FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29044
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 |
---|---|
29044 Narrative | Narrative |
29044 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
29044 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Protecting Habitat on Private Lands in the Methow Watershed |
Proposal ID | 29044 |
Organization | Methow Conservancy |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Brad Martin |
Mailing address | P. O. Box 71 Winthrop, WA 98862 |
Phone / email | 5099962870 / conserve@methow.com |
Manager authorizing this project | Brad Martin |
Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Methow |
Short description | Protect and provide long term stewardship of habitat on private lands in the Methow Watershed through the use of perpetual conservation easements. |
Target species | Anadromous and resident fish (including federally listed Spring Chinook, Summer Steelhead, Bull Tout , Redband Trout, Pacific Lamprey, and Westslope Cuttthroat. Wildlife/ Bird Species federally listed gray wolf, wolverine, lynx, spotted owl, bald eagle |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
Washington Resource Inventory Area 48 | ||
48.49 | -120.22 | Methow subbasin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Action 150 |
Action 152 |
Action 153 |
Action 154 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|---|---|---|
NMFS | Action 152 | NMFS | The Action Agencies shall coordinate their efforts and support offsite habitat enhancement measures undertaken by other Federal agencies, states, Tribes, and local governments by the following: |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|---|
1997 | Riparian Habitat Program- protected 552 acres of privately owned riparian habitat (nine landowners) with perpetual conservation easements and long term stewardship and monitoring component. |
1999 | Good Neighbor Handbook- published landowner guide to living in the Methow |
2000 | Methow Watershed Riparian Habitat Acquisition Program- protecting over 4 miles (seventeen landowners) of riparian habitat with conservation easements including monitoring component. |
2001 | Partners in Flight Habitat Prioritization project- survey and analysis of 7700 acres bird habitat (72 private landowners) in the Methow with easement development on several important properties |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
9208200 | Eastern Washington Landowners Adopt-Stream | complimentary and mutually supportive |
199603401 | Methow Irrigation District/Yakama Nation Conservation Alternatives | complimentary and mutually supportive |
199802500 | Early Winters Creek Habitat Restoration | complimentary and mutually supportive |
199802900 | Goat Creek Instream Habitat Restoration | complimentary and mutually supportive |
9026 | Respect the River (USFS) | complimentary and mutually supportive |
200103700 | Arrowleaf Conservation Easement | complimentary and mutually supportive |
23024 | Hancock Creek Passage and Habitat Restoration | compimentary and mutually supportive |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
N/A | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
N/A | $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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Acquire private anadromous fish habitats through perpetual conservation easements | a. identify possible easements donors b. provide baseline documentation c. create easement document d. record easement document e. provide long term stewardship and monitoring | 2002-2005 | $500,000 | |
2. Acquire private upland riparian habitats through perpetual conservation easements | a. identify possible easement donors b. provide baseline documentation c. create easement document d. record easement document e. provide long term stewardship and monitoring | 2002-2005 | $500,000 | |
3. Integrate habitat information | a. gather and organize existing information b. evaluate areas at risk using Nature Conservancy's 5S Method for Ecoregional Conservation planning. c. map, catalog and verify information in GIS format | 2002-2005 | $20,100 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Acquire private anadromous fish habitat | 2004 | 2005 | $1,000,000 |
2. Acquire private upland riparian habitat | 2004 | 2005 | $1,000,000 |
3. Integrate habitat information | 2004 | 2005 | $40,200 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
---|---|
$1,020,100 | $1,020,100 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Administer fiscal management | a. process billings and reimbursements b. maintain federal fiscal auditting requirements c. process A 133 audit. | 2003-2005 | $54,500 | |
2. Negotiate conservation easements | a. meet and educate landowners | 2003-2005 | $58,000 | |
b. develop easement objectives with landowners c. craft easement language with landowners involvement | $0 | |||
3. Facilitate and implement project outreach | a. educate public and private entities as to scope of work, schools, government b. on site tours c. NEPA | 2003-2005 | $20,500 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Administer fiscal management | 2004 | 2005 | $109,000 |
2. Negotiate conservation easements | 2004 | 2005 | $116,000 |
3. Facilitate and implement project outreach | 2004 | 2005 | $41,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
---|---|
$133,000 | $133,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Monitor easement compliance | a. update annual monitoring photopoints | ongoing | $0 | |
b. visit properties to confirm easement compliance | ongoing | $0 | ||
c. monitor any special or priority species | ongoing | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Monitor easement compliance | 2003 | 2007 | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | FTE: 2.6 (Project facilitator, research coordinator,fiscal administrator, field technician) | $128,000 |
Capital | transaction costs (purchase of conservation easement, recordation, appraisals,excise taxes,title rep | $1,020,100 |
NEPA | public involvement, consulting w/local govt., NEPA checklist, ESA, | $5,000 |
$1,153,100 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost | $1,153,100 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2003 budget request | $1,153,100 |
FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
Methow Conservancy | office, vehicles, computers, GIS software, | $50,000 | in-kind |
Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife | technical expertise | $2,000 | in-kind |
Other budget explanation
Annual monitoring and stewardship of the project (M&E, Section 7) will be incorporated into Methow Conservancy's Stewardshhip Endowment Fund which is funded by voluntary landowner donations and currently funds the annual stewardship and monitoring of all Conservancy easements. Total estimated landowner donation for project of 20%-50% of appraised conservation value.
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
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
Fundable if an adequate response is provided. This project demonstrated benefit to fish and wildlife with good local support with non-BPA funding.The proponents need to also consider the value of protection of terrestrial resources to BPA's mitigation for loss of wildlife habitat. Indication of wildlife habitat units (determined by the HEP procedures) protected would strengthen the proposal.
Monitoring for biological resources is weak. Effectiveness monitoring is planned, but the proponents need to assure that the overall benefits of the cumulative effects of this project and others are being monitored. The response should describe their methods for establishing selection and prioritization of acquisitions. The proponents are referred to the ISRP Review of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes' Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Plan (19910600) ( http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2001-4addendum.htm). The project was reviewed in the Mountain Columbia Province to determine whether it provided scientifically sound criteria and protocol to prioritize habitat acquisitions. The ISRP found that document described a good plan for habitat acquisition and restoration of wildlife habitat in mitigation for lost aquatic and riparian habitat due to the Kerr Project No. 5 located on the Flathead River and could serve as a useful model to other habitat and restoration proposals with some minor revision of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) component of the plan. The M&E component has subsequently been reviewed and approved subject to minor modifications in ISRP report (www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2001-4AlbeniFalls.pdf). The proponents are also 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.
What are the long-term O&M requirements of this project? Will easements eventually be "owned" by a government agency? What is the relationship of this project to the Nature Conservancy, if any?
Comment:
Proposal lacks detail necessary for through technical review (How will properties be selected?) M&E is inadequate and need is questionable. Riparian and salmon habitats are the same thing and would not need separate easements. This project received $424,800 from the WA SRFB funding for 2002. CBFWA supports this project at a reduced rate. The budget has been modified to reflect a reduced rate of implementation of $75,000 per year. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.Comment:
Fundable with high priority. The response is adequate with regard to ISRP questions about value towards mitigating lost wildlife habitat and procedures for prioritizing properties for inclusion in the project. The key to long-term environmental stewardship of habitat is the willing participation of private landowners. This project, with its further explanation in the response, seems to the ISRP to offer a major step toward that goal. BPA funding would add to an already successful non-BPA effort.The ISRP appreciated the careful response to most of our questions and concerns; however, the response did not provide adequate detailed plans for monitoring and evaluation of biological results of the project including establishment of baseline conditions at the time of contracting for easements. The ISRP recommends that monitoring and evaluation be contracted to government or tribal agencies, including the WDFW, USFWS, and perhaps others, to expand ongoing monitoring and evaluation efforts to lands included in this project. Detailed plans for M&E should be developed and reviewed by the ISRP before full funding of this project. The ISRP believes that it is not appropriate to recommend unconditional funding for projects when one of the four primary guidelines is that we review and recommend only projects that "have provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results."
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUIndirect benefit to aquatic species. Protect high quality riparian/shoreline areas.
Comments
Project could fit with action 153 if riparian easements were secured within the Washington CREP. However, most of the benefits appear to accrue to terrestrial species. Stated objective is to maintain or restore habitat connectivity for terrestrial species. Specific parcels aren't identified making it impossible to assess fish benefits.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Recommend deferral to Subbasin PlanningComment: