Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Perform Range Forage Inventory for Large Ungulates |
| Proposal ID | 29029 |
| Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation (CCT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Tahnea Jafari |
| Mailing address | PO Box 150 Nespelem, WA 99155 |
| Phone / email | 5096342116 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Joe Peone, Director, Fish and Wildlife Dept. |
| Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Okanogan |
| Short description | Grazing 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 species | forage inventory is performed for all large ungulates, benefitting elk, mule deer, white tail deer, moose, big horn sheep wildlife species. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 48.28 |
-119.35 |
The Okanogan Sub-basin portion of the Colville Reservation |
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 |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| Perform forage inventory |
|
3 |
$159,704 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| Perform forage inventory |
2004 |
2005 |
$319,408 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $151,274 | $151,274 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 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 2003 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 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 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 "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:
