Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Control Okanogan Weeds -Invasive Species Project |
| Proposal ID | 29004 |
| Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation (CCT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Dan Fagerlie, Mark Reynolds |
| Mailing address | 350 E. Delaware Ave. #9 P.O. Box 150 Republic, WA 99116 Nespelem, WA 99155 |
| Phone / email | 5097755235 / fagerlie@wsu.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | Joe Peone, Director, Fish and Wildlife Dept. |
| Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Okanogan |
| Short description | Integrated program to control invasive noxious weeds for the benefit of wildlife and their associated ecosystems through the use of biologic insect agents, education, outreach, and habitat management. |
| Target species | Mule deer, elk, bighorn sheep, sharp-tailed grouse, sage sparrow; all wildlife species will benefit |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 48.5 |
-120 |
Okanogan Sub-basin Portion of the Colville Reservation which is located between these latitude and longitude points |
| 48 |
-119 |
|
| 48.25 |
-119.5 |
|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 21034 |
Colville Tribes Restore Shart-tailed Grouse |
Project restores critical shrub-steppe and riparian habitat by using weed control as a management tool. |
| 199506700 |
Colville Tribes Performance Contract for Continuing Acquisition |
Acquire, protect & enhance fish/wildlife habitat utilizing weed control as management tool |
| 199204800 |
Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range O&M Project |
Protect, enhance and manage wildlife habitat implementing major weed control efforts |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1.Design, coordinate, lead team guiding weed suppression and education |
|
1 |
$101,573 |
|
| 2.Develop Master Weed Advisor Volunteer Program |
a. develop curriculum |
.5 |
$3,000 |
|
| 3. Develop educational outreach program |
a.develop weed ID and integrated control program |
.5 |
$2,000 |
|
|
b. create flyers, newsletters for public distribution |
.1 |
$5,180 |
|
|
b. develop training sessions for field staff and general public |
.2 |
$1,500 |
|
| 4. Designate priority locations of weed control |
a.Rank habitat units according to wildlife use |
.2 |
$1,000 |
|
|
b. Rank units by likelihood of successful weed control |
.2 |
$1,000 |
|
|
c. select locations |
.2 |
$14,680 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1.Enhance habitat |
a. Establish bioagent insects at selected locations |
5 |
$1,000 |
|
|
b. redistribute all available agents |
5 |
$2,000 |
|
| 2. Protect habitat |
a.Control livestock access via fencing
b. Remove trespass livestock |
5 |
$150,000 |
|
| 3.Educate Public |
a. distribute newspaper inserts, flyers |
5 |
$1,600 |
|
|
b.hold training sessions |
5 |
$1,200 |
|
| 4. Implement Master Weed Advisor Volunteer Program |
|
5 |
$2,200 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1.Enhance habitat |
2004 |
2007 |
$10,000 |
| 2. Protect habitat |
2004 |
2007 |
$1,002,292 |
| 3.Educate Public |
2004 |
2007 |
$9,000 |
| 4. Implement Master Weed Advisor Volunteer Program |
2004 |
2007 |
$8,800 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|
| $257,023 | $257,023 | $257,023 | $257,023 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Protect enhanced habitat |
a. repair fences |
5 |
$6,000 |
|
|
b. remove trespass livestock |
5 |
$1,000 |
|
| 2. Continue distribution of bioagents |
|
5 |
$1,000 |
|
| 3. Continue educational outreach |
|
5 |
$1,000 |
|
| 4. Continue Master Weed Advisor Program |
|
5 |
$0 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. Protect enhanced habitat |
2004 |
2007 |
$24,000 |
| 2. Continue distribution of bioagents |
2004 |
2007 |
$4,000 |
| 3. Continue educational outreach |
2004 |
2007 |
$4,000 |
| 4. Continue Master Weed Advisor Program |
2004 |
2007 |
$4,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|
| $36,000 | $36,000 | $36,000 | $36,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Research success of establishment of bioagents |
a. assess site preference |
5 |
$1,000 |
|
|
b. measure knapweed density |
5 |
$1,000 |
|
|
c. measure bioagent density |
5 |
$1,000 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
|
2004 |
2007 |
$12,000 |
| 1. Research success of establishment of bioagents |
|
|
$0 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|
| $3,000 | $3,000 | $3,000 | $3,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 2.5 |
$79,027 |
| Fringe |
|
$21,650 |
| Supplies |
GSA, field tools, bioagent supplies,educational equipment and manuals |
$13,500 |
| Travel |
|
$1,000 |
| Indirect |
|
$34,756 |
| Capital |
fencing materials and supplies ($5000/mi x 30 miles/year) |
$150,000 |
| $299,933 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $299,933 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $299,933 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or 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:
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed. The ISRP suggests that the objectives of fencing, education, and communication, and research be separated in the proposal with clear indications of associated tasks, benefits, and costs.
Additional benefits of controlling livestock access via fencing, if any, should be included? Describe the full extent of fencing with maps. Are only the weed patches fenced? Is there an expected increase in forage for wildlife other than control of spread of weeds? Is aquatic habitat protected by the fencing? What are the benefits to fish, if any?
Is a HEP analysis planned to account for improvements in wildlife habitat to provide credit toward BPA's responsibility to mitigate for loss of wildlife habitat?
The experimental design, layout of plots on a map, and proposed statistical analysis should be given for the proposed research on effects of release of lesser knapweed flower weevil for control of knapweed. Is this research part of or related to a long-term monitoring and evaluation program?
This project needs to include or reference a long-term monitoring and evaluation program for distribution and abundance of noxious weeds and wildlife habitat in general. If the M&E is being conducted in another project then a complete discussion of how that project provides appropriate M&E for this proposal needs to be included. Baseline data from ongoing M&E, if any, should be given.
The proponents are referred to the ISRP Review of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes' Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Plan (19910600) ( http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2001-4addendum.htm). The project was reviewed in the Mountain Columbia Province to determine whether it provided scientifically sound criteria and protocol to prioritize habitat acquisitions. The ISRP found that document described a good plan for habitat acquisition and restoration of wildlife habitat in mitigation for lost aquatic and riparian habitat due to the Kerr Project No. 5 located on the Flathead River and could serve as a useful model to other habitat and restoration proposals with some minor revision of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) component of the plan. The M&E component has subsequently been reviewed and approved subject to minor modifications in ISRP report (www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2001-4AlbeniFalls.pdf). The proponents are also referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.
Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
May 17, 2002
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002
Comment:
Not fundable. The proponents did not respond adequately to the questions and concerns raised by the ISRP in the Preliminary Review.
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Comments
While weed control is a worthy effort, difficult to imagine how project would benefit fish.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No
Recommendation:
C
Date:
Jul 26, 2002
Comment:
Recommend deferral to Subbasin Planning
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002
Comment: