? What variables will be measured? How will the "desired future condition" be identified? How will water monitoring be conducted? How will management alternatives be identified? Further, the proposal does not present a clear plan for use of the purchased stream. The proposal and presentation noted that Lookingglass Creek was a top production area for chinook and that is was the installation and operation of Lookingglass Hatchery itself that extirpated the upper creek populations. Without a comprehensive plan for restoration of natural production in Lookingglass Creek, the purchase would seem to be of low scientific priority. Further, the purchase price per acre is very high. The purchase needs to be justified in the context of a plan for restoring salmonids of the Lookingglass basin.The review group also suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made compatible with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the Columbia Plateau.
Comment:
This project is consistent with RPAs 150 and 400. This proposal will allow for the protection and enhancement of property that is contributing sediment to the system which is inhabited by bull trout, steelhead and chinook. Based on their experience with the land owner, the sponsors indicate that if the property is not purchased by a fish and wildlife manager the property will be available for purchase by others. The existing conditions have resulted in a 303d listing. The reviewers expressed concern because sponsors did not indicate intentions relative to habitat rehabilitation and that there has been a lack of coordination with local managers. The Wildlife Committee rated the project as having significant wildlife benefits using the criteria of permanence, size, connectivity to other habitat, and juxtaposition to public lands.Comment:
Not fundable. The response was inadequate. A specific plan for future land uses was not presented and was judged to be a critical omission from the proposal and response.This proposal is to purchase an identified parcel of land along Lookingglass Creek for the purpose of riparian protection. The relationship of this project to other projects comes primarily through the issue of water supply to the Lookingglass Hatchery. The Lookingglass Creek purchase is justified in terms of value to Lookingglass Hatchery, and it could very well lead to benefit to fish and wildlife. Further, the area to be acquired is in good condition and should require little if any active restoration. The response adds detail to the basic fish and wildlife value of the property, which apparently includes good quality and relatively limited habitats. The major weakness in the proposal remains the lack of a specific plan for use of the expensive property after purchase. The possibility of reselling after easements are in place is mentioned in the response. However, the response does not explain the restoration plans for fish above the hatchery and so does not justify the value of the property acquisition that is proposed. There are no solid plans for resolving the conflict the project proponents see between water supply to the hatchery and availability of the above-hatchery habitat they propose to acquire to fish. The methods remain very sketchy and are not adequate for review of scientific soundness. It is not adequate to simply state that EMAP or NRI sampling will be used. The specific sample areas, methods, and sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what type where and when) need to be specified. The biological objectives are vague and it is not clear how they would be addressed and evaluated. There is no management plan.
Responses are vague as to how the overall management goal - the "desired future condition" - will be determined, and how management alternatives to reach this goal will be identified.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUProject is to purchase an identified parcel of land along 2.5 miles of Lookingglass Creek for the purpose of riparian protection, which should at least maintain current survival rates in that reach.
Comments
Proposal technical background is brief. What is scientific justification for specified purchase, is fish habitat a limiting factor to restoration of natural production in Lookingglass Creek? Although the objective of the proposal is to protect and improve water quality and provide habitat continuity between private and federally-owned land, no methods are described as to how the objective will be accomplished.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Do not recommend. Agree with ISRP and CBFWA that the proposal does not include an adequate property management plan. Agree with NMFS that the project may not address limiting factors. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
150
Comment: