FY 2000 proposal 20090
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Project |
| Proposal ID | 20090 |
| Organization | Burns Paiute Tribe (BPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Daniel Gonzalez |
| Mailing address | HC 71 - 100 Pasigo St. Burns, OR 97720 |
| Phone / email | 5415731375 / gonfish@orednet.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Middle Snake / Malheur |
| Short description | This aquisition will integrate fish and wildlife management practices that restore the associated land and water that is critically important to the persistance of threatend, endangered and sensitive fish, wildlife and plant species. |
| Target species | Upland Sandpiper, Sandhill Cranes, Rocky Mountain Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
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 |
|---|
| 9701900 |
Stinkingwater project - bull trout and redband trout life history study |
Critlcle headwater streams/ potential spawning and rearing sites for bull trout and redband trout |
| 9405400 |
Bull trout genetics, habitat needs, life history in Central & NE Oregon |
Future bull trout restoration efforts in the Middle Fork Malheur |
| 9705900 |
Securing Wildlife Mitigation - Oregon |
Planning and Coordination |
| 9705900 |
Securing Wildlife Mitigation - Oregon |
|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
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 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
1 FTE (2080) Biologist; 1 (1080) Technician |
$48,160 |
| Fringe |
25% |
$12,040 |
| Supplies |
Fencing, ATV |
$33,500 |
| Operating |
$15/acre X 1760 |
$26,400 |
| Capital |
1. Land aqusition 2. Vehicle |
$1,834,000 |
| NEPA |
Estimation |
$10,000 |
| Travel |
140 miles round trip X 4 days/week X 28 weeks @ .32/mile |
$5,020 |
| Indirect |
26% |
$33,181 |
| $2,002,301 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $2,002,301 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $2,002,301 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| The Nature Concervancy |
Assist with writing long term management plans and implementation -- consultants |
$5,000 |
unknown |
| Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife |
Assist with fish and wildlife inventories, monitoring,
evaluation and restoration |
$30,000 |
unknown |
| USFS Prairie City Ranger District, Oregon |
Assist with monitoring adjacent USFS cattle allotments, water quality and land management |
$30,000 |
unknown |
| Oregon Water Trust |
Purchace or lease water rights for instream flows/ State of Oregon |
$30,000 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Funding, Weather
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fund for one year
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund for one year. The ISRP recommends short-term funding for acquisition and further on-ground survey work. Subsequent funding for monitoring and evaluation contingent on development of a clear plan for monitoring and evaluation with criteria to evaluate efforts.
Comments:
Securing suitable habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species is a cost effective and ecologically compatible method of improving the probability of persistence, and this appears to be a reasonable proposal. The acquisition section of the proposal is strong, but the ongoing restoration and monitoring/evaluation are weak. Species to be benefited are identified and the land and its value are clearly described. A variety of valuable natural communities will be protected and the acquisition cost (from TNC) is reasonable. This proposed acquisition offers potentially large benefits of connecting two other wildlife areas. Bull trout and redband trout should benefit in addition to wildlife. The proposal had several important weakness. The restrictions under the conservation easement should be better described. The proposal describes M&E to determine if desired results are achieved, but specific desired results are not given. What are they and how exactly will they be evaluated? The emphasis on passive restoration is positive, but there also are vague descriptions of active restoration without clear justification of need, explanation of techniques to be used, or explanation of evaluation procedures and criteria.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
The objectives appear to be tasks. Without measurable biological objectives, how does the project benefit the target species? Who gets title to the property? Who pays the taxes? Who does the maintenance, etc,?
The "short project description" and target species are not consistent.
Explain how this project fits into a watershed context.
Recommendation:
Fundable
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
OWC
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]