FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25028

Additional documents

TitleType
25028 Narrative Narrative
25028 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleJohn Day Upland Restoration
Proposal ID25028
OrganizationConfederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJennifer M. Stafford
Mailing addressPO Box 480 Canyon City, OR 97820
Phone / email5415754212 / wstribe@highdesertnet.com
Manager authorizing this projectTerry A. Luther
Review cycleColumbia Plateau
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / John Day
Short descriptionExpand 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 speciesSage grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, bighorn sheep, white-tailed deer, medusahead, downy brome, juniper
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
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 agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
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 IDTitleDescription
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
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated 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 2003FY 2004
$13,851$13,851

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated 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 2003FY 2004
$314,058$314,058

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated 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 2003FY 2004
$59,274$59,274

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated 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 2003FY 2004
$14,170$14,170

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.0%
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
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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.

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?


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.
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.


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


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment: