FY 2000 proposal 20134

Additional documents

TitleType
20134 Narrative Narrative
20134 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleAcquire Oxbow Ranch -- Middle Fork John Day River
Proposal ID20134
OrganizationThe Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameTerry Luther
Mailing addressP.O. Box C Warm Springs, OR 97761
Phone / email5415533233 / potoole@mail.wstribes.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / John Day
Short descriptionAcquire, protect and enhance 1,022 acres of riverine, riparian, meadow, and forest habitat on the Middle Fork John Day River.
Target speciessummer 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
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
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 IDTitleDescription
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
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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.

Recommendation:
Fund for one year with medium priority
Date:
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.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Split 1/2 with Wildlife
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
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?


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]