FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25083
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 25083 Narrative | Narrative |
| 25083 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Special Status Wildlife Species Surveys and Priority Habitat Assessment in the Deschutes River Subbasin |
| Proposal ID | 25083 |
| Organization | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Christopher Carey |
| Mailing address | 61374 Parrell Road Bend, OR 97702 |
| Phone / email | 5413886363 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Susan P. Barnes |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Deschutes |
| Short description | Establish permanent sampling stations and transects for target species, conduct species surveys, and assess habitat for maintaining species viability through time |
| Target species | Pygmy rabbits, burrowing owls, avian species in shrub-steppe and riparian habitats |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 44.9 | -121.11 | the northern portion of the Deschutes River subbasin in Jefferson, Wasco and Sherman counties |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Columbia River Basin Wildlife-Habitat Type Mapping by the Northwest Habitat Institute and NWPPC | Habitat data mapping effort for the NWPPC's EDT Analysis. Mapped habitat data will be used to help select proposal study sites | |
| Status Review of Wildlife Mitigation at Columbia Basin Hydroelectric Projects, Col. Mainstem and Lower Snake Facilities (BPA 1984) | Reviewed past, present and proposed future wildlife planning and mitigation programs at The Dalles Dam. Called for quantitative and qualitative assessment of wildlife losses attributable to The Dalles Dam and implementation of mitigation plans. | |
| Wildlife Impact Assessment: Bonneville, McNary, The Dalles, and John Day projects. (Rasmussen and Wright 1990) | Evaluated pre- and post- dam construction/inundation habitat conditions and estimated wildlife losses using the HEP methodology. Habitat protection and enhancement project resulting from this survey project will help fulfill mitigation obligation | |
| 199208400 | Oregon Trust Agreement Planning (OTAP) Project (BPA 1993) | Identified and evaluated potential wildlife mitigation sites within Oregon. Data will be considered in analysis and project scoping. |
| Assessing OTAP Project Using Gap Analysis (ODFW 1997) | Refinement of OTAP Project. Identified and evaluated potential wildlife mitigation sites in Oregon using Gap Analysis techniques. Evaluates secureness of important habitat sites. Will be used for selection of study site. | |
| Obtain or Develop GIS Layers for Generation of Specific Natural Resource GIS Maps and Analysis | New FY 02 Columbia Plateau project proposal submitted by ODFW which will compile existing GIS data and develop new GIS data layers for project natural resource management planning purposes. | |
| Habitat restoration and biological monitoring in the Deschutes River subbasin by USFS and BLM | Watershed restoration effort and monitoring of upland and riparian/riverine habitat changes. Will complement survey project results and analysis. | |
| Habitat restoration, biological monitoring, and species surveys in the Deschutes River subbasin by Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon | Watershed restoration effort and monitoring of upland and riparian/riverine habitat changes. Will complement survey project results and analysis. | |
| Conservation planning and habitat restoration in upland and riparian habitat areas in the Deschutes River subbasin by Soil and Water Conservation Districts | Restoration effort of upland and riparian habitats. Will complement survey project results and analysis, and subsequent on-the-ground actions. | |
| Wildlife surveys in the Lake Billy Chinook and Lake Simtustus areas by Portland General Electric | Game and non-game wildlife species surveys. Will complement survey project results and analysis. | |
| Protection and enhancement of habitats in the Deschutes River subbasin by the Deschutes Basin Land Trust | Fee-title acquisition, conservation easement and enhancement of upland and riparian habitat types to benefit fish and wildlife. Will complement subsequent on-the-ground project activities. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Conduct burrowing owl survey | a. Assess available habitat information | 1 | $7,000 | Yes |
| b. Field verify habitat conditions | 1 | $4,000 | Yes | |
| c. Field search for nest sites and colonies | 3 | $15,000 | Yes | |
| 2. Conduct pygmy rabbit survey | a. Assess available habitat information | 1 | $8,000 | Yes |
| b. Field verify potential habitat sites | 1 | $6,000 | Yes | |
| c. Field search for rabbits, sample points | 3 | $18,000 | Yes | |
| 3. Conduct bird survey in shrub-steppe and riparian habitats | a. Assess available habitat information | 1 | $4,000 | Yes |
| b. Field verify survey sites | 1 | $8,000 | Yes | |
| c. Conduct surveys, sample points | 3 | $15,000 | Yes | |
| 4. Conduct ODFW contract administration | a. Hire sub-contractors | 1 | $5,000 | Yes |
| b. Prepare study design | 1 | $5,000 | Yes | |
| c. Conduct project oversight | 3 | $5,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Conduct burrowing owl surveys | 2003 | 2004 | $70,000 |
| 2. Conduct pygmy rabbit survey | 2003 | 2004 | $70,000 |
| 3. Conduct bird surveys | 2003 | 2004 | $50,000 |
| 4. Conduct ODFW project administration | 2003 | 2004 | $30,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $110,000 | $110,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NA | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| NA | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NA | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| NA | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NA | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| NA | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 2.5 mos of NRS3 wildlife biologist | $9,000 |
| Fringe | @ 38.8% | $3,000 |
| Indirect | @ 21% | $3,000 |
| Subcontractor | species and habitat surveyors | $85,000 |
| $100,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $100,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $100,000 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| ODFW | personnel time - 3 mos. of NRS3 biologist | $20,000 | in-kind |
| ODFW | vehicle use, office space and supplies | $8,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns.
This proposal is weak and needs considerable revision.
This project would conduct habitat assessments, establish permanent sampling points and conduct surveys for owls, rabbits and birds in the Deschutes River subbasin to determine the need for management action. The project has strong potential for coordination with other projects but the proposal lacks specifics as to how the information from related projects will be used. The proposal language is that opportunities to coordinate project activities "will be considered." Will data be collected for three years on each species or for one year only? Either way, is the project just trying to establish presence/absence or to document trends?
- Please clarify whether there is a direct link between the goals and objectives of the Deschutes River Subbasin summary and the priority habitat restoration opportunities identified through gap analysis in the Oregon Trust Agreement Planning Project.
- Which TES species will this project help the CTWSRO address?
- Specify how information provided by related projects will be used.
- Detail on sampling design and methods should be provided. Assurance should be given that the proposal addresses monitoring as described in the introduction to this report (see Tier 2 monitoring).
- How would BPA receive credit for wildlife mitigation if they support this project?
All of the work would be contracted out, but procedures should be adequately described to insure that the work is acceptable and useful in the end.
This is a big area, but a survey must be a survey, not study of subjectively selected study sites. This study would benefit from interaction with the EPA EMAP office in Corvallis and the Oregon DEQ in Portland. See project proposals # 25010 and # 25088. The ODFW game and non-game biologists could benefit from interaction with the fisheries biologists concerning the use of "representative survey sites."
An adequate survey might be designed by using the Northwest Habitat Institute wildlife habitat map as a sampling frame and then implementing a valid probabilistic sampling procedure such as that developed and tested by the Corvallis EPA EMAP program. However, we doubt that this map has been adequately ground truthed. We would encourage a project to systematically ground truth the Northwest Habitat Institute map by visiting a probabilistic sample of sites. Economical pilot surveys for burrowing owls, pygmy rabbits and avian species might then be conducted at those sites. We have little faith that the current habitat map has sufficient accuracy on which to develop a long-term wildlife survey.
Comment:
Comment:
Not fundable. Inadequate response. The response is a set of replies to ISRP comments rather than a major revision of the proposal as requested. The replies do not provide the requested detail on sample design and methods, creating the impression that the investigators have not developed a systematic plan to approach this work. The ISRP remains unconvinced that the proposal contains adequate guidelines for a contractor to conduct useful probabilistic surveys for presence/absence or distribution of abundance of these sensitive species. The proponents at the very end of the response (after the references) make the following statements: "This project will utilize the monitoring design developed by the EPA EMAP. This design selects stream sites within a target area (watershed, basin, ecoregion, etc.) using a probabilistic or random site selection procedure. In this way an unbiased set of samples is collected which allows a more accurate evaluation of the status and, over time, trends in environmental conditions and specific species. EPA EMAP staff in the Corvallis, Oregon office are willing to review and comment on our project sampling designs." These statements could be taken as the starting point for an adequate proposal, but they are inconsistent with most of the statements in the proposal and in the response.As an example of the detail needed, see the ODFW response to ISRP concerns on Proposal #200002300"Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Horn Butte (Philippi Property)". 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 involved 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:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUN/A
Comments
Already ESA Req? N/A
Biop? no
Comment: