Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Arrowleaf/Methow River Conservation Project |
| Proposal ID | 23012 |
| Organization | The Trust for Public Land and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (TPL and WDFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Craig Lee |
| Mailing address | c/o TPL, 1011 Western Ave., Ste. 605 Seattle, WA 98104 |
| Phone / email | 2065872447 / craig.lee@tpl.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | Craig Lee |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 High Priority |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / |
| Short description | The project is an acquisition of the 1020-acre Arrowleaf property on the Methow River-- critical habitat for 9 ESA listed species. If not purchased the property will be subdivided into 70 lotsand much of the upland and riparian habitat will be destroyed. |
| Target species | Fish - Spring Chinook, Westslope Cuthroat, Bull Trout and Steelhead / Carnivores - Grizzly Bear, Pine Marten, Lynx, Gray Wolf, Wolverine / Avian - Northern Spotted Owl, Goshawk, Golden Eagle, Bald Eagle, Peregrine, Pileated Woodpecker, Harlequin Duck |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 48.6012 |
-120.4364 |
Confluence of Methow River and Early Winters Creek |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
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
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
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 2001 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 2001 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$120,000 |
| Fringe |
|
$30,000 |
| Travel |
|
$20,000 |
| Capital |
Land acquisition and interest costs |
$16,300,000 |
| Subcontractor |
Consultants - Appraisal, survey, legal, land planning, grant writing, water engineering |
$320,000 |
| Other |
Restoration, weed abatement |
$15,000 |
|
Excise and property tax |
$250,000 |
| $17,055,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $17,055,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $17,055,000 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| CAPITAL SOURCES |
|
$0 |
cash |
| BPA |
Acquisition $ for conservation easement over +/- 600 acres |
$3,750,000 |
cash |
| Private Grants |
Acquisition $ to help purchase of fee title to 1020 acres |
$4,620,000 |
cash |
| Private Lot Sales |
Acquisition $ for fee title to 900 acres |
$5,630,000 |
cash |
| Washington Wildlife and Rec Program |
Acquisition $ for conservation easement over 400+/- acres |
$3,000,000 |
cash |
| NON-CAPITAL SOURCES |
|
$0 |
cash |
| TPL |
Transaction negotiation and facilitation, land planning, land mangement, restoration |
$1,900,000 |
cash |
| Methow Conservancy |
Conservation easement design, forest mgmt, weed control - after closing |
$10,000 |
in-kind |
| Methow Institute Foundation |
Land planning |
$10,000 |
in-kind |
| WDFW |
Conservation easement development, mapping, habitat data, grant proposal assistance |
$25,000 |
in-kind |
| US Forest Service |
" " " " |
$20,000 |
in-kind |
| The Nature Conservancy |
Grant proposal assistance, resource data |
$10,000 |
in-kind |
| Pacific Biodiversity Institute |
Mapping |
$5,000 |
in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
HP "A"
Date:
Feb 1, 2001
Comment:
The $3.75 million is for the purchase of a conservation easement on 600 acres of the property located in the Methow Basin.
Recommendation:
B
Date:
Feb 1, 2001
Comment:
See previous ISRP review: "The ISRP was unanimous in viewing the acquisition of the Arrowleaf property as an important opportunity that should be seized upon by the Council and BPA. The Arrowleaf property is clearly desirable property with many wildlife and habitat features that approximate pristine condition. The proposers clearly describe the importance of the property, its near pristine condition, its position as a link between upper and lower habitats (particularly salmonid habitats), and the negative ecological consequences of not obtaining the property." Council should look at the cost of this purchase relative to other purchases.
Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 15, 2001
Comment:
The project is an acquisition of the 1020-acre Arrowleaf property on the Methow River-- critical habitat for 9 ESA listed species. If not purchased the property will be subdivided into 70 lots and much of the upland and riparian habitat will be destroyed
Response: The ISRP expressed very strong support for the project, yet it was categorized as a "Category B" proposal. It appears this resulted from an error in interpreting how much the project sponsors are requesting from the Fish and Wildlife Program.
The Arrowleaf project sponsors are requesting $3.75 million for the purchase of conservation easements over approximately 600 acres of the 1,020-acre Arrowleaf property. TPL negotiated the purchase of the property at a total project cost of $17,055,000, which is the amount erroneously stated as being requested from the Fish and Wildlife Program. To the contrary, a Fish and Wildlife Program ("FWP") appropriation of $3.75 million to this project will be leveraged against an innovative combination of private and other public funding sources to complete the project. This cost-sharing arrangement is of the type looked upon with approval by the ISRP in its review of the Camp Creek Ranch project, a Category A proposal. That, at a perceived cost to the FWP of $17 million, the ISRP stated that the Council "should look at the cost of this purchase relative to other purchases" is the only negative comment made by the ISRP strongly indicates that this project should properly have been a Category A proposal.
Thus, the ISRP comment that the cost of the project to the FWP is excessive should be disregarded. Instead, focus should be placed on the ISRP's other comments. The ISRP unanimously supported the project. The Arrowleaf property is "clearly desirable." This project presents "an important opportunity that should be seized upon by the Council and BPA." The property has "many wildlife and habitat features that approximate pristine condition."
The Trust for Public Land will submit additional comments directly to the Council within the designated comment period.
Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 26, 2001
Comment:
Our only change to the "BiOp" designation in the recommendations submitted by CBFWA is the addition of the "BiOp" designation to the Arrowleaf/Methow Conservation Project (proposal no. 23012). This change is relevant only to adding the "BiOp" designation and does not otherwise affect or alter the recommendation of CBFWA.
Recommendation:
Fund: Lower Priority
Date:
Feb 26, 2001
Comment:
Lower PriorityAs described in our cover letter, several of these proposals have associated monitoring to determine the status of these properties before actions are implemented. This monitoring does not fall in the Tier 3 category but is extremely worthwhile and NMFS recommends that it be fully funded: 23012 - Acquisition of Arrowleaf property. This property is of high quality now, with no actions planned.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 26, 2001
Comment:
Recommendation:
RPA 150
Date:
Apr 20, 2001
Comment:
This project would permanently protect currently productive habitat in a critical area. Very little of this sort of floodplain habitat remains in the Methow. Chinook spawning occurs in the immediate area and upstream. Acquiring the Arrowhead Property would tangibly benefit two listed ESUs. The project is time-sensitive and features an enormous cost shore ($13.5 million). The project applicant has described the urgency of securing this land now. On the basis of the permanence of protecting currently productive non-Federal habitat for two endangered ESUs, this project rates as a very high priority.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 8, 2001
Comment:
