FY 2000 proposal 20134
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 |
|---|---|
| 20134 Narrative | Narrative |
| 20134 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Acquire Oxbow Ranch -- Middle Fork John Day River |
| Proposal ID | 20134 |
| Organization | The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Terry Luther |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box C Warm Springs, OR 97761 |
| Phone / email | 5415533233 / potoole@mail.wstribes.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / John Day |
| Short description | Acquire, protect and enhance 1,022 acres of riverine, riparian, meadow, and forest habitat on the Middle Fork John Day River. |
| Target species | summer steelhead, spring chinook salmon, bull trout, great blue heron, Canada goose, spotted sandpiper, yellow warbler, black-capped chickadee, western meadowlark, California quail, mallard, mink. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
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 |
|---|---|
| 1993 | Created a list of potential wildlife mitigation projects throughout Oregon. |
| 1997 | Compiled a more comprehensive prioritized lists of mitigation sites; identified Middle Fork John Day as a priority area. |
| 1998 | Developed partnership with The Nature Conservancy to facilitate project objectives. |
| 1998 | TNC began landowner negotiations for land acquisitions. |
| 1998 | Title to 1022-acre property secured by TNC. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9705900 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon | Umbrella project; explains intent for mitigation planning, coordination, and implementation by Oregon wildlife managers withini Oregon. Identifies priority projects with specific budgets that will help meet mitigation objectives. |
| ODFW John Day Subbasin Umbrella Proposal | Umbrella project: explains management intent for anadromous and resident fish and wildlife in the John Day Subbasin. | |
| 9565 | Assessing Oregon Trust Agreement Using GAP Analysis | A mitigation planning process tool used to analyze and rank potential mitigation projects with the basin. |
| 9284 | Oregon Trust Agreement Planning Project | A mitigation planning tool that includes methods for assembling a trust agreement and a list of potential mitigation projects. |
| 9206800 | Implementation of Willamette Basin Mitigation Program - Wildlife | A mitigation proprosal focusing on land acquisition/easement, enhancement, and management of lands in the Willamette Basin. Similar in function as Coalition's umbrella project. |
| 20112 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Wenaha WMA Additions | |
| Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, E.E. Wilson WMA Additions | ||
| Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Logan Valley | ||
| 9140 | Acquisition of Pine Creek Ranch | |
| 20140 | Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Additions | |
| Juniper Canyon and Columbia Gorge Wildlife Mitigation Project | ||
| 20113 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, South Fork Crooked River | |
| Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Trout Creek Canyon | ||
| Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Multnomah Channel | ||
| 20115 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Irrigon WMA Additions | |
| Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, McKenzie River Islands | ||
| 20116 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Horn Butte | |
| 9705900 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon (#9705900) | |
| Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Ruthton Point (Mitchell Point) |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Note: cost will be shared equally between anadromous fish and wildlife budgets see Section h. | $20,000 |
| Fringe | Note: cost will be shared equally between anadromous fish and wildlife budgets see Section h. | $4,600 |
| Supplies | Note: cost will be shared equally between anadromous fish and wildlife budgets see Section h. | $10,000 |
| Capital | Note: cost will be shared equally between anadromous fish and wildlife budgets see Section h. | $2,550,000 |
| NEPA | Note: cost will be shared equally between anadromous fish and wildlife budgets see Section h. | $5,000 |
| Travel | Note: cost will be shared equally between anadromous fish and wildlife budgets see Section h. | $5,000 |
| Indirect | Note: cost will be shared equally between anadromous fish and wildlife budgets see Section h. | $18,464 |
| Subcontractor | $15,000 | |
| $2,628,064 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $2,628,064 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $2,628,064 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Nature Conservancy | Real estate acquisition, interim management, and technical services for management planning | $40,000 | unknown |
| Oregon Water Trust | Instream water rights filings, certified water rights examination, technical assistance for management planning, and contribution of acquisition funds | $200,000 | unknown |
| Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon | Technical expertise for development of management plans | $10,000 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: The approval of this project and funding availability from BPA anadromous fish and wildlife budgets.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fund for one year with medium priority
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund for one year with medium priority. Subsequent funding contingent on adequacy of baseline data and monitoring plans.Comments: The proposal is well written and is accorded medium priority as a mitigation purchase, but it might well discuss what other options may be available to achieve the same benefits at lesser cost. The narrative describes the Middle Fork of the John Day River as a high priority mitigation site, but it should better identify the unique qualities of this 1,022-acre parcel.
Specific comments and questions that should also be addressed are: Reviewers note the inadequate baseline data and plans to monitor vegetation parameters. An additional 5 cfs of additional instream water rights is referenced in the proposal, but it is unclear if that is significant to improve habitat for anadromous fish. The impacts of mining, grazing and logging are cited only in passing. Even if these considerations are to be left to future surveys, estimates would be helpful in establishing if restoration of this ranch parcel with habitat improvements is to become unduly expensive and long-term. A management plan apparently does not exist for this project, yet the authors estimate one per cent of the overall budget is committed to the plan's implementation. Future funding requirements and potential funding sources are not discussed.
Comment:
Comment:
Split 1/2 with WildlifeTechnically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
This is a good management opportunity but it needs to be associated with a management plan and it needs to demonstrate accountability.Considerable concern about whether this project is cost-effective. Costs per acre and costs per mile seem quite high.
What are the biological returns on investment?
Who owns the land, or who will own it, and who pays the taxes?
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]