FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 31002
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
Title | Type |
---|---|
31002 Narrative | Narrative |
31002 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
31002 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Wildlife Habitat Protection, Lower McKenzie Watershed (Jaqua) |
Proposal ID | 31002 |
Organization | The Nature Conservancy (TNC) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Catherine A. Macdonald |
Mailing address | 821 SE 14th Ave. Portland, OR 97215 |
Phone / email | 5032301221 / cmacdonald@tnc.org |
Manager authorizing this project | Catherine Macdonald |
Review cycle | Lower Columbia |
Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Willamette |
Short description | Acquire a wildlife habitat conservation easement over 1240 acres of oak savanna and woodlands, Douglas fir forests, and grasslands to benefit listed and target species in the Lower McKenzie River Watershed. |
Target species | Black-capped chickadee, band-tailed pigeons, red-tailed hawk, valley quail, western meadowlark, yellow warbler, cougar, black bear, elk, blacktailed deer, pileated woodpecker |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
44.085 | -123 | T17N R3W, portions of sections 11, 12, 13, and 14; north of the McKenzie River East of the town of Coburg |
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 |
---|---|
2001 | Negotiated conservation easement over 32 acres of site from Willamette Industries |
2001 | Initiated negotiations with adjacent private landowner over 1240 acres |
2001 | Completed an initial wildlife habitat assessment |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
Assess McKenszie Watershed Planning and Prioritize Projects | Watershed assessment called for protection of oak habitat | |
199607000 | McKenzie River Focus Watershed Coordination | Project occurs in the lower McKenzie River Watershed |
199205900 | Amazon Basin/Eugene Wetlands Phase Two | Both areas are being studied to determine how to best connect protected areas and open space in Lane County to provide for fish and wildlife protection |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1) Establish baseline habitat conditions | a. Complete a target species habitat evaluation | 1 | $15,000 | Yes |
b. Complete NEPA checklist in consultation with BPA staff and other agency staff as appropriate | 1 | $8,000 | Yes | |
c. Develop interim (2 year) management plan | 1 | $750 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Prepare a long-term Operations, Maintenance, Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the property including all detailed inventories and assessments of management needs | 4 | 4 | $40,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2004 |
---|
$40,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Acquire a wildlife mitigation conservation easement over 1240 acres | a. Complete appraisals, acquire title insurance and complete legal documents to acquire 1240 acres | 1 | $10,000 | Yes |
b. Purchase wildlife mitigation conservation easement over property. | 1 | $2,250,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Improve fences and roads to improve wildlife mitigation values and reduce water quality impacts. | 4 | 5 | $40,000 |
2. Restore oak woodland and douglas fir forests | 4 | 7 | $500,000 |
3. Purchase used truck for management purposes | 4 | 4 | $15,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
---|---|---|---|
$135,000 | $170,000 | $150,000 | $100,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Implement interim wildlife habitat management activities | a. Control non-native species | 1.5 | $10,000 | |
b. Monitor access and uses to ensure they are consistent with wildlife habitat protection | 1.5 | $2,275 | ||
c. Maintain fences and roads | 1.5 | $10,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Implement interim wildlife mitigation actions | 4 | 4 | $30,000 |
2. Implement wildlife habitat management activities as outlined in the management plan to maintain wildlife mitigation credits | 5 | 7 | $267,963 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
---|---|---|---|
$30,000 | $87,125 | $89,303 | $91,535 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Monitor implementation of interim management actions | 2 | $10,000 | ||
2. Monitor listed species | 2 | $5,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Monitor implementation of interim management actions | 4 | 4 | $10,000 |
2. Monitor implementation of enhancement and operations and maintenance wildlife habitat management activites | 5 | 7 | $61,513 |
3. Monitor threatened and endangered species. | 5 | 7 | $15,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
---|---|---|---|
$10,000 | $25,000 | $25,500 | $26,013 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | FTE: .35 | $21,585 |
Fringe | $4,250 | |
Supplies | $500 | |
Travel | $775 | |
Indirect | $4,915 | |
Capital | $2,500,000 | $2,250,000 |
Subcontractor | $39,000 | |
$2,321,025 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost | $2,321,025 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2003 budget request | $2,321,025 |
FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
NA
Reason for change in scope
NA
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
The Nature Conservancy | Negotiations, real estate and legal assistance | $10,000 | in-kind |
The Nature Conservancy | Long-term management endowment | $2,000,000 | cash |
USFWS | Management and monitoring of listed species | $5,000 | cash |
Other budget explanation
A project-specific stewardship endowment will be established for the property to cover the estimated $100,000 cost for ongoing annual operations and maintenance and monitoring and evaluation for the project.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed. This proposal is to acquire conservation easements over 1240 acres to protect habitat for several bird and animal species. The land is in the Coburg Hills of the Lower McKenzie. An initial habitat assessment has been performed.Reference is made to the 80000 HUs lost to hydropower in the subbasin. The proposal makes the point that the upper portion of the Basin has received significantly more wildlife habitat mitigation than the lower portion, even though the lower Basin is subject to rapid land use conversion. Restoration actions in the Willamette subbasin have concentrated on the lower elevations. However, oak savanna and prairie habitat, the focus of this proposal, have been identified as priorities for conservation. The proposal lists species to be protected by these easements, but indicates that detailed wildlife surveys have not yet been conducted. Fish habitat protection afforded by this project would be minor. The site is currently subject to subdivision, threatening to fragment the habitat.
Better justification for purchase of this property, the easement approach, and the price is needed. Why are conservation easements the best approach? What are the alternatives to spending $2.2 million? How is this value derived? At $1,815 per acre, shouldn't an outright purchase (rather than easement) be possible? What, exactly, is a wildlife mitigation easement? How much of the habitat type represented by the property still exists within the lower Willamette Valley? What will be the authorized uses of the parcel?
Other questions relate to how this proposal fits within the larger Willamette Subbasin context. Is the purchase of this land a part of a larger landscape-scale plan for wildlife habitat protection within the lower Willamette? If so, exactly how does purchase of this parcel fit into the plan? Is this an isolated patch of habitat or are there other patches of similar habitat nearby? Data should be presented documenting the occurrence and abundance of the species that will benefit from his purchase, especially the listed species. . What is the status of the potentially benefited species within the lower Willamette (the state and federal designations given in the table need to be explained)? Where are the four viable populations of Fender's Blue located? Is there connectivity between the populations? Has a VPA been performed on any of the species to formally assess their status? How much area is needed as a buffer?
The restoration goals for the parcel are unclear. The oak savanna and dry prairie appear justified in terms of rarity, but better justification needs to be provided for the acquisition of oak and pine forest which do not appear to be scarce. Monitoring needs to be better described in terms of how it will lead to evaluation of progress toward stated habitat objectives, rather than monitoring for unauthorized uses.
Comment:
This is a good property acquisition that may be focusing on a lower priority habitat type relative to the mitigation responsibilities of BPA.Comment:
Fundable at low to medium priority. This proposal is to acquire conservation easements over 1240 acres to protect habitat for several bird and animal species. The land is in the Coburg Hills of the Lower McKenzie. An initial habitat assessment has been performed but detailed wildlife surveys have not yet been conducted. The site is currently subject to subdivision, threatening to fragment the habitat. Fish habitat protection afforded by this project would be minor. The project appears to be very expensive for the likely benefit. If it is possible to prioritize purchases, decision-makers should consider staggering funding for easement acquisition over several years.Responses to questions about price per acre and the definition of wildlife mitigation easement are adequate. The response puts the proposed site into the larger context of lower Willamette habitat conservation. The state of knowledge about the distribution and abundance of affected species is explained, particularly of the Fender's Blue butterfly. Justification of the acquisition is explained, including the benefits to an endangered species, a threatened species and two species of concern. The restoration goals for the parcel remain unclear, but the response explains that developing a program to monitor progress toward goals is part of the project's first-year activity.
The current proposal estimates the cost of the easement to be 90% of market value, with title retained by the present owner. It is still confusing as to why it is in the public's interest to obtain easements rather than title. Responses to questions about the need to protect oak and pine forests and the need to provide monitoring are either missing or incomplete.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUPotential indirect WQ benefit by maintaining watershed condition
Comments
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No
Comment:
Defer new wildlife proposals to Subbasin Planning where watershed and subbasin priorities for wildlife mitigation can be established.Comment: