FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 27025
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
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Acquire South Fork Asotin Creek Property |
| Proposal ID | 27025 |
| Organization | Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Inc. (RMEF) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Rance Block |
| Mailing address | 9407 N. Oakland Ct. Newman Lake, WA 99025-8442 |
| Phone / email | 5092260388 / rblock@rmef.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | Alan Christensen, Vice President of Lands |
| Review cycle | Blue Mountain |
| Province / Subbasin | Blue Mountain / Asotin |
| Short description | Acquire and protect the 8,500-acre Schlee property in southeastern Washington. This shrub-steppe habitat harbors elk and mule deer, while its streams provide a critical link in the Asotin Creek watershed for federally endangered anadromous fish. |
| Target species | Chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout, elk, bald eagle, bighorn sheep, mule deer, potential sharptail grouse recovery |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.27 | -117.19 | 8,500 acres in two parcels located approx. 12 miles southwest of Clarkston, WA; described as T8N, R44 EWM: S. 2-5; T9N, R43 EWM: S 36; T9N, R44 EWM: S 26-35; T9N, R45 EWM: S 3-10, 17-19 |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Habitat RPA Action 150 |
| Habitat RPA Action 153 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 2000 | RMEF acquired and protected 850-acre Ladd Marsh property near La Grande. |
| 2000 | RMEF conserved nearly 60,000 acres and enhanced nearly 130,000 acres across North America in 2000. |
| 2001 | Since 1984, the RMEF has conserved and enhanced more than 3 million acres of wildlife habitat. |
| 1990-2001 | Blue Mountains Elk Initiative -- RMEF has been the lead conservation organization involved since 1990, funding dozens of projects and helping to improve more than 2 million acres in the Blue Mountains region. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9401805 | "Implementation of Asotin Creek Watershed Projects" | Fisheries enhancements within the same watershed |
| 9202602 | "Implement Eastern Washington Model Watershed Projects" | Habitat management & improvements within the same watershed |
| "Asotin Creek Model Watershed Plan" | Defines needs and prescribes solutions to fish and wildlife habitat concerns within Asotin Creek watershed |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Prepare for acquisition of Schlee property | a. Appraisal, title report, title insurance, closing costs | .3 | $12,000 | Yes |
| 1 | b. NEPA coordination & compliance | .3 | $7,500 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Protect key habitat in Asotin Subbasin | a. Fee title acquisition of 8,500 acres | .5 | $3,400,000 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Initiate baseline property assessment | a. Complete habitat evaluation and biological inventory | .5 | $15,000 | Yes |
| 2. Prepare management plan | a. Negotiate MOU with WDFW and coordinate development of management plan | .5 | $5,000 | |
| 3. Address interim stewardship and management needs | a. Hire manager and conduct interim (until WDFW takes ownership) habitat maintenance activities (weed control, fencing repairs, stream improvements) | 1.5 | $40,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continue on-site stewardship & management activities | 2003 | 2004 | $60,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $40,000 | $20,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Monitor stream conditions/riparian areas | a. Hire technician to conduct annual stream survey | 1.5 | $5,000 | Yes |
| 2. Monitor range conditions | a. Establish monitoring sites and conduct annual range evaluation | 1.5 | $5,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Continue annual stream surveys and range monitoring | 2003 | 2004 | $10,000 |
| (WDFW will assume this responsibility for future years once ownership is conveyed to them.) | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $7,000 | $3,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: on-site manager/stewardship | $40,000 |
| Capital | Acquire 8,500-acre Schlee property | $3,400,000 |
| NEPA | $7,500 | |
| Subcontractor | Appraisal, title report, closing costs | $12,000 |
| Subcontractor | Baseline & management plan | $20,000 |
| Other | monitoring | $10,000 |
| $3,489,500 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $3,489,500 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $3,489,500 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation | Staff time, legal services | $7,500 | in-kind |
| WA Dept of Fish & Wildlife | Staff time | $5,000 | in-kind |
| RMEF (through RMEF's PAC system, partnership agreements with NRCS, grants with NFWF) | Habitat enhancement | $75,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable - no response required
Fundable - no response required
Date:
Sep 28, 2001
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
Fundable. The proposal with the added information from the presentation justifies the acquisition of the properties as well chosen and a priority. This proposal is for acquisition of 8500 acres of land, in two parcels, which will extend a current WDFW wildlife area and contribute to goals of maintaining (and perhaps increasing) elk populations. The initial budget has refreshingly little O&M, and plans for M&E are presented in detail. The cost of the land is reasonable and its location and type are very appropriate for the subbasin and its fish and wildlife goals, as well as well in line with criteria for prioritization of purchases.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:
Proposal addresses RPA 150 and 153. The sponsor indicated that the land owner is serious about selling the property and that there is a letter of intent and that the property owner has been approached by another party that has indicated that they are interested in purchasing the property if the RMEF purchase does not materialize. The reviewers indicated that the property would not be available for purchase in another three years. The RMEF is actively looking for matching funds to aid in purchasing the property; however, the sponsor indicated that the uncertainty of receiving BPA funds has limited the sponsors ability to secure matching funds. Although the sponsor has coordinated the efforts with the WDFW and has received support from local sports groups, there has been a lack of coordination with the NPT. The sponsor submitted an addendum to the NWPPC staff during the project presentation in La Grande, OR; however, the reviewers did not have an opportunity to review the addendum. According to the sponsor, the addendum possessed modified M&E plans as well as a modified budget. Without the addendum the reviewers could not perform an in-depth review and thus defer the review to the AFC, RFC, and WC. (send a copy to Nora). Although fish populations could benefit indirectly from the purchase and management of this property, the target species are wildlife populations. 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:
Fundable. The proposal with the added information from the presentation justifies the acquisition of the properties as well chosen and a priority. This proposal is for acquisition of 8500 acres of land, in two parcels, which will extend a current WDFW wildlife area and contribute to goals of maintaining (and perhaps increasing) elk populations. The initial budget has refreshingly little O&M, and plans for M&E are presented in detail. The cost of the land is reasonable and its location and type are very appropriate for the subbasin and its fish and wildlife goals, as well as well in line with criteria for prioritization of purchases.To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUProject is to acquire and protect the 8500-acre Schlee property in southeastern Washington, which should at least maintain current survival rates in that reach.
Comments
Although proposed project will extend a current WDFW wildlife area and primarily contribute to goals of maintaining elk populations, property purchase would include streams that provide critical contiguous habitat in the Asotin Creek watershed for federally-endangered anadromous fish.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Do not recommend. Future funding of wildlife mitigation in this area will be contingent upon resolution of wildlife crediting issues. It appears that there are no further construction/inundation wildlife credits available to be applied against this proposed project. However, this project could be reconfigured to target riparian protection as implementation of RPA 150. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
150
Comment: