FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25020

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleAcquire Rattlesnake Slope Addition
Proposal ID25020
OrganizationRocky Mountain Elk Foundation Inc. (RMEF)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameThom Woodruff
Mailing address2291 W. Broadway Missoula, MT 59808
Phone / email4065234553 / thom@rmef.org
Manager authorizing this projectAlan Christensen, vice president of lands
Review cycleColumbia Plateau
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Yakima
Short descriptionAcquire 11,000 acres in the Yakima subbasin to protect key shrub-steppe habitat, link protected lands, assist with threatened and endangered species recovery, and facilitate comprehensive management over a large area.
Target speciesPygmy rabbit, sage grouse, Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, white-tailed jackrabbit, black-tailed jackrabbit, ferruginous hawk, sage thrasher, sage sparrow, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Township 11N, Range 26E, Sections 36 & 25
Township 10N, Range 26E, Sections 5-9, 15-28, 31
Benton County
46.4 -119.5 Township 11 North, Range 26 East, Section 36
46.41 -119.5 Township 11 North, Range 26 East, Section 25
46.38 -119.59 Township 10 North, Range 26 East, Section 5
46.38 -119.61 Township 10 North, Range 26 East, Section 6
46.37 -119.61 Township 10 North, Range 26 East, Section 7
46.37 -119.59 Township 10 North, Range 26 East, Section 8
46.37 -119.56 Township 10 North, Range 26 East, Section 9
46.35 -119.55 Township 10 North, Range 26 East, Section 15
46.35 -119.57 Township 10 North, Range 26 East, Section 16
46.35 -119.59 Township 10 North, Range 26 East, Section 17
46.35 -119.61 Township 10 North, Range 26 East, Section 18
46.34 -119.61 Township 10 North, Range 26 East, Section 19
46.34 -119.59 Township 10 North, Range 26 East, Section 20
46.34 -119.57 Township 10 North, Range 26 East, Section 21
46.34 -119.55 Township 10 North, Range 26 East, Section 22
46.34 -119.52 Township 10 North, Range 26 East, Section 23
46.34 -119.5 Township 10 North, Range 26 East, Section 24
46.32 -119.5 Township 10 North, Range 26 East, Section 25
46.36 -119.52 Township 10 North, Range 26 East, Section 26
46.32 -119.55 Township 10 North, Range 26 East, Section 27
46.32 -119.57 Township 10 North, Range 26 East, Section 28
46.31 -119.61 Township 10 North, Range 26 East, Section 31
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
2000 RMEF completed 25 lands conservation transactions, protecting nearly 60,000 acres of habitat across North America.
2001 Since 1984, RMEF has conserved and enhanced more than 3 million acres of wildlife habitat.
1991 RMEF acquired Heart K Ranch near Ellensburg and managed for wildlife over the next 10 years before conveyance to state and federal agencies.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9609400 Washington Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Habitat Units Acquisition Restoration, acquisition and enhancement of shrub-steppe habitats, including those bordering the Rattlesnake Slope Addition
9603501 Satus Creek Watershed Restoration Project Shrub-steppe habitat enhancement in Yakima River drainage
9803300 Restore Upper Toppenish Creek Watershed Shrub-steppe habitat enhancement in Yakima River drainage
0 Wenas Wildlife Area Similar management & enhancement of Washington's shrub-steppe habitat; a cooperative effort of RMEF, BPA, WDFW
0 Sunnyside Wildlife Area Acquisition, management and enhancement of shrub-steppe habitat bordering the RSA

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Prepare for acquisition of McWhorter property a. Appraisal, complete closing, title report, title insurance .3 $12,000 Yes
b. NEPA coordination & compliance (We anticipate sharing some of these costs with BPA under an MOA.) .3 $7,500 Yes
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 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Acquire McWhorter property a. Capital acquisition of nearly 11,000 acres .5 $3,500,000
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 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Initiate Baseline Property Assessment a. Complete habitat evaluation and biological inventory .3 $10,000 Yes
2. Prepare Management Plan b. Negotiate MOA with Wash. DFW and coordinate development of management plan (conduct necessary field work and draft plan) .5 $5,000
3. Conduct Interim Property Management a. Maintain fences and water delivery system 1 $8,000 Yes
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 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Capital Fee title acquisition of 11,000 acres $3,500,000
NEPA Shared with BPA $7,500
Subcontractor Baseline assessment $10,000
Subcontractor Interim property maintenance $8,000
Subcontractor appraisal, title report, closing $12,000
Other develop management plan with WDFW $5,000
$3,542,500
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$3,542,500
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$3,542,500
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Staff time for negotiations, legal services, management planning $7,500 in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fundable - no response required
Date:
Jun 15, 2001

Comment:

Fundable. The proposal makes a good general case for the need to acquire additional high-quality shrub-steppe lands, but a much weaker specific case for the purchase of the RSA. Others speakers (TNC-Betsy) indicated that this property was specified in one of the planning documents as a high priority area. A WDFW speaker (Don) also verified that the area is high priority type, but had not been specifically identified.

Property is adjacent to existing wildlife conservation areas, including the Hanford and the WDFW's Sunnyside WMA. Intent is to transfer the land to WDFW, but that set of steps has not been agreed upon. Acquisition of this deep-soil shrub-steppe habitat supports a number of target species. The cost of the property appears reasonable at approximately $350/acre. Livestock grazing should be allowed to the extent that it does not interfere with habitat protection and expansion for sensitive, threatened, and endangered species.


Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:

M&E would likely be performed by WDFW through other projects in this area. Although the objectives are not clearly articulated in the proposal, this project is directed at the Nature Conservancy and WDFW objectives in this area. The urgency for this project lies in the time sensitivity of completing this purchase due to development pressure.

* Identified by the CBFWA as a proposal that could potentially be implemented as High Priority projects pending crediting resolution with BPA and NWPPC. The CBFWA will formally request a policy level meeting to resolve this issue.


Recommendation:
Defer
Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:

* Identified by the CBFWA as a proposal that could potentially be implemented as High Priority projects pending crediting resolution with BPA and NWPPC. The CBFWA will formally request a policy level meeting to resolve this issue.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 10, 2001

Comment:

Fundable. The proposal makes a good general case for the need to acquire additional high-quality shrub-steppe lands, but a much weaker specific case for the purchase of the RSA. Others speakers (TNC-Betsy) indicated that this property was specified in one of the planning documents as a high priority area. A WDFW speaker (Don) also verified that the area is high priority type, but had not been specifically identified. In the response loop, a letter of support from TNC was supplied that bumps the priority of this up a notch. The property is adjacent to existing wildlife conservation areas, including the Hanford and the WDFW's Sunnyside WMA. Intent is to transfer the land to WDFW, but that set of steps has not been agreed upon. Acquisition of this deep-soil shrubsteppe habitat supports a number of target species. The cost of the property appears reasonable at approximately $350/acre. Livestock grazing should be allowed to the extent that it does not interfere with habitat protection and expansion for sensitive, threatened, and endangered species.

Additionally, the ISRP recommends that terrestrial sampling on Fish and Wildlife Program lands follow a common sampling method and some common data collection protocols across the four States involved to enhance monitoring and evaluation of terrestrial systems on subbasin and basin scales. Perhaps the National Resources Inventory sampling procedures and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews.


Recommendation:
Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
N/A

Comments

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? no


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment:

Habitat acquisition proposals.

There are many proposals (both new and ongoing) that focus on habitat acquisition in the Yakima subbasin (25002, 25020, 25024, 25025, 25032, 25078, 199206200, 199603501, and 199705100). Some of these proposals focus on acquisitions of habitat primarily as a strategy to benefit listed anadromous fish, others appear to focus on habitat for wildlife, and others appear to address both. Given the limits available under the target budget for Fiscal Year 2002, each of these projects cannot be fully funded. In order to prioritize among these proposals, the Council may wish to consider the following. First, as stated throughout this memorandum, those proposals that received consensus support by local resource managers that are consistent with the BiOp or are consistent with its off-site mitigation strategy are favored. This would prioritize those acquisition proposals that are exclusively or primarily designed to benefit anadromous fish. Further, the Council should consider its program language that puts a priority on mitigating for wildlife habitat losses in areas of the basin where mitigation efforts have lagged. This program principle was one of the driving considerations for the Council's support for extensive habitat acquisition funding in the Mountain Columbia and Inter-Mountain provinces completed earlier. The Yakima subbasin has received substantial mitigation funding for construction/inundation losses to wildlife habitat in the past, and is not, relatively speaking, an area where wildlife mitigation efforts are lagging behind.

Projects 25024, 25025, 25078, 199603501, 199206200 and 199705100 all have a substantial focus on protecting habitat for listed anadromous fish in the Yakima subbasin. In addition, the first five of those projects were identified in the local collaborative process as priority projects. (See Yakima Issues 1 and 2 above). On the other hand, project 25020, 25002, and 25032, while apparently meritorious projects based on the ISRP and CBFWA reviews, have a substantial wildlife habitat component.

Staff recommendation: In light of the above considerations -- emphasis on anadromous fish, local priorities, the Yakima subbasins relatively advanced level of wildlife mitigation for construction losses -- the staff recommendation is to support funding for the proposals that focus on anadromous fish benefits -- 25002, 25024, 25025, 25078, 199603501, and 199705100. The amounts of funding for each of those proposals have been discussed identified in the issues discussed previously.

Budget effect on base program (Projects 25002, 25020, 25024, 25025, 25032, 25078, 199206200, 199603501, and 199705100):

ProjectNo FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004
25078 Increase of $875,000 Increase of $875,000 0

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment: