FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25028

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

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

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

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?

Comment:

Comment:

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.

Comment:

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

Comment: