FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25005

Additional documents

TitleType
25005 Narrative Narrative
25005 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleBighorn Sheep reintroduction to the Warm Springs Reservation
Proposal ID25005
OrganizationConfederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameTerry A. Luther
Mailing addressP.O. Box C Warm Springs, Oregon 97761
Phone / email5415532026 / tluther@wstribes.org
Manager authorizing this projectRobert Brunoe
Review cycleColumbia Plateau
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Deschutes
Short descriptionThis project would reintroduce Bighorn Sheep to the Mutton Mountains area of the Warm Springs Reservation. Bighorn Sheep were indigenous to the Mutton Mountains but were extirpated in the early 1900’s.
Target speciesBighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis californiana)
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
45.0217 -121.1545 T6S. R13E. & T6S. R14E and T7S. R13E. & T7S R14E. Located in the northeastern corner of the Warm Springs Rerservation.
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
N/A

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Collect field data a) determine and map water sources 1 $1,000
b) inventory domestic livestock numbers and high use areas 1 $2,000
c) determine and map lambing areas 1 $1,000
d) determine access sites for releases 1 $500
2. Public outreach a) hold meetings with grazers, hunters and other interested public 1 $1,500
3. Complete capture and release plan a) develop a GIS map of the area featuring release sites, water sources, key habitats and access points. 1 $600
b) coordinate a capture and release plan with ODFW and others assisting with this effort. 1 $2,260
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
N/A $0
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Capture and transplant bighorn sheep a) capture, innoculate, test, collar and release approximately 25 sheep to Mutton Mtns. 1 $25,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
N/A $0
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Habitat improvement a) fence and develop springs 1 $4,000 Yes
b) forage improvement 4 $3,000 Yes
2. Enforcement and protection a) surveilance 4 $5,752
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Habitat improvements and maintenance 2003 2006 $24,000
2. Continued enforcement and protection 2003 2006 $12,000
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$9,000$9,000$9,000$9,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Monitor sheep distribution and areas of use a) monitor sheep through radio telemetry and observation. 4 $10,800
b) conduct aerial sheep surveys twice annually 4 $8,800 Yes
2. Evaluate sheep populations and performance a) Analyze sheep distribution, health, fecundity and mortality 4 $1,650
3. Complete progress reports a) develop and submit reports 4 $3,000
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1.Continue to monitor and evaluate project 2003 2006 $57,880
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$14,470$14,470$14,470$14,470

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel FTE: .3 $12,000
Fringe @23% $2,760
Supplies radio collars, fence, supplies $5,000
Travel $1,500
Indirect @41.4% $8,802
Capital $0
Subcontractor $40,800
$70,862
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$70,862
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$70,862
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
ODFW planning, capture, testing and release assistance $10,000 in-kind
Bureau of Indian Affairs planning and range improvement assistance $3,000 in-kind
Professional veterinarian assistance $2,000 in-kind
CTWSRO planning, capture and release assistance $5,000 in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Jun 15, 2001

Comment:

Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns. This is a fairly straightforward project to reintroduce bighorn sheep to the Mutton Mountains area of the Warm Springs Reservation, an area where sheep were historically present, but where no re-introductions have yet been made. The project is consistent with the State of Oregon goal to establish viable herds of sheep in suitable habitats. Re-introductions in other areas have already taken place. This project would inventory suitable habitat, capture wild sheep from an existing herd, do health checks, apply radio collars and release animals. Movements of animals will be monitored. The goals are to establish a herd of 50-100 sheep in the area. The budget is modest and reasonable.

The response should further describe the project's selection of a monitoring approach (Tier 2 is likely needed), for establishing the project's biologically measurable results, and the justification of this selection (see ISRP's general comments on monitoring). Detailed procedures for monitoring the distribution and abundance of sheep should be documented or references to existing written documents should be given. Similarly, procedures for monitoring habitat changes should be documented or references should be given to existing written documents.

Domestic sheep are not allowed on the reservation, thus there is little risk of contacting domestic diseases. Will bighorn sheep come into contact with domestic sheep off the reservation, i.e. during winter?

Habitat sites were likely lost due to impacts by the dams. Can this statement be verified?

How successful have the ODFW introductions been in the lower Deschutes? Where are the sites?

The proponent should include a discussion of dispersal patterns, genetic likelihood of inbreeding, and the potential need for future supplementation of the herd. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep are poor at dispersing and many introductions in the Rocky Mountains have had initial success followed by poor growth and genetic problems. Is this a problem for the California bighorns?

Escape cover and feeding habitat should be close together at the release sites and assurances should be given that sheep are from similar habitat. Is predation expected to be a problem when animals are first introduced into unfamiliar habitat? Have there been problems with predators at other ODFW release sites?


Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 10, 2001

Comment:

Not fundable. This is a good project that otherwise deserves funding, so it is unfortunate that the proponent did not provide protocols for introducing sheep and monitoring changes in habitat, bighorn distribution and abundance. Reference is made to conformity with ODFW protocol with wildlife introductions, but aside from listing what will be monitored, detail on how monitoring will be conducted is sparse. A monitoring plan should be in place before introduction takes place. Similarly, a more specific plan should be in place for how contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep will be avoided; i.e., instead of saying that measures to minimize "can be implemented," develop a protocol that includes specific avoidance measures. As an example of the monitoring detail needed, see the response to ISRP concerns on Proposal #200002300"Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Horn Butte (Philippi Property)". What measures of success will be used by this project?

Adequate responses were given to the other ISRP concerns.


Recommendation:
Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
N/A

Comments

Already ESA Req? N/A

Biop? no


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment: