FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29029

Additional documents

TitleType
29029 Narrative Narrative
29029 Sponsor Response to ISRP Response
2001 Fire Affected Foraging Map Narrative Attachment
29029 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titlePerform Range Forage Inventory for Large Ungulates
Proposal ID29029
OrganizationConfederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation (CCT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameTahnea Jafari
Mailing addressPO Box 150 Nespelem, WA 99155
Phone / email5096342116 / tahnea.jafari@colvilletribes.com
Manager authorizing this projectJoe Peone, Director, Fish and Wildlife Dept.
Review cycleColumbia Cascade
Province / SubbasinColumbia Cascade / Okanogan
Short descriptionGrazing resource inventory is necessary to enable identifaction and location of grazing lands, forage availibility and quality, for the management of large ungulates including elk, mule and white tail deer, moose and big horn sheep.
Target speciesforage inventory is performed for all large ungulates, benefitting elk, mule deer, white tail deer, moose, big horn sheep wildlife species.
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
48.28 -119.35 The Okanogan Sub-basin portion of the Colville Reservation
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

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Perform forage inventory 3 $159,704
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Perform forage inventory 2004 2005 $319,408
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2004FY 2005
$151,274$151,274

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2003 cost
Personnel FTE: 2.5 $85,946
Fringe $27,005
Supplies GSA vehicle,field computer,field supplies $10,500
Travel $1,000
Indirect $35,253
$159,704
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost$159,704
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2003 budget request$159,704
FY 2003 forecast from 2002$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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 "Proposal objectives, tasks, and methods" section is too brief to allow adequate scientific review.

Probabilistic (statistical) sampling procedures are needed for selection of sites that will be used for determining a forage inventory. The specific sample areas, methods, and sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what type where and when) need to be specified. Details must be given or adequate references to published literature given for not only site selection procedures, but for data collection procedures. What vegetation data are collected in the field and what is the accuracy and precision? The ISRP needs to be convinced that scientifically valid sampling plans are used and that useful data are obtained beyond estimation of total AUMs for large blocks of land.

The scale at which the forage inventory is conducted is not clear. What is the size of unit for which the forage inventory is given? Will a map be prepared with, for example, contour lines of forage available? Habitat types present? Annual production by species? What does a forage inventory amount to and how good are the data in terms of precision and accuracy?

The proposal should include a component for long-term monitoring and evaluation. The proponents are referred to the ISRP Review of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes' Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Plan (19910600) for recommendations ( 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:
High Priority
Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

Historic data is 60 years old and a new inventory is badly needed.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Fundable. The proponents made a good faith effort to address the ISRP's concerns on site selection procedures. However, the ISRP has no confidence in use of index sites for long term environmental monitoring, regardless of procedures long used by the NRCS. If funded, then during the contracting period, the actual procedure for selection of the sample units (one per 200 acres) should be described and reviewed by the ISRP.
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU

Comments
Wildlife Project - Not Reviewed

Already ESA Req?

Biop? No


Recommendation:
C
Date:
Jul 26, 2002

Comment:

Recommend deferral to Subbasin Planning
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: