FY 2003 Middle Snake proposal 200000900

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
200000900 Narrative	Narrative
200000900 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
200000900 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation
Middle Snake: Malheur Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map
Middle Snake: Malheur Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Project/ O&M
Proposal ID	200000900
Organization	Burns Paiute Tribe (BPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Jess J. Wenick
Mailing address	HC 71, 100 Pasigo Street Burns, OR 97720
Phone / email	5415731375 / jessw@centurytel.net
Manager authorizing this project	Daniel Gonzalez
Review cycle	Middle Snake
Province / Subbasin	Middle Snake / Malheur
Short description	Restore and enhance critical fish and wildlife habitat, enhance historic home range and seasonal habitat for resident and migratory species, control weeds, and improve water quality for headwaters of the Malheur River Basin.
Target species	Antelope, upland sandpiper, Rocky Mountain elk, bull and redband trout, sandhill crane, sage grouse, mule deer, and various waterfowl

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
44.155	-118.6357	T16S R33.5E s. 21, 23, 26, 27, 28, 34, 35
		Approximately 20 miles east of Seneca, Oregon.

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
N.A.

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
2001	Evaluated Lake and Big Creeks with the assistance of a riparian ecologist from Oregon State University.
2001	Entered into a water provision agreement with a neighboring allottee to enhance the ecological value of the Forest Service grazing allotment that lies adjacent to the project.
2001	Completed the first draft of the project management plan.
2001	Initiated the mapping of plant association boundaries for vegetation trend analyses.
2001	Completed pertinent archaeological surveys.
2001	Continued ongoing communications with the project's Advisory Committee, which includes BPA and regulatory agencies.
2001	Initiated a water table study in association with USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) that will enable the Tribe to understand the impacts of water management options on associated riparian meadow communities.
2000	Initiated a cooperative fencing project withTNC to protect/enhance wildlife and fish habitat.
2000	Assisted ARS in ongoing studies regarding willow, species composition, and vegetation monitoring techniques.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
2000027	Malheur River Wildlife Mitigation Project	Co-managed by Department, located 38 miles downstream along the Malheur River.
199701900	Evaluation of the Life History of Native Salmonids in the Malheur Basin	Redband and bull trout research- study has included the Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Site.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost
1. Annually update management plan	a. Update and adjust plan to reflect accomplishments and ongoing efforts	Ongoing	$7,000
2. Coordinate with all federal and state agencies that are involved in the active management of the project site	a. Continue to ensure that management within the subbasin is consistent with agency goals and objectives and compliments the ongoing efforts of restoration and enhancement	Ongoing	$5,000
3. Coordinate with advisory group, local governments and watershed councils on annual activities, accomplishments and future strategies	a. Continue to coordinate with participating agencies and advisory group to update plan and plan design.	Ongoing	$5,000
	b. Public Outreach to special interest groups, educational institutions, local governments and civic organizations.	Ongoing	$1,200

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Annually update management plan	2004	2010	$7,000
2. Coordinate with all federal and state agencies that are involved in the active management of the project site	2004	2010	$5,000
3. Coordinate with advisory group, local governments and watershed councils on annual activities, accomplishments and future strategies	2004	2010	$5,000

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$17,000	$17,000	$17,000	$17,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1. Maintain the historical distribution of dry and wet meadow types.	a. Map and evaluate the ability of irrigation ditches to deliver water to irrigable acres.	2	$12,500	Yes
	b. Enhance the efficiency of necessary ditches and shut down those that do not contribute toward desired meadow functions.	3	$1,000
2. Restore stream channel morphology and natural functions.	a. Conduct Level III Rosgen analysis with OSU riparian ecologist on Lake and Big Creeks (partial subcontract- OSU).	1	$10,000	Yes
3. Protect riparian areas and associated uplands from uncontrolled impacts of domestic herbivores.	a. Use electric fence to prevent/ detour trespass cattle.	1	$5,000

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Maintain the historical distribution of dry and wet meadow types.	2004	2004	$12,500
2. Restore stream channel morphology and natural functions.	2004	2005	$2,000

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$14,500	$5,000	$2,000	$2,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1. Restore and maintain vegetative communities.	a. Use controlled disturbance to remove residual vegetation from meadow communities.	ongoing	$5,908
	b. Isolate introduced plant stands and manage them in such a way that native species may be reestablished.	ongoing	$0
	c. Restrict undesirable woody encroachment onto native meadow communities.	ongoing	$2,000
2. Contain/ eradicate weed infestation.	a. Use spring grazing, herbicide applications, fire, and/or hand pulling and cutting to control weeds.	ongoing	$6,000
3. Enhance/ maintain culturally important plants.	a. Locate and protect culturally important plant populations.	ongoing	$500
	b. Actively promote regeneration of depressed stands of cultural species.	ongoing	$500
4. Maintain the historical distribution of dry and wet meadow types.	a. Maintain irrigation ditches and headgates.	ongoing	$8,540	Yes
5. Protect riparian areas and associated uplands from uncontrolled impacts of domestic herbivores.	a. Maintain fences located throughout the mitigation site.	ongoing	$10,000
6. Complete and maintain tasks described in the Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Project Implementation Work Plan.	a. Maintain equipment, facilities, vehicles, irrigation systems, and infrastructure in a manner that is appropriate to fulfill all work plan activities	ongoing	$10,694
7. Manage Public Access	a. Control access according to management plan.	ongoing	$0
	b. Control recreational activities according to management plan.	ongoing	$1,000
8. Coordinate management with adjacent landowners and interested federal/ state agencies and institutions.	a. Initiate field trips with interested parties to coordinate watershed level management.	ongoing	$2,000
	b. Apply information from site monitoring data, similar mitigation projects, and scholastic research to conduct ongoing planning efforts.	ongoing	$3,000
9. Education and Information	a. Inform local community of activities and progress of project.	ongoing	$1,000
	b. Educate Tribal people of the status and progress of our program and project.	ongoing	$1,000
	c. Inform local governments and councils of activities and progress.	ongoing	$2,000

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Restore and maintain vegetative communities.	2004	2007	$31,632
2. Contain/ eradicate weed infestation.	2004	2007	$24,000
3. Enhance/ maintain culturally important plants.	2004	2007	$4,000
4. Maintain the historical distribution of dry and wet meadow types.	2004	2007	$24,000
5. Protect riparian areas and associated uplands from uncontrolled impacts of domestic herbivores.	2004	2007	$40,000
6. Complete and maintain tasks described in the Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Project Implementation Work Plan.	2004	2007	$40,000
7. Manage Public Access	2004	2007	$4,000
8. Coordinate management with adjacent landowners and interested federal/ state agencies and institutions.	2004	2007	$20,000
9. Education and Information	2004	2007	$16,000

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$50,908	$50,908	$50,908	$50,908

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1. Document seasonal/annual vegetation trends in plant communities located within the project area.	1. Map plant associations on deeded land.	ongoing	$10,000
	2. Place transects within each identified plant association to collect cover, density, biomass, frequency, and shrub cover data.	ongoing	$7,000
	3. Install/ maintain photopoints in areas of special interest/concern.	ongoing	$3,000
	4. Transfer all relevant data to GIS.	ongoing	$3,000
	5. Map weed populations through GIS and monitor response to management.	ongoing	$3,000
	6. Take aerial photographs to aid in vegetation management/ monitoring	1	$20,000	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Document seasonal/annual vegetation trends in plant communities located within the project area.	2004	2007	$114,000

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$46,000	$26,000	$22,000	$20,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2003 cost
Personnel	FTE: 1.5	$54,000
Fringe	Personnel costs * 28%	$15,120
Supplies	Quad, office expenses, transect establishment…	$9,000
Travel	30,000 miles @ $0.345/mile	$10,350
Indirect	28%	$24,772
Capital	None	$0
NEPA	N.A.	$0
PIT tags		$0
Subcontractor	Aerial photography and OSU riparian ecologist	$22,000
Other	Vehicle Lease	$11,600
		$146,842

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 cost	$146,842
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2003 budget request	$146,842
FY 2003 forecast from 2002	$190,000
% change from forecast	-22.7%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Site is more resilient than was previously believed.

Reason for change in scope

N.A.

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
USDA Agricultural Research Service	Management, research, data analysis	$30,000	in-kind
US Forest Service	Management, research, data analysis	$20,000	in-kind
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife	Management, research, data analysis	$10,000	in-kind
Oregon State University	Consultation	$2,000	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 2002-2)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

A response is needed. The operations and management plan, with methods, needs to be described in detail in the "Proposal objectives, tasks and methods" section, particularly for weed control, restoration of native vegetation, and grazing plans. Brief resumes for the staff are needed. The water use plan should be described in more detail, specifically on the balance between wildlife benefits and associated cooling of instream water versus leaving the water instream for possibly significant fish needs.

The response must include detailed monitoring and evaluation plans in the "Objectives, tasks, and methods" section for both aquatic and terrestrial resources. We note that this is not a new requirement. The FY2000 review by ISRP included the statement that "Subsequent funding for monitoring and evaluation contingent on development of a clear plan for monitoring and evaluation with criteria to evaluate efforts." The specific areas, methods, and sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what type where and when) and data collection protocols need to be specified for both aquatic and terrestrial resources. The proponents should work with the interagency work group supporting Proposal #1992-06100"Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation," to develop the plans for terrestrial monitoring and evaluation. These plans were reviewed by the ISRP in the addendum to report ISRP 2001-4"Review of Draft Albeni Falls M&E Plan."

For monitoring and evaluation of aquatic resources, the proponents may wish to work with the sponsors of Project 199405400 from the ODFW for methods of selection of sampling sites for study of aquatic resources. Please refer to Johnson et al. (2001) for data collection protocols on aquatic habitat.

Johnson, D. H., N. Pittman, E. Wilder, J. A. Silver, R. W. Plotnikoff, B. C. Mason, K. K. Jones, P. Roger, T. A. O'Neil, C. Barrett. 2001. Inventory and Monitoring of Salmon Habitat in the Pacific Northwest - Directory and Synthesis of Protocols for Management/Research and Volunteers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 211pp.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

Proposed work will provide for habitat improvements for bull trout. Reviewers suggest that the budget tasks need to be related strictly to O&M and that construction and implementation activities need to be reevaluated and reclassified.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-11)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Fundable in part. Operation and management plans appear to be adequate, while monitoring and evaluation plans were not. Funding should support only the O&M component at this time. Detailed plans for M&E should be developed and reviewed by the ISRP before funding is recommended. The ISRP believes that it is not appropriate to recommend unconditional funding for projects when one of the ISRP's four primary review guidelines (from the 1996 Power Act Amendment) is that we review and recommend only projects that "have provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results."

The ISRP agrees with Goal 3 (maintain historic wet/dry meadow distribution), but notes that the goal may conflict with instream water needs for fish benefits. This issue deserves further consideration as final details of the implementation plan are developed.

Plans for management of the property appear to be sound, but unfortunately, the long term monitoring and evaluation plans are not adequate and should not be implemented. The ISRP suggests that the proponents work with the interagency work group supporting Proposal #1992-06100"Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation," to develop plans for terrestrial monitoring and evaluation. These plans were reviewed by the ISRP in the addendum to report ISRP 2001-4"Review of Draft Albeni Falls M&E Plan." The proponents should review the response provided by the sponsors of the four wildlife mitigation project proposals in southern Idaho (199505700-03). Also, the draft wildlife monitoring and evaluation plan provided by the sponsors of Proposal #32008 is a significant step toward development of wildlife monitoring protocols that might be recommended to Provinces in the Columbia Basin.

Long-term monitoring for habitat must have probabilistic procedures for site selection with economical data collection procedures. Intensive procedures for subsampling a few subjectively selected macroplots or clumps of willows, i.e., "index" sites, do not provide the coverage necessary to evaluate long-term trends and changes in habitat over large areas. The ISRP encourages the proponents to join the interagency work group to develop plans for monitoring and evaluation of wildlife and terrestrial habitat and to review the Draft Albeni Falls M&E Plan.

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
A

Date:
Jul 23, 2002

Comment:

Recommend. This project needs to provide habitat unit to verify wildlife credits from the project.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment:

Project Issue 2: Burns Paiute Tribe ongoing projects 200000900 -- Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Project; and 200002700 -- Malheur River Wildlife Mitigation Project.

Both of these ongoing projects were rated as "Fund in Part", with the ISRP supporting the O&M components. Bonneville comments support funding for each ("A" ratings) with the condition that the ISRP concerns about monitoring and evaluation are addressed. CBFWA rated both as High Priority.

Many of the objectives and tasks outlined in the in Section 2 (Budget for Planning & Design phase), and Section 5 (Budget for Construction/Implementation phase) should appropriately be defined under Section 6 (Budget for O&M phase). The Council staff worked with the project sponsor to make these corrections. In addition, after the proposals were submitted additional needs have been defined due to the recent acquisitions and implementation of the management plans associated with the projects. Finally, and again after the original proposals were developed, the complexity of the acquisitions have required additional effort beyond that originally anticipated, especially as it relates to the grazing allotments associated with the state and BLM lands (total of 38,377 acres). Bonneville has realigned the budgets of the project to protect the acquisitions.

Council Recommendation: The Council recommends funding these ongoing proposals with the following modifications and conditions:

Project 2000-009-00 - Shift objectives and tasks in Sections 4 and 5 to Section 6 (per September 3, 2002 letter from BPT to the Council). Consolidate appropriate objectives and tasks. During contracting Bonneville and the sponsor should ensure that objectives currently defined in Section 5, objective 2, task (a) is appropriate for O&M support. Funding for Fiscal Year 2004 and 2005 are conditioned on the approval of an M&E plan to be submitted by the sponsor and reviewed by the ISRP. Funding to remain at $146,842 for Fiscal Years 2003 through 2005.

Project 2000-027-00 - Shift objectives and tasks in Sections 4 and 5 to Section 6 for a total budget of $285,000 for Fiscal Year 2003 (per July 29, 2002 meeting discussion and August 19, 2002 letter from BPT). The M&E funding in the proposal in FY 2004 and 2005 at $30,000 is conditioned on the approval of an M & E plan by the ISRP. Project funding for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 are conditioned on the approval of M&E plan and will be increased by 3.4% each of those years.

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Apr 30, 2003

Comment:

Fund as recommended

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

On track.

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$146,842	$146,842	$146,842

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website