FY 2001 High Priority proposal 23073

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titlePurchase Perpetual Conservation Easement on Holliday Ranch and Crown Ranch Riparian Corridors and Uplands
Proposal ID23073
OrganizationOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameKen Rutherford
Mailing addressP.O. Box 9 John Day, OR 97845
Phone / email5415751167 / kenruthe@oregonvos.net
Manager authorizing this projectRon Boyce and Susan Barnes
Review cycleFY 2001 High Priority
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / John Day
Short descriptionFence 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 speciesSteelhead, bull trout,spring chinook, mule deer, elk, antelope, California quail, bald eagle and other NWPPC Fish and Wildlife Program indicator species
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
44.4287 -118.8367 Holliday Ranch
44.43 -118.85 John Day River
44.429 -118.8584 Grub Creek
44.4378 -118.8274 Pine Creek
44.4428 -118.8002 Indian Creek
44.4188 -118.9019 Dog Creek
44.4202 -118.8693 Dissel Creek
44.4202 -118.8686 Dean Creek
44.4381 -118.8235 Castle Creek
44.4323 -118.832 Deep Gulch
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
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

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
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 2001 costSubcontractor
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 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2002FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005
$74,500$24,800$24,800$24,800

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2001 cost
Personnel FTE: 1.0 $50,000
Fringe @48.8% $24,500
Supplies off-site water development materials fence materials @$3,500/mi. thermographs (12) $95,700
Indirect @20.1% $34,000
Capital purchase conservation easement $0
Subcontractor construct 21.4 mi. of fence @$5,500/mi. $275,600
Other construct off-site water developments $2,000
$481,800
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost$481,800
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2001 budget request$481,800
FY 2001 forecast from 2000$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
HP "A" - BiOp
Date:
Feb 1, 2001

Comment:

This is an important, cost-effective project. This project would have the second highest priority of the four John Day Subbasin acquisitions. The technical reviewers recommend dropping the O&M funding if they jeopardize funding the acquisition. This project would provide significant benefits to wildlife.
Recommendation:
A
Date:
Feb 1, 2001

Comment:

This is a proposal to construct and maintain riparian corridor fencing on 15 miles of mainstem and tributary habitat. It appears funding for the easement is available in another project. The combination of legal and physical protection is good. The cost is modest compared to cost of acquisition of the ranches. The ISRP supports this excellent project, but is confused over long-term O&M costs. The budget includes funds for long-term O&M while the text indicates that the responsibility for ongoing fence maintenance falls on the Grantor, the Hollidays. Also, there is inadequate indication of who will pay for long-term M&E. These issues should be clarified during the Council's review.
Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 15, 2001

Comment:

ISRP Comment: The ISRP supports this excellent project, but is confused over long-term O&M costs. The budget includes funds for long-term O&M while the text indicates that the responsibility for ongoing fence maintenance falls on the Grantor, the Hollidays. Also, there is inadequate indication who will pay for long-term M&E.

Response: Terms of this agreement are currently being negotiated with the Hollidays; however, it has been proposed that the Grantor will be responsible for O&M, while the holder of the conservation easement will accept responsibility for M&E. The proposal should be modified to reflect no O&M request from BPA in FY2001 or out years. Instead, costs should be shifted to M&E, which is estimated to require $12,000 in FY2001 and $10,000 each year over the life of the easement. These costs will include photopoints, aerial monitoring of the river and tributaries, water temperature monitoring equipment, and on-ground inspections.


Recommendation:
Rank 4
Date:
Feb 26, 2001

Comment:

25053 - Wagner Ranch Acquisition, and 23054 - Forrest Ranch Acquisition, 23073 - Holliday Ranch and Crown Ranch conservation easements. All three acquisition proposals plan substantial riparian restoration. These projects could provide excellent opportunities to evaluate different restoration methods and activities
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 26, 2001

Comment:


Recommendation:
RPA 150
Date:
Apr 20, 2001

Comment:

This project proposes to purchase and then sell perpetual conservation easements on both properties to the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture. NMFS understands that this was a time-limited opportunity, which has expired. Additionally the cost indicated was for riparian fencing only and not the property acquisition. The full cost is about $2.3 million. NMFS interest in this project would be limited to the riparian portion only. Given the timeliness issues, cost estimate differences, and acquisition complexity, if this project is still viable, it should be considered in the Columbia Plateau Provincial Review.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund; Defer to Columbia Plateau Provincial Reivew.
Date:
May 8, 2001

Comment:

Proposal no. 23073 will not be funded by BPA at this time. Although this appears to be another sound biological proposal, the land arrangements that would allow the acquisition of a riparian easement are not sufficiently mature to go forward at this time. In addition, the budget proposed for this project addresses the riparian fencing costs only and does not include the conservation easement cost. We anticipate that this project will be considered for funding in the Columbia Plateau Provincial Review.