FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25028

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
25028 Narrative	Narrative
25028 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	John Day Upland Restoration
Proposal ID	25028
Organization	Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Jennifer M. Stafford
Mailing address	PO Box 480 Canyon City, OR 97820
Phone / email	5415754212 / wstribe@highdesertnet.com
Manager authorizing this project	Terry A. Luther
Review cycle	Columbia Plateau
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / John Day
Short description	Expand restoration program to encompass uplands. Monitor wildlife species indicative of both riparian and upland health, aggressively control detrimental weed species that reduce upland productivity, alter hydrologic regimes, and increase erosion.
Target species	Sage grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, bighorn sheep, white-tailed deer, medusahead, downy brome, juniper

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
44.65	-118.66	Oxbow Ranch, Middle Fork John Day - rkm 87.0 to 92.5; 22.1 km north of Prairie City, 14.7 km west of Bates, Oregon.
44.6	-118.54	Middle Fork parcel; Middle Fork rkm 99.5 to 105.0
44.46	-118.69	Upper mainstem parcel; John Day rkm 417.5 to 420.7.
		The remainder of the project focuses on a specific area or property rather than a point. Therefore, they cannot be accurately described by lat/long descriptions.

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
95-01	John Day Watershed Restoration program has been successful in implementing 58 irrigation improvement projects that enhance water quality, flow, and stream channel integrity.
	Expanding restoration efforts to upland restoration would be a new extension of the JDBO's basin-wide program.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
199801800	John Day Watershed Restoration Program	Supports a more aggressive juniper program in concert with the program described within the JDWR program.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Assess potential for reintroduction of sharp-tailed grouse, sage grouse, and bighorn sheep.	A. Collect and compile existing data.	0.04	$369
	B. Develop suitability criteria	0.01	$1,230
	C. Map habitats	0.04	$840
2. Evaluate re-colonization of white-tailed deer in habitat improvement areas.	A. Map riparian areas.	0.04	$840
	B. Inventory habitat.	0.10	$0
	C. Develop suitability criteria	0.02	$492
	D. Conduct spotlight counts.	0.03	$984
3. Enhance big game winter range, critical upland habitat, and seasonal flows through juniper removal.	A. Prepare landowner agreements.	0.02	$615
	B. Survey project sites, mark trees.	0.05	$1,476
	C. Prepare implementation subcontract.	0.02	$492
4. Implement noxious weed control program.	A. Map distribution of medusahead.	0.04	$1,440
	B. Survey project sites	0.05	$0
	C. Prepare site plans.	0.04	$1,230
	D. Prepare landowner agreements.	0.02	$492
	E. Prepare implementation subcontracts.	0.02	$492
5. Restore and protect riparian habitats by evaluating mitigation compliance.	A. Select timber sales and collect mitigation agreements.	0.02	$615
	B. Outline mitigation activities for each timber sale.	0.125	$3,900

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Continue to assess SHGR, SAGR, and BISH habitats are new information is compiled	2003	2004	$5,122
2. Continue juniper pre-treatment activities: landowner agreements and site surveys.	2003	2004	$5,424
3. Continue weed control pre-treatment activities: landowner agreements and site surveys.	2003	2004	$7,673
4. Continue to compile mitigation documents as others are assessed.	2003	2004	$9,482

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004
$13,851	$13,851

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Assess the potential for reintroduction of sharp-tailed grouse, sage grouse, and bighorn sheep.	A. Inventory and evaluate habitats by ground-truthing.	0.125	$2,730
2. Evaluate re-colonization of white-tailed deer in habitat improvement areas.	A. Purchase supplies for the following tasks (dart gun and supplies, radio collars, cameras, film)	1	$10,000
	B. Capture and affix individuals with radio collars.	0.34	$3,420
	C. Establish camera stations.	0.04	$1,230
3. Maintain, enhance, and protect big game winter range and critical upland habitats through juniper removal.	A. Administer subcontract for juniper removal.	0.02	$615
	B. Remove trees	3	$180,000	Yes
4. Implement noxious weed control program.	A. Purchase herbicide	3	$36,000	Yes
	B. Purchase seeds	3	$30,000	Yes
	C. Administer subcontract for weed treatment.	0.02	$615
	D. Helicopter application of herbicide	3	$45,000	Yes
5. Restore and protect riparian habitat by evaluating mitigation compliance..	A. Ground-truth timber sales and record compliance.	0.05	$3,999

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Continue to assess potential habitats for SHGR, SAGR, and BISH.	2003	2004	$5,733
2. Continue to maintain telemetry and videography stations	2003	2004	$300
3. Continue to implement juniper removal program.	2003	2004	$379,292
4. Implement noxious weed control program.	2003	2004	$234,392
5. . Restore and protect riparian habitat by evaluating mitigation compliance.	2003	2004	$8,398

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004
$314,058	$314,058

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1 Provide administrative and overhead support for upland research activities.	A. Provide office space, utilities, phone, computer access.	3	$690
	B. Provide vehicle and travel funds.	3	$5,900
	C. Provide administrative oversight for planning and technical assistance.	0.125	$1,105
	D. Provide fringe benefits for personnel.	1	$9,413
	E. Provide funds for indirect costs related to Upland program.	1	$40,403
2. Provide funds for supplies related to various projects.	A. Provide funds to collect and compile data.	1	$100
	B. Provide funds for data analysis (1:24,000 DOQs).	1	$563

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Continue to provide administrative and overhead support for research activities.	2003	2004	$118,348
2. Continue to provide for indirect costs.	2003	2004	$200

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2003	FY 2004
$59,274	$59,274

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Assess the potential for reintroduction of sharp-tailed grouse, sage grouse, and bighorn sheep.	A. Prepare management plans.	0.125	$3,999
2. Evaluate re-colonization of white-tailed deer in habitat improvement areas.	A. Map movement patterns	0.08	$2,461
3. Maintain, enhance, and protect big game winter range and critical upland habitats through juniper removal.	A. Monitor vegetation and streamflow response.	0.125	$0
3. Implement noxious weed control program.	A. Monitor treated sites.	0.125	$0
4. Restore and protect riparian habitat by evaluating mitigation compliance.	A. Prepare sale-specific analyses as surveys are completed.	0.125	$3,999
	B. Coordinate with other agencies to implement required mitigation.	0.06	$1,846

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Create plans for reintroduction or habitat improvement according to results of past evaluation activities.	2003	2004	$8,398
2. Analyze white-tailed deer movement patterns and relate to watershed improvement projects.	2003	2004	$7,668
3. Continue to monitor vegetation recovery following juniper removal treatments.	2003	2004	$0
4. Continue to monitor vegetation recovery following weed control treatments.	2003	2004	$0
5. Continue to evaluate timber sales for mitigation compliance.	2003	2004	$12,275

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004
$14,170	$14,170

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 2.05	$41,526
Fringe		$9,413
Supplies		$10,663
Travel	(includes insurance, GSA lease)	$5,900
Indirect	@ 41.4%	$40,403
Subcontractor	Juniper removal, helicopter contractor	$291,000
Other	(overhead - rent, utilities, phone, etc.)	$690
		$399,595

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$399,595
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$399,595
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Reason for change in estimated budget

No change - this is a new proposal.

Reason for change in scope

This proposal expands the monitoring program followed in years previous to advance to the uplands. Watershed health is affected by and affects the health of upland vegetation and wildlife. Following twelve years of restoration activities, it is predicted that changes in upland integrity may be observed, and projects such as weed and juniper control will in turn help the watershed. The budget considers the increased costs of administration, planning, design, monitoring, and equipment necessary with such an expanded program.

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
ODFW	Telemetry equipment	$8,000	in-kind
	Seeds	$15,000	cash
Private landowners	Seeds	$15,000	cash
	Seed application	$75,000	in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-6)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Jun 15, 2001

Comment:

Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns.

This is a proposal to evaluate upland habitat condition and wildlife protection for grouse, sheep and deer. It demonstrates relationships to other projects.

The proposal might be funded at a reduced level, because some of the proposed sample sizes for radio tagged animals is too small to be very informative. Other procedures should be considered for monitoring. The response should further describe the project's selection of monitoring approach (tier), for establishing the project's biologically measurable results, and the justification of this selection (see ISRP's general comments on monitoring in the introduction to this report).

The efficiency and logistics of methods proposed for weed and juniper control should be contrasted to use of controlled burning. Burned areas in the Deschutes that we viewed during the tour seem to be recovering nicely. Why is controlled burning not considered?

We assume there should be a plan to provide BPA credit for mitigation for loss of uplands habitat, probably in terms of increased habitat suitability indices.

The monitoring plans are not adequately described. At the least, references to methods and detailed procedures must be given each time monitoring is mentioned. For example, it is naïve to say that one will conduct"...monthly visits to reintroduction sites and record population status." Some Tier I or II level monitoring for presence/absence of animals might be conducted by this project, but a coordinated plan among agencies is needed for long term monitoring of wildlife populations.

Five radio-tagged white-tailed deer in a subbasin is too small to gain more that cursory information. Similarly, the number of proposed cameras is probably too small to provide useful information. We recommend dropping this component of the study and to concentrate on inventory (including white tailed deer food), life history information based on the literature and interviews, and modeling of habitat suitability using USFWS Habitat Evaluation Procedures.

Are white-tailed deer native to the area? Why are white-tailed deer having a problem when they are expanding throughout most of the west?

Why should BPA pay for compliance monitoring of the Forest Service? Will the tribe's timber sales also be monitored? Do the tribe's timber sales have mitigation provisions?

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Recommended Action

Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:

Currently, no T&E species are present. However, this project would address winter range conditions on private lands that are contributing to the decline of grassland bird species. In addition, deer and elk populations are dependent on these lands. Sharp-tailed grouse could be reintroduced pending habitat conservation and improvement.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-8)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 10, 2001

Comment:

Fundable in part. Responses to ISRP questions and concerns about methods for juniper removal and noxious weed control were adequate, and these tasks should be implemented. Responses adequately address the reasons for chemical rather than fire control of medusa-head rye. Additionally, assessing the reintroduction potential for sage grouse, sharp-tailed grouse and bighorn sheep by evaluation of habitat availability seems to be justified and should be implemented.

However, tasks dealing with radio tagging of deer and camera stations are inadequate due to small sample sizes. Monitoring plans are inadequate. The ISRP remains unconvinced that the small number of radio tagged deer (5 in each of two areas) or the number of camera stations (5) are adequate to yield meaningful information. More intensive and extensive monitoring for presence/absence by simpler methods would be preferable.

The ISRP recommends that terrestrial sampling on Fish and Wildlife Program lands follow a common sampling method and some common data collection protocols across the four States in order to enhance monitoring and evaluation of terrestrial systems on subbasin and basin scales. Perhaps the National Resources Inventory sampling procedures and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Upland project focused on vegetation management stabilizing upland soil erosion.

Comments
Only $4000 could be construed as riparian restoration and that is compliance monitoring of USFS timber harvest from another BiOp

Already ESA Req? yes

Biop? no

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment: