FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25020
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 Rattlesnake Slope Addition |
Proposal ID | 25020 |
Organization | Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Inc. (RMEF) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Thom Woodruff |
Mailing address | 2291 W. Broadway Missoula, MT 59808 |
Phone / email | 4065234553 / thom@rmef.org |
Manager authorizing this project | Alan Christensen, vice president of lands |
Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
Short description | Acquire 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 species | Pygmy 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
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
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 agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|---|
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 ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
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
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
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
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Acquire McWhorter property | a. Capital acquisition of nearly 11,000 acres | .5 | $3,500,000 |
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 | .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
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash 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.
Fundable - no response required
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.
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.
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.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.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUN/A
Comments
Already ESA Req? no
Biop? no
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 |
Comment:
Comment: