FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25005
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 |
---|---|
25005 Narrative | Narrative |
25005 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Bighorn Sheep reintroduction to the Warm Springs Reservation |
Proposal ID | 25005 |
Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Terry A. Luther |
Mailing address | P.O. Box C Warm Springs, Oregon 97761 |
Phone / email | 5415532026 / tluther@wstribes.org |
Manager authorizing this project | Robert Brunoe |
Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Deschutes |
Short description | This 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 species | Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis californiana) |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
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 agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
N/A |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
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
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
N/A | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
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
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
N/A | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
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
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated 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 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|---|---|---|
$9,000 | $9,000 | $9,000 | $9,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
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
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1.Continue to monitor and evaluate project | 2003 | 2006 | $57,880 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|---|---|---|
$14,470 | $14,470 | $14,470 | $14,470 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash 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.
Fundable only if response is adequate
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?
Comment:
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.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUN/A
Comments
Already ESA Req? N/A
Biop? no
Comment: