FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25086

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
25086 Narrative	Narrative
Columbia Plateau: John Day Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map
Columbia Plateau: John Day Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Purchase Perpetual Conservation Easement on Holliday Ranch and Crown Ranch Riparian Corridors and Uplands
Proposal ID	25086
Organization	Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Ken Rutherford
Mailing address	P.O. Box 9 John Day, OR 97845
Phone / email	5415751167 / kenruthe@oregonvos.net
Manager authorizing this project	Susan. P. Barnes
Review cycle	Columbia Plateau
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / John Day
Short description	Fence 17.7 miles of mainstem John Day River and tributaries, and protect 15,532 acres of uplands two miles east of John Day, Oregon under perpetual conservation easement to improve habitat and protect steelhead spawning grounds and big game winter range.
Target species	steelhead, bull trout, spring chinook, mule deer, elk, antelope, California quail, spotted sandpiper, bald eagle, yellow warbler, great blue heron, mink, mallard, Canada goose.

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
44.4287	-118.8358	in Grant County, 2 miles east of John Day on Highway 26

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

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	allocated $100,000 from Anadromous Fish placeholder in December 2000 - paid to Holliday to convert 15-year riparian leases to 50-year riparian leases.
2001	submitted theporject as a High Priority Project. Ranked by NMFS, BPA, CBFWA, ISRP, and the Council as "A-Bi-Op"

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
	Status Review of Wildlife Mitigation at Columbia Basin Hydroelectric Projects, Col. Mainstem and Lower Snake Facilities (BPA 1984)	Reviewed past, present and proposed future wildlife planning and mitigation programs at BPA's hydrofacilities. Called for quantitative and qualitative assessment of wildlife losses attributable to the dams and implementation of mitigation plans.
	Wildlife Impact Assessment: John Day Project. (Rasmussen and Wright 1990)	Evaluated pre- and post- dam construction/inundation habitat conditions and estimated wildlife losses using the HEP methodology.
199208400	Oregon Trust Agreement Planning (OTAP) Project (BPA 1993)	Identified and evaluated potential wildlife mitigation sites within Oregon.
9565	Assessing OTAP Project Using Gap Analysis (ODFW 1997)	Refinement of OTAP Project. Identified and evaluated potential wildlife mitigation sites in Oregon using Gap Analysis techniques.
2100	Protect and Enhance Anadromous Fish Habitat in the John Day Basin	Existing 4.4 miles of riparian corridor fence on Holliday Ranch constructed in 1988 (15-year lease)
8402100	ODFW habitat improvement projects on John Day River	ODFW habitat improvement project funded by BPA
980160	The John Day Basin Spring Chinook Salmon Escapement and Productivity Monitoring Project	This project is evaluating and monitoring spawner to spawner survival rates. These survival rates could be used to document the effectiveness of habitat improvements
9801800	Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon John Day Watershed Restoration Project	The primary purpose of this project is to make more efficient use of irrigation water, improve passage at existing irrigation diversions, and to acquire critical salmonid habitat or to sign conservation easements on critical habitat.
199800001	Pine Creek Ranch	On-going CTWSRO project in the John Day River subbasin. Property acquired and managed for fish and wildlife. Complements Holliday project proposal.
20134	Acquire Middle Fork - Oxbow Property	On-going land acquisition and enhancement project in John Day River subbasin. Complemented by Holliday proposal.
	Acquisition of Wagner Ranch	FY 02 proposal submitted by CTWSRO for Col. Plat. solicitation. Proposed property acquisition in the John Day River subbasin. Complemented by the Holliday proposal.
	Acquisition of the Forrest Ranch	FY 02 proposal submitted by CTWSRO for Col. Plat. solicitation. Proposed property acquisition in the John Day River subbasin. Complemented by the Holliday proposal.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Assess baseline conditions	a. conduct HEP survey	1	$5,000
	b. conduct rangeland/grazing analysis	1	$1,000
	c. conduct fish and wildlife species surveys	1	$1,000
2. Develop management plans	a. analyze data to develop site management goals and objectives	1	$3,000	Yes
	b. obtain recommendations of OSU Eastern Oregon Agriculture Research Center and Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit.		$0	Yes
	c. document past and current management through photographs and ranch records at both Holliday and Crown Ranches		$0	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. Complete pre-conservation easement activities	a. Verify appraisal and obtain BPA approval (Note: an appraisal was conducted, but has not yet been provided to BPA by the landowner. Thus, the easement amount is not approved by BPA at this time)	1	$1,200
	b. Complete NEPA surveys and prepare biological analyses and submit to NMFS/USFWS	1	$20,000	Yes
2. Draft and sign final conservation easement terms and conditions	a. review and sign by all parties, incorporating management plan guidelines and requirements. Final draft terms and conditions not yet signed	1	$0
3. Prepare NRCS subcontract to administer conservation easement in perpetuity	a. develop statement of work and contract	1	$1,750
4. Purchase perpetual conservation easement on riparian and upland habitats	FY 02 cost estimate is a mean value derived from figures provided verbally and by fax from landowner. Actual amount required may deviate up or down	1	$5,000,000
5. Apply conservation easements terms to Holliday and Crown Ranches.	a. place legally binding conservation easement encumberments on properties at Grant County Courthouse	1	$250
6. Implement management plan - Protect Riparian areas	a. Purchase riparian fence materials for 21 miles of new fence construction	1	$73,500	Yes
	b. Purchase off-site water development materials and construct	1	$20,000	Yes
	c. Construct riparian fence	1	$115,500	Yes
	d. Remove old fence on mainstem	1	$8,400	Yes
	e. Build 190 gates	1	$19,000	Yes
	f. Construct 87 water gaps	1	$130,500	Yes
6. Implement management plan - Protect Upland areas	a. control noxious weeds		$0	Yes
7. Apply 20.1% indirect costs		1	$33,470	Yes
8. Pay for SWCD administration and overhead costs	a. services rendered	1	$3,000	Yes

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 riparian corridor fences in good condition	a. provide necessary materials to landowner to repair and rebuild fence as necessary. b. indirect costs @ 20.1%	four	$8,650	Yes
2. Pay for SWCD adminstration and overhead costs	a. services rendered	four	$1,740	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Maintain riparian corridor fences in good condition, providing materials for landowner to rebuild and repair. Labor and equipment are responsibility of landowner	2003	2006	$41,600

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2005	FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2006
$10,400	$10,400	$10,400	$10,400

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Purchase and install 12 thermographs, software and shuttle	a. purchase and install	one	$1,860	Yes
	b. collect data and download to computer	four	$2,000	Yes
2. Monitor riparian fence integrity	a. conduct monthly overflights to detect livestock trespass and fence integrity, livestock stocking levels on uplands	four	$1,500	Yes
3. Monitor vegetative changes in riparian corridors and uplands	a. establish photopoints, repeat at least annually	four	$3,000	Yes
4. Pay for SWCD overhead costs	a. services rendered	four	$4,200	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Monitor thermographs annually, download and read data	2003	2006	$2,000
2. Monitor riparian fence integrity by conducting monthly overflights	2003	2006	$6,000
3. Monitor vegetative changes in riparian corridors and uplands	2003	2006	$2,000

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$2,500	$2,500	$2,500	$2,500

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Supplies	new fence materials, thermographs, water gaps, gates, offsite water dev., fence maintenance material	$209,090
Indirect	@20.1%	$33,330
Capital	Figure provided verbally by landowner as result of landowner-secured appraisal	$5,000,000
NEPA	Biological Analysis, Hazardous Waste Survey, Cultural Resources Survey	$20,000
Subcontractor	Prepare Management Plan, SWCD	$3,000
Subcontractor	SWCD Statement of Work and contract	$1,750
Subcontractor	Habitat Evaluation Procedures, species surveys, rangeland survey	$7,000
Subcontractor	Monitor water temperatures, livestock trespass in riparian corridors, photopoints by SWCD	$8,400
Subcontractor	Construct 21.0 miles of riparian fence	$150,600
Subcontractor	Contract SWCD to administer conservation easement	$16,500
Subcontractor	old fence removal	$8,400
Subcontractor	BPA appraisal approval	$1,200
Other	Apply conservation easement to deeds	$250
		$5,459,520

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$5,459,520
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$5,459,520
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
NRCS	personnel time , upland fencing materials, seeding program asistance, irrigation system assistance	$0	cash
ODFW	personnel time, deer and green forage program funds, fish research	$0	in-kind
landowner	labor for maintenance	$0	in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-6)

Recommendation:
Fundable - no response required

Date:
Jun 15, 2001

Comment:

Fundable. High priority. This proposal was given a high rank in the high priority review. The site visit confirmed and enhanced the conclusion that this acquisition provides many benefits to fish and wildlife. In addition to the conservation benefits described in the proposal, this project provides an excellent example of the types of win-win solutions to restoration problems that are possible through good working relations with landowners, and through the development of incentives that make sense both in terms of conservation goals and the economic goals of the landowner. The project is a complicated mix of actions and incentives that make both biological and economic sense. This project will achieve far-reaching demonstration benefits to other landowners of the positive outcomes possible from restoration actions. There is a limited window of opportunity to for this project, dependent on the time period of the option to buy. Delay in funding will risk the project. The costs of not funding this project will be realized not only in conservation and restoration terms, but also in the erosion of trust and working relationships between landowners and agencies responsible for resource recovery actions. See review comments from the ISRP's recent High Priority Review. It received an "A" category and was recommended for funding without reservation.

Additional information about the complexity of this project and its potential benefits were provided during the site visit. The proposal should be modified to adequately represent the complexity of the project and the magnitude of potential benefits. The ISRP visited the Holliday Ranch as part of the Columbia Plateau South Site Visit on 8 May 2001. We were able to see the many conservation actions the landowners have undertaken with assistance from regional resource managers. On-site discussions with the land owners and resource managers from ODFW, CTWSR, and SWCD were informative and provided insights into the biological benefits, as well as the important aspect of local landowner-resource manager relationship benefits that would be gained from implementation of the Holliday Ranch perpetual easement. Many ranchers in the area are familiar with the Holliday Ranch and its conservation activities and are waiting and watching the process before deciding whether or not they will participate in similar programs.

Of particular note in the project, but not described in the proposal, is the large grazing allotment (~700 AUMs) that the Holliday family presently uses on forested public lands in the lower reaches of the Strawberry Mountains, an area adjacent to a wilderness area. The family's initial motivation for seeking the perpetual easement was to reduce their use of and reliance on the grazing allotment by 80% in exchange for purchase of the Crown Ranch property, which would provide them with summer pasture lands for their cattle operation. This portion of the easement agreement was not described in the proposal, but the ISRP feels it is an important part of the entire easement package.

The Holliday Ranch project also provides a number of other conservation contributions that include:

Self-contained cattle feedlot operation that passively captures and processes all waste materials.
A series of groundwater drains that improve efficiency of the cattle operation while simultaneously delivering significant amounts of cooler-than-ambient summer water. This contribution should significantly improve water quality and extend spring chinook spawning and rearing habitat in the mainstem John Day River.
Installation of 3-4 instream irrigation diversion structures designed and installed by the landowner. We observed this unique diversion structure that is used in place of push-up dams to provide the landowner with reliable irrigation diversion. The structure provides natural upstream and downstream passage conditions for adult and juvenile salmonids.
Historically, the Crown Ranch (now owned by the Carter family) and the Holliday Ranch were owned by ancestors of the present Holliday family. The holdings, which involved several pieces of land, were physically split into the Crown and Holliday Ranches. A map of the two ranches today (not provided with proposal) would show a checkerboard appearance across the landscape. Combining the two ranches as proposed in the perpetual easement agreement would consolidate the various pieces into a single land unit enhancing its management for both agricultural and conservation goals.
Maintenance of fences for protections of riparian zones would be the responsibility of the Holiday Ranch.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:

Conversion of a USFS grazing allotment to nonuse is now included in the proposal and the estimated cost of conversion is not known at this time. Although this will not affect the FY2002 budget the outyear budgets may increase.

* 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.

REVIEW:
CBFWA FY02 Budget Review Comments

Recommendation:
Defer

Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-8)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 10, 2001

Comment:

Fundable. High priority. This project received an "A" category and was recommended for funding without reservation. The site visit confirmed and enhanced the conclusion that this acquisition provides many benefits to fish and wildlife. In addition to the conservation benefits described in the proposal, this project provides an excellent example of the types of win-win solutions to restoration problems that are possible through good working relations with landowners, and through the development of incentives that make sense both in terms of conservation goals and the economic goals of the landowner. The project is a complicated mix of actions and incentives that make both biological and economic sense. This project will achieve far-reaching demonstration benefits to other landowners of the positive outcomes possible from restoration actions. There is a limited window of opportunity to for this project, dependent on the time period of the option to buy. Delay in funding will risk the project. The costs of not funding this project could be realized not only in conservation and restoration terms, but also in the erosion of trust and working relationships between landowners and agencies responsible for resource recovery actions.

The Holliday Ranch project also provides a number of other conservation contributions that include:

Self-contained cattle feedlot operation that passively captures and processes all waste materials.
A series of groundwater drains that improve efficiency of the cattle operation while simultaneously delivering significant amounts of cooler-than-ambient summer water. This contribution should significantly improve water quality and extend spring chinook spawning and rearing habitat in the mainstem John Day River.
Installation of 3-4 instream irrigation diversion structures designed and installed by the landowner. We observed this unique diversion structure that is used in place of push-up dams to provide the landowner with reliable irrigation diversion. The structure provides natural upstream and downstream passage conditions for adult and juvenile salmonids.
Historically, the Crown Ranch (now owned by the Carter family) and the Holliday Ranch were owned by ancestors of the present Holliday family. The holdings, which involved several pieces of land, were physically split into the Crown and Holliday Ranches. A map of the two ranches today (not provided with proposal) would show a checkerboard appearance across the landscape. Combining the two ranches as proposed in the perpetual easement agreement would consolidate the various pieces into a single land unit enhancing its management for both agricultural and conservation goals.
Maintenance of fences for protections of riparian zones would be the responsibility of the Holiday Ranch.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Fence 17.7 miles of mainstem John Day River and tributaries, and protect 15,532 acres of uplands two miles east of John Day, Oregon under perpetual conservation easement to improve habitat and protect steelhead spawning grounds and big game winter range.

Comments
High Priority solicitation. Proposed riparian easement is not described, i.e., how wide, composition. Therefore difficult to determine value to fish. Easement should be consistent with Oregon CREP. Conversion of a USFS grazing allotment to nonuse is now included in the proposal.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Rank A

Date:
Oct 16, 2001

Comment:

This proposal should proceed upon successful negotiation of MOU with involved parties.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment:

New habitat acquisition proposals (Holliday 25086, Forrest 25003, and Wagner 25004 projects).

Staff recommendation: The Council has previously considered and recommended each of these projects in High Priority and Action Plan solicitations. Bonneville funded both the Forrest 25003 and Wagner 25004 projects through the High Priority solicitation. Money proposed for each of those projects represents O&M and M&E and would thus qualify under proposal funding criterion described above for funding for ongoing projects. Bonneville asked that the Holliday project be deferred to the provincial review. The staff understands that the Council stands by and reiterates its recommendation to fund that project through the High Priority solicitation. The funding for the Holliday Ranch depicted in the "effect on base program" box below is an estimation of the O&M needs for the next three fiscal years once the property is acquired.

These projects would not be affected by Oregon's habitat acquisition placeholder proposal. They were recommended through the High Priority and Action Plan processes and are not placed on the acquisition placeholder prioritized list.

Budget effect on base program (Project 25003):

FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004
No effect	No effect	No effect

Budget effect on base program (Project 25004):

FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004
No effect	No effect	No effect

Budget effect on base program (Project 25086):

FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004
Increase $22,950	Increase $12,900	Increase $12,900

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Do not fund

Date:
Mar 6, 2002

Comment:

The Hollidays withdrew their offer of a Conservation Easement on this property on 12/27/01.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment: