Proposal 199802200: Pine Creek Conservation Area
|
1. Administrative 2. Location 3. Species 4. Past accomplishments 5. Relationships |
6. Objectives 7. Work elements 8. Budget 9. Future 10. Narrative |
Organization: Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon
Short description:
Ongoing wildlife habitat and watershed management on the Pine Creek Conservation Area in FY2010-2012 (includes Pine Creek Ranch and Wagner Ranch acquisitions).
Contacts
| Contact name | Role | Address | Phone | |
| Rick Hayes | Project Lead | Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon 39067 Highway 218 Fossil OR 97830 |
541.489.3477 | pinecreek@wildblue.net |
Section 2. Location
Province: Columbia Plateau Subbasin: John Day
Specific locations
| Lat/long | Location desc | Waterbody (lake or stream) | County/State | Subbasin | Resolution | Primary? |
| North 44*54’35”, West 120*26’39” | This project is a conservation area of approximately 33,557 acres. A map is included with the project narrative. The Latitude/Longitude coordinate is at the headquarters on the property. | John Day River | Wheeler | John Day | area | Yes |
Section 3. Species
Primary: Wildlife: All Wildlife
Additional species:
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| FY | Accomplishment |
| 1997 | Pine Creek Ranch identified as a potential mitigation site through GAP analysis due to linkages provided between wildlife habitats on adjacent federal lands. |
| 1998 | Began landowner negotiations for acquisition. |
| 1999 | Pre-acquisition surveys and appraisals were completed and BPA funding for acquisition of Pine Creek Ranch was secured. |
| 2000 | 24,304-acre Pine Creek Ranch acquired in November 1999. Livestock removed. Monitoring and management planning began. Access regulations and education partnership with OMSI developed. Noxious weed survey and control began. Manager hired in Aug. 2000. |
| 2001 | Draft Wildlife Habitat and Watershed Management Plan. Water rights leased instream. Acquired 9,253-acre Wagner Ranch. OWEB grant for fish-passage design. Monitoring: photos, PFC, riparian veg., water quality, deer & elk, steelhead redds, birds, & HEP. |
| 2002 | Management Plan public review, CBFWA approval, submission to BPA. Enrolled 5.4 miles of Pine Creek in CREP. Removed one passage barrier culvert. Additional monitoring: digital ortho photography, upland vegetation, aquatic habitat survey on John Day R. |
| 2003 | Replaced undersized culvert ½ mile up Pine Creek with bottomless arch. Cut juniper in 2 miles of riparian area to improve wildlife habitat and watershed function. Additional monitoring: USGS streamflow gage with water temp. & weather; HEP on Wagner R. |
| 2004 | BPA approved Management Plan. Planted 12,200 trees & shrubs & 134 ac. bunchgrass in CREP buffer. Replaced 2 culverts. Completed 10,907-ac. burn with BLM to improve wildlife habitat and watershed health. Cut juniper in 1.3 miles of riparian areas. |
| 2005 | Completed 8,726 ac burn targeting juniper in the Pine Creek watershed. Cut juniper in ½ mile of Robinson Canyon. Continued education partnership, access program, and monitoring photos, streamflow, water temp., weather, deer & elk, steelhead, and birds. |
| 2006 | Submitted 5-yr comprehensive monitoring report. Continued data collection. Continued vegetation management, education and public access programs. Repaired Jennies Road, removed 8.5 miles of fence, managed beneficial use of two large wildfires 2200 ac. |
| 2007 | Continued monitoring, vegetation management, public access programs. Removed 7 miles interior fence, repaired Rattlesnake Cy. and Rhodes Cy. roads, removed 3.5 miles overhead powerline at Wagner Ranch, managed beneficial use of 2300 ac. Black Top wildfire |
| 2008 | Continued monitoring, vegetation mgmt, public access programs. Initiated comprehensive cultural resources assessment, removed 7 miles interior fence, improved major legislative land exchange concept, neared completion of water rights transfer instream. |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Project ID | Project Title | Relationship |
| BPA | 199705900 | Or W/L Plan And Coordination | The Pine Creek and Wagner Ranch acquisitions were identified by this umbrella project for Oregon wildlife mitigation planning, coordination, and implementation. |
| BPA | 200104000 | Wagner Ranch Acquisition | Acquisition of Wagner Ranch and its incorporation into the Pine Creek Conservation Area was funded as a High Priority project while its review as a Wildlife Mitigation project was pending. |
| OWEB - State | 204-431 | Pine Cr Culvert Replacement at Robinson Canyon | This cooperative project with Wheeler SWCD was proposed by the Tribes, and received joint funding from OWEB, USFWS, and BPA through the Pine Creek Conservation Area. It removed two undersized passage barrier culverts, one from Pine Creek at Robinson Canyon, and the other on Robinson Canyon near the mouth. Both were replaced with bottomless arch structures. |
| OWEB - State | 205-089 | Pine Cr Prescription Fire For Watershed Restoration | This prescribed fire for watershed restoration and wildlife habitat improvement was a cooperative project of the Tribes, Prineville District BLM, and Wheeler SWCD. Funding was from OWEB, BLM, and BPA. |
| Other: OWEB - State | 203-206 | Pine Creek - Clarno Rd Fish Passage Restoration | The cooperative project with Wheeler SWCD and Wheeler County was proposed by the Tribes and received joint funding from OWEB, USFWS, and BPA through the Pine Creek Conservation Area. It replaced an undersized passage barrier culvert one half mile above the mouth of Pine Creek with a bottomless arch structure. |
| Other: OWEB - State | 201-254 | Pine Creek Steelhead Habitat Improvement Design & Cost-Analysis | This OWEB funded cooperative project between the Tribes and Wheeler SWCD was for engineering fish passage designs for three passage barrier sites on Pine Creek. The passage barriers were removed in separate projects in 2002, 2003, and 2004. |
| Other: USFWS | PC-2 2002 | Pine Creek Fish Passage Improvement 2002 | This cooperative project between the Tribes and Wheeler SWCD was cooperatively funded by USFWS and BPA through the Pine Creek Conservation Area O&M funding. It removed an elevated undersized culvert to restore fish passage and installed three rock weirs to protect the stream grade. |
| Other: NRCS/FSA | CREP | Pine Creek Riparian Buffer | The Tribes enrolled a riparian buffer along the lower 5.4 miles of Pine Creek in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. The NRCS and FSA pay an annual rental fee per acre on the 124.1 acres enrolled, and provided reimbursement for planting grasses, shrubs, and trees in the riparian buffer. |
| Other: BLM | NA | Rattlesnake Prescribed Burn | The Tribes worked with BLM to plan this prescribed fire for watershed restoration and wildlife habitat improvement. The burn was completed in September 2004. The burn unit of 10,904 acres included 7,674 acres of the Pine Creek Conservation Area. |
| BPA | 200203400 | Wheeler Co Riparian Buffers | This project of Wheeler SWCD is dedicated to implementing riparian buffers on streams in Wheeler County. In May, 2004, the Tribes and SWCD hosted a Twilight Tour that highlighted the Tribes' CREP riparian buffer along with other wildlife habitat and watershed projects on the Pine Creek Conservation Area. |
| BPA | 199801800 | John Day Watershed Restoration | The Tribes' Watershed Restoration Program staff initially assisted with development of the Pine Creek proposal and continue to work in partnership with the Pine Creek Conservation Area. |
| BPA | 200104101 | Forrest Ranch Management | The Forrest Conservation Area is a Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs John Day Basin project, focused on fish and wildlife habitat restoration. The Tribes' Conservation Area Managers work collaboratively. |
| BPA | 200001500 | Oxbow Ranch Management | The Oxbow Conservation Area is a Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs John Day Basin project, focused on fish and wildlife habitat restoration. The Tribes' Conservation Area Managers work collaboratively. |
| Other: USFWS | NA | Partners for Fish and Wildlife | The USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program provided cost-share funds and technical assistance for implementation of three fish passage projects on Pine Creek (OWEB 203-206 & 204-431, USFWS PC-2 2002). These projects were all in cooperation with Wheeler SWCD. |
| Other: BLM | NA | Porcupine Prescribed Burn | This prescribed fire of 8,726 acres targeted the Pine creek watershed for wildlife habitat and watershed restoration. This cooperative project of the Tribes, Wheeler SWCD and Prineville District BLM, was jointly funded and is also in this list as OWEB 205-089. |
| BPA | 200201300 | Water Entity (Rpa 151) | The Columbia Basin Water Transactions Program of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation supports the work of the Oregon Water Trust. Oregon Water Trust assisted the Tribes with instream leasing of irrigation water rights on Pine Creek and the John Day River. |
Section 6. Objectives
| Objective title | Description | Relevant subbasin plan | Relevant strategy(ies) | Page number(s) |
| *All Biological Objectives* | Is a placeholder for use in Section 7 when a single Work Element applies to all Biological Objectives of the Proposal. | John Day | Is a placeholder for use in Section 7 when a single Work Element applies to all Biological Objectives of the Proposal. | Page number left blank |
| Diversity of native wildlife increased. | Increased use by riparian, grassland, and shrub-steppe associated wildlife species. To be encouraged by allowing development of riparian habitats and managing upland habitats. To be evaluated through monitoring of breeding birds. | John Day | E: Riparian Habitat Improvements; G: Protect Existing High Quality Habitat Areas; H: Upland Improvement Projects; I: Education/Outreach. | 263,270,273,278 |
| Habitat and watershed potential demonstrated. | Pine Creek Conservation Area serves as an example of wildlife habitat and watershed management in the John Day Basin and Intermountain West. | John Day | I: Education/Outreach | 278 |
| Hunting opportunities provided. | Productivity of mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, and upland game bird populations adequate to allow continued tribal and public hunting opportunities. To be achieved through habitat management and monitored through long-term population ratio monitoring and harvest reporting. | John Day | G: Protect Existing High Quality Habitat Areas; H: Upland Improvement Projects; I: Education/Outreach | 270,273,278 |
| Invasive species impacts reduced. | Impacts of invasive species on wildlife habitat quality and hydrological function should be minimal. Invasive species populations and potential for further spread should be reduced. To be evaluated beginning in 2010. | John Day | E: Riparian Habitat Improvements; G: Protect Existing High Quality Habitat Areas; H: Upland Improvement Projects. | 263,270,273 |
| Juniper encroachment reduced. | Ongoing encroachment of western juniper into grassland, shrub-steppe, and riparian habitats reduced. In FY2010-12, approx. 4,000 acres burned and/or juniper cuts. | John Day | E: Riparian Habitat Improvements; H: Upland Improvement Projects; Grassland Obj. 2 - Str. 1 & 4; Western Juniper Obj. 2 - Str. 1 & 2. | 263,273,302,305 |
| Minimal erosion from roads. | Roads in a state of maintenance that prevents extensive movement of sediment and allows for management access within interior of the Conservation Area. | John Day | H: Upland Improvement Projects. | 273 |
| Steelhead spawning increased to 4 out of 5 years. | Frequency of steelhead spawning and rearing use of Pine Creek increased from current levels (7 out of last 12 years) to 4 out of 5 years (80%) by 2015. | John Day | C: Flow Restoration, E: Riparian Habitat Improvements, G: Protect Existing High Quality Habitat Areas; H: Upland Improvement Projects | 257,263,270,273 |
Section 7. Work elements
| Work element name | Work element title | Objective(s) | Start date | End date | Estimated budget> | Sponsor performs work? |
| Conduct Pre-Acquisition Activities | Coordinate Land Exchange between the Tribes and BLM | *All Biological Objectives* | 2/1/2010 | 1/31/2012 | 53,069 | Yes |
| Description: An equal value land exchange proposal to improve management and access to both tribal and federal land has been developed in cooperation with local government, neighbors, and conservation groups, and endorsed by the Wheeler County Commission. Federal wilderness legislation includes this exchange of 9058 total acres, and is expected to be enacted into law in early 2009. The legislation specifies a two year timetable and cost-shared evaluation procedures (appraisals, surveys, clearances) to be undertaken cooperatively with BLM. This WE includes necessary coordination and gaining approval of the exchange by BPA under terms of the project’s governing MOA. Aside from the original acquisitions of the Pine Creek and Wagner Ranch properties, this exchange represents the most beneficial adjustment of the conservation area and its habitat qualities since the project’s inception. | ||||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Environmental Compliance | *All Biological Objectives* | 2/1/2010 | 1/31/2013 | 13,772 | Yes |
|
Description: Covers Environmental Compliance documentation activities for operations and management activities on the Pine Creek Conservation Area. Includes the annual documentation of the project’s herbicide usage in accordance with the BPA programmatic consultation and BiOp guiding this activity on F&W projects.
Metrics: |
||||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | Prepare and submit documents to BPA | *All Biological Objectives* | 2/1/2010 | 1/31/2013 | 16,773 | Yes |
| Description: Estimated costs for daily management of the conservation area property and planning/administration of projects are spread across the other listed Work Elements. This WE includes costs associated with the specific preparation and submittal of required documents to BPA. This work annually includes Income and Expense Reports, SOW/Budget Contracting documents, Cost-sharing data, and Federal FY Accrual Estimates. Costs are not included within this WE for associated periodic reports/submittals to any other F&W Program entities. | ||||||
| Produce (Annual) Progress Report | Produce and Submit Annual Reports | *All Biological Objectives* | 2/1/2010 | 1/31/2013 | 13,727 | Yes |
| Description: Produce and submit an annual report in the Pisces system, generally in April of each year. Work element includes nominal costs to produce and submit approximately four quarterly status reports into Pisces each year. | ||||||
| Remove Debris | Remove obsolete interior fences and non-historic debris dumps | Diversity of native wildlife increased.<br>Habitat and watershed potential demonstrated. | 2/1/2010 | 1/31/2013 | 116,148 | No |
| Description: Involves continued work to remove existing barbed -wire and woven-wire interior fences that pose a hazard to wildlife and interfere with natural movement of wildlife. Work is cost-shared with non-government organizations and utilizes volunteer labor. Specific projects are focused on priority areas identified in the property-wide interior fence inventory conducted 2008-2009, and near the Spring Basin Wilderness boundary (under expected 2009 lawmaking and resultant BLM-CTWS land exchange – see WE below). As determined by the comprehensive cultural resources inventory in 2008-09, various dumps and obsolete large objects may be removed from habitat areas along Highway 218 and Wagner Ranch. | ||||||
| Remove Debris | Remove obsolete non-historic buildings at Lee Homestead and Wagner Ranch. | Diversity of native wildlife increased.<br>Habitat and watershed potential demonstrated. | 2/1/2010 | 1/31/2012 | 31,000 | No |
| Description: Remove the modern livestock shed and double-wide mobile home at the Lee Homestead (the latter building if not already successfully sold or donated in FY2009). The shed may be taken apart and re-erected near the ranch headquarters for the conservation area’s long term capital equipment/supply storage. Demolish and remove the decrepit house at Wagner Ranch if it is determined to be un-repairable. | ||||||
| Maintain Vegetation | Manage Vegetation | Diversity of native wildlife increased.<br>Habitat and watershed potential demonstrated.<br>Hunting opportunities provided.<br>Invasive species impacts reduced. | 2/1/2010 | 1/31/2013 | 49,979 | Yes |
| Description: Includes most aspects of vegetation management, including maintenance of riparian buffer plantings and improvement of upland grasslands/shrub-steppe. Buffer OM includes replacement of failed plantings, recovery or repair of damaged browse protection, monitoring of beaver impacts, and other routine maintenance actions. Property-wide weed control is included in the “remove vegetation” Work Element listed below. | ||||||
| Remove vegetation | Weed Control | Diversity of native wildlife increased.<br>Habitat and watershed potential demonstrated.<br>Hunting opportunities provided.<br>Invasive species impacts reduced.<br>Juniper encroachment reduced. | 2/1/2010 | 1/31/2013 | 76,055 | No |
|
Description: Annual cooperative weed control work with the weed agents of both Wheeler and Jefferson Counties. Treatments include herbicide applications, use of bio-controls, mechanical removal, and other tactics. Work is focused on primary vectors including roads, degraded former farm fields, and waterway floodplains. Herbicide use is coordinated under the programmatic consultation/BiOp governing the F&W Program’s herbicide use; planned and actual spraying activity is reported to BPA annually.
Metrics: |
||||||
| Remove vegetation | Juniper Cuts in Watersheds/ Wildland Fire Use areas/ Management Roads | Diversity of native wildlife increased.<br>Habitat and watershed potential demonstrated.<br>Hunting opportunities provided.<br>Invasive species impacts reduced.<br>Juniper encroachment reduced. | 2/1/2010 | 1/31/2013 | 86,015 | No |
|
Description: Cut juniper to improve wildlife habitat and watershed health, focused on waterways and other priority locations (groundwater areas) as described in the PCCA management plan. Specific cuts would also target delineated “maximum management use” areas to optimize beneficial use of future naturally started wildfires (Wildland Fire Use areas). Cutting will include buffers along management roads and other strategic/naturally occurring firebreaks to enable sustenance of predetermined MMA’s.
Metrics: |
||||||
| Install Fence | Replace exterior boundary fences | Diversity of native wildlife increased.<br>Habitat and watershed potential demonstrated.<br>Hunting opportunities provided.<br>Invasive species impacts reduced.<br>Juniper encroachment reduced. | 2/1/2011 | 1/31/2013 | 49,600 | No |
|
Description: Install or replace boundary fences at Cove Creek/Chichester, Robinson Canyon, and Dry Hollow to exclude livestock and reduce the spread of noxious weeds. Restore the interior (inholding) boundary fence at Black Top/Sluice Canyon. Work to be engaged with cost-sharing/cooperation of neighboring ranchers. Fencing work will additionally improve the management of public access and the administration of the hunting program on the property.
Metrics: |
||||||
| Plant Vegetation | Lowland field restoration – Pine Creek/Highway 218 | Diversity of native wildlife increased.<br>Habitat and watershed potential demonstrated.<br>Hunting opportunities provided.<br>Invasive species impacts reduced.<br>Juniper encroachment reduced.<br>Minimal erosion from roads.<br>Steelhead spawning increase | 2/1/2010 | 1/31/2012 | 48,750 | No |
|
Description: Long term work project to begin FY2009. Installation of important winter browse shrub species and native grass stands in degraded farm fields at intermittent locations along the reach of Pine Creek. Individual sites located between the mouth of the creek and approximately RM 5. In numerous areas, habitats are currently dominated by non-native pasture grasses and broadleaf weeds. Work includes planting of containerized shrubs with volunteer labor, and sub-contracted field preparation and dry-land native grass seeding.
Metrics: |
||||||
| Plant Vegetation | Lowland field and riparian restoration – Wagner Ranch/John Day River | Diversity of native wildlife increased.<br>Habitat and watershed potential demonstrated.<br>Hunting opportunities provided.<br>Invasive species impacts reduced.<br>Juniper encroachment reduced.<br>Minimal erosion from roads.<br>Steelhead spawning increase | 2/1/2011 | 1/31/2013 | 74,746 | No |
|
Description: Similar to project described above, focused on the similar degraded lowland farm fields at the Wagner Ranch end of the property. Work areas located at various points along 3 miles of John Day River frontage. Project includes continued installation of hardwood trees along riparian areas with volunteer labor (begun 2008). Native grassland restoration work (preparation and seeding) is phased to follow companion lowland restoration occurring earlier on Pine Creek floodplains/terraces. Work is complicated by remoteness and difficult seasonal access.
Metrics: |
||||||
| Conduct Controlled Burn | OM Prescriptions on Fuels - managed wildfires on the conservation area | Diversity of native wildlife increased.<br>Habitat and watershed potential demonstrated.<br>Hunting opportunities provided.<br>Invasive species impacts reduced.<br>Juniper encroachment reduced.<br>Minimal erosion from roads.<br>Steelhead spawning increase | 2/1/2010 | 1/31/2013 | 27,788 | Yes |
|
Description: A cooperative planning effort with BLM in 2009 will identify natural resource prescriptions and non-routine OM (beyond regular weed control, juniper cuts, road maintenance, and other routine WE actions) necessary to fully implement and sustain a Wildland Fire Use (WFU) protocol throughout the majority of the property’s interior. These will likely focus on specific fuel modifications to enable maximum use of natural fire incidents and resulting optimal juniper reduction and limited stand replacements of desired vegetation. Work element may include management use of any substantial naturally caused wildfire incidents occurring in FY2010-2012 (tbd).
Metrics: |
||||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Collect Monitoring Data | Habitat and watershed potential demonstrated. | 2/1/2010 | 1/31/2013 | 132,598 | Yes |
|
Description: Ongoing collection of monitoring data, including: streamflow, water temperature, meteorogical data, riparian monitoring photos, steelhead redds, deer and elk population composition surveys, bird monitoring, and noxious weeds.
Metrics: |
||||||
| Produce Other Report | 5-yr. Monitoring Report | Habitat and watershed potential demonstrated. | 2/1/2011 | 1/31/2012 | 18,273 | No |
| Description: To be drafted in FY2011, this report compiles and comprehensively analyzes all monitoring data collected on the conservation area for the 2006-2010 period. Report will serve as an update of the first edition of this report, which was compiled and submitted in 2006 onto BPA’s website (covering the 2000-2005 data collection period). | ||||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Vegetation Mapping | Habitat and watershed potential demonstrated. | 2/1/2011 | 1/31/2012 | 50,750 | No |
| Description: Satellite images will be used to track vegetative changes on the property over time, in conjunction with repeat sampling of field plots (re: WE below). The vegetation map of the conservation area is scheduled to be updated in 2010 in the PCCA management plan, however due to budget constraints it is being postponed one fiscal year. As described in the results in the 2006 Monitoring Report, the follow-up production of this mapping is being done with satellite imagery is to improve the resolution of the resulting vegetation classifications. | ||||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Vegetation Composition | Habitat and watershed potential demonstrated. | 2/1/2011 | 1/31/2013 | 29,750 | No |
| Description: The 2006 Monitoring report and the PCCA management plan describe the value of repeat sampling of the initial 2002 vegetation plots to inform about changes to vegetation communities over time. For purposes of accurate mapping and image classification with satellite imagery (see WE above), additional on-ground image training plots will be required to be deployed. These will be created using the same methods applied in 2002. Once (re)established for the satellite work in 2001, an additional field season is a contingency for initiating a full re-reading of the entire set of plots (due to time required and access to remote plot localities). | ||||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Stream PFC, Water Quality, and Riparian Vegetation inventories – Pine Creek; Aquatic Habitat Survey – John Day River | Habitat and watershed potential demonstrated. | 2/1/2011 | 1/31/2012 | 31,500 | No |
| Description: This WE covers a comprehensive set of the individual water quality, riparian vegetation, proper functioning condition, and aquatic habitat surveys. All were initially conducted as single scopes of study on Pine Creek and/or the John Day River in 2001-2002. The protocols and scheduling of this repeat monitoring (approx. 10 years intervals) is described for all four surveys in the 2006 monitoring report and PCCA management plan. | ||||||
| Outreach and Education | Represent the CTWS | Habitat and watershed potential demonstrated. | 2/1/2010 | 1/31/2013 | 33,660 | Yes |
|
Description: Representation of the CTWS and the F&W Program partnership with BPA. Includes working cooperatively with the local community, local conservation organizations, and education organizations (particularly OMSI’s Hancock Field Station). The conservation area is used as an example of conservation and stewardship practices in the lower John Day Basin.
Note: An indicator of successful representation that is monitored by the project is the ultimate delivery of partners/neighbors’ contributions of funds, material or efforting to various aspects of the conservation area program. These entities and their contributions are systematically described in each annual report to BPA, and tabulated in the project’s Pisces cost-sharing data.
Metrics: |
||||||
| Provide Access and Public Information | Public Access and Information | Habitat and watershed potential demonstrated.<br>Hunting opportunities provided. | 2/1/2010 | 1/31/2013 | 50,385 | Yes |
| Description: Manage all aspects of public access to the conservation area. Includes reviewing access regulations, implementing access program, enforcing regulations, maintenance and management of public use infrastructure, and coordinating research activities by outside parties. Includes a robust hunting management program which equally benefits CTWS Tribal Members and general public sportsmen. | ||||||
| Investigate Trespass | Remove trespass livestock | Invasive species impacts reduced. | 2/1/2010 | 1/31/2013 | 30,492 | Yes |
| Description: Monitor for trespass livestock, and work with livestock owners to coordinate removal and reduce trespass problems, including cooperative fence repair/replacement projects. | ||||||
| Improve Road | Maintain and improve drainage and erosion control on Jennies Peak/Amine, Divide and Cove management roads | Minimal erosion from roads. | 2/1/2010 | 1/31/2013 | 53,760 | No |
|
Description: Maintain and repair segments of Jennies Peak Road, Amine Canyon Road (re: post BLM-CTWS land exchange and this road’s designation as a ranch management access), the Divide Route, and Cove Creek Road. Re-shape drainage features throughout (drivable dips, water bars, and ditches) as necessary to maintain roadways and reduce erosion. Monitor management roads in Rattlesnake and Rhodes Canyons and repair immediately as necessary if damaged by unusually severe storm events (re:2006).
Metrics: |
||||||
| work element budget total: | 1,088,590 | |||||
Section 8. Budget
| Item | Note | FY 2010 cost ($) | FY 2011 cost ($) | FY 2012 cost ($) | |
| Personnel | Conservation Area Manager (1.0 FTE) | 40,924 | 41,783 | 42,750 | |
| Personnel | Fish & Wildlife Biologist (0.1 FTE) | 3,910 | 4,296 | 4,420 | |
| Personnel | CTWS Wildlife & Parks Manager (0.08 FTE) | 4,873 | 5,019 | 5,170 | |
| Personnel | GIS/Mapping Specialist (0.1 FTE) | 3,910 | 4,296 | 4,420 | |
| Fringe Benefits | 0.25% of Salaries | 13,403 | 13,848 | 14,190 | |
| Capital Equipment | Major equipment – tractor implements | 15,000 | 15,000 | 0 | |
| Supplies | Office supplies, postage, manuals | 600 | 600 | 600 | |
| Supplies | Printing: brochures, maps, regulations | 500 | 500 | 500 | |
| Supplies | Miscellaneous supplies: seed, hardware, etc. | 8,500 | 8,840 | 9,194 | |
| Supplies | Minor equipment and hand tools | 750 | 811 | 840 | |
| Supplies | Equipment maintenance | 1,000 | 1,050 | 1,250 | |
| Supplies | Equipment and vehicle fuel | 2,780 | 2,891 | 3,007 | |
| Supplies | Equipment rental | 1,500 | 1,500 | 2,000 | |
| Travel | Lodging and meals | 300 | 300 | 300 | |
| Travel | Mileage (POV) | 300 | 300 | 300 | |
| Travel | Conference & Training Fees | 200 | 200 | 200 | |
| Other | GSA Vehicle Leases: 1 Truck and 1 mo./yr. Flatbed Truck | 3,507 | 3,858 | 4,239 | |
| Other | GSA Vehicles Mileage | 3,600 | 3,960 | 4,356 | |
| Other | Vehicles: Insurance | 1,181 | 1,181 | 1,181 | |
| Other | Office Telephone incl. annual satellite phone renewals | 3,948 | 4,105 | 4,270 | |
| Other | Internet Service (Satellite) | 959 | 959 | 959 | |
| Other | Electricity | 2,080 | 2,163 | 2,250 | |
| Other | Sanitation: Garbage & Portable Toilet | 1,800 | 1,854 | 1,910 | |
| Other | Buildings: Insurance | 900 | 927 | 955 | |
| Overhead | CTWS Administrative cost on line items above, at 29.01% (est.) | 39,546 | 40,834 | 37,129 | |
| Other | Subcontract: USGS Stream gage & weather station | 15,414 | 16,185 | 16,994 | |
| Other | Subcontract: Helicopter for deer & elk surveys | 8,800 | 9,152 | 9,518 | |
| Other | Subcontract: Breeding bird surveys | 4,850 | 4,900 | 4,950 | |
| Other | Subcontract: Salmon bake for volunteer weekend | 600 | 612 | 624 | |
| Other | Subcontract: Noxious weed control | 19,758 | 17,920 | 20,877 | |
| Other | Subcontract: Juniper cuts in fire units, roads and watersheds | 20,000 | 20,000 | 38,000 | |
| Other | Subcontract: Seed collection and grow-out, Wagner Ranch | 0 | 20,500 | 0 | |
| Other | Subcontract: Lowland field prep/seeding, Pine Creek | 22,000 | 0 | 0 | |
| Other | Subcontract: Lowland field prep/seeding, Wagner Ranch | 0 | 0 | 26,000 | |
| Other | Subcontract: Management road repair, Amine/Jennies | 0 | 17,000 | 0 | |
| Other | Subcontract: Management road repair - Divide, Jennies Pk/Amine | 0 | 0 | 11,000 | |
| Other | Subcontract: Management road maintenance, Cove Creek | 10,000 | 0 | 0 | |
| Other | Subcontract: Appraisal, surveying for land exchange | 26,000 | 0 | 0 | |
| Other | Subcontract: Field Project Mgmt, ONDA (vegetation maintenance, photomonitoring, fence removal) | 26,750 | 26,750 | 26,750 | |
| Other | Subcontract: Vegetation removal/mgmt, OYCC | 7,900 | 8,000 | 8,100 | |
| Other | Subcontract: Boundary relocation/fence removal - Spring Basin | 18,000 | 0 | 0 | |
| Other | Subcontract: Building removal, Lee Homestead and Wagner Ranch | 26,000 | 0 | 0 | |
| Other | Subcontract: Boundary fence re-construction | 0 | 14,000 | 22,000 | |
| Other | Subcontract: 10-yr. Monitoring - remote sensing for vegetation re-mapping | 0 | 34,000 | 0 | |
| Other | Subcontract: 10-yr. Monitoring - Vegetation composition field surveys | 0 | 0 | 19,000 | |
| Other | Subcontract: 10-yr. Monitoring - Pine Creek stream PFC, water quality/riparian veg.; JD River aquatic habitat survey | 0 | 15,200 | 0 | |
| Other | Subcontract: draft/publish 5-yr. Monitoring report | 0 | 0 | 11,050 | |
| Itemized budget totals: | 362,043 | 365,294 | 361,253 | ||
| Type of funding source | Funding source or organization | Item or service provided | FY 2010 est value ($) | FY 2011 est value ($) | FY 2012 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
| federal | BLM Prineville | Managed use of wildland fires; cooperative pre-suppression prescriptions | 20,000 | 20,000 | 20,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| federal | BLM Prineville | Land exchange: appraisal/surveying costs, admin processing | 26,000 | 0 | 0 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| federal | BLM Prineville | Wilderness/PCCA - boundary re-development | 0 | 10,000 | 10,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| federal | BLM Medford | Value of plant materials, nursery grow-out and storage | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| federal | NPS | Volunteer project support, headquarters security | 3,000 | 3,000 | 3,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| federal | NRCS/FSA | CREP riparian buffer rental | 11,578 | 11,578 | 11,578 | Cash | Confirmed |
| state | ODFW | Redd surveys | 900 | 900 | 900 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| non-profit | OMSI - Hancock Field Station | Education programs (1000 student-days/year) | 46,500 | 46,500 | 46,500 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| non-profit | OMSI - Hancock Field Station | Lodging volunteers (zero margin) | 2,500 | 2,500 | 2,500 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| non-profit | Oregon Natural Desert Association | Volunteer labor, transportation/tools (approx. 200 persons/yr. @ 8-hr workdays | 24,000 | 24,000 | 24,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| non-profit | Oregon Natural Desert Association | Ouzel Outfitters - annual zero-margin raft/camp trip (support to ONDA work parties) | 6,750 | 6,750 | 6,750 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| federal | USGS | Cost-share of gaging station on Pine Creek | 7,400 | 7,800 | 8,200 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| other | Pine Creek Advisory Committee | Annual consultation by 8 representatives - meetings and other tasks | 2,400 | 2,400 | 2,400 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| tribal | CTWS | Value of salmon donated to annual dinner for volunteers (approx. 100 meals) | 600 | 600 | 600 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| special districts | Wheeler SWCD | Tours and outreach | 500 | 500 | 500 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| local | Neighboring ranch owners | Value of cooperative fencework, equipment use, debris hauling/disposal | 5,000 | 5,000 | 5,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| Cost share estimate totals: | 167,128 | 151,528 | 151,928 | ||||
FY 2010-12 total cost share estimate: 470,584
Section 9. Project future
| Outyear budgets | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 |
| 362,162 | 362,162 | 362,162 | 362,162 | 362,162 | 362,162 |
Note
Average per-year budget ceiling for the Pine Creek project under the 2008 Treaty Tribes-Action Agencies Accords. These costs may vary by 20 percent per year under the Accord. WE selections will continue to be based on the BPA-approved PCCA Mgmt Plan.
Likely project termination/end date: None
Termination notes:
BPA is committed to funding operations and management of this mitigation site for the life of the hydropower system.
Final deliverables:
Pine Creek Conservation Area managed for wildlife and fish habitat in perpetuity.
Reviews
ISRP final recommendation: Meets Scientific criteria? Yes
The project should move forward as planned. This project has produced one of the best monitoring reports in all of the wildlife projects (i.e., the Feb 2006 monitoring report is very comprehensive and thorough). Once again, this is a strong and exemplary proposal that could serve as a reporting model for others.
A search of BPA Annual reports finds regular reports which usually were brief narrative reports of accomplishments, but the 1999-2005 monitoring report is what is needed for proper review and evaluation. If shorter periods existed between similarly thorough reports, benefits from the project could be tracked in a timelier manner to adapt to successes and failures – adaptive management.
The ISRP FY 2007-09 review comments still hold true, "This proposal meets the ISRP review criteria, benefits wildlife, and is an exemplary proposal among the wildlife set of proposals. The project sponsors may want to explore work with their neighbors to expand the benefits of this project."
The ISRP regrets the sponsors did not participate in the project proposal presentations during the March 3-4, 2009 ISRP meeting. Presentations are informative and allow for dialogue with the review team members to enhance understanding of the projects goals, objectives, and progress. We encourage sponsors to present their project and work in the next review cycle.
Additional comments on each of the sections of the proposal are provided below:
1. Technical justification, program significance and consistency, and project relationships:
This is an exceptionally well constructed and presented project proposal. It provides a clear description of the project's significance to the Program, its relationships to other subbasin and regional projects, and its technical justification. Technical justification for this proposal is excellent and includes a large number of supporting references, links to further supporting information/reports, photo comparisons, etc. The project is fully justified with significant potential benefits, to not only wildlife and their habitats, but also fish and aquatic habitats. Significance to regional plans and programs is well detailed including the Council’s 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program, John Day Subbasin Plan, Oregon Land Trust and many others. This project is linked with many local projects and partnerships including: CWCD, ODFW, OMSI, USFWS, and USGS.
2. Project History and Results
This section is well done. The sponsors use this extensive section of the proposal as a detailed reporting document, and it includes a good summary of much of the M&E reporting and results. This section is somewhat difficult to review because of its size, but it is better to include too much than not enough. The monitoring results report in the appendix are excellent and are outstanding as an example of how M&E data can indicate the value of well thought-out habitat restoration projects. This proposal is a model worthy of emulation.
A search of BPA Annual reports finds regular reports which usually were brief narrative reports of accomplishments but the 1999-2005 monitoring report is what is needed. If shorter periods between such reports could be done, benefits from the project could be tracked in a timelier manner to adapt to successes and failures - adaptive management.
3. Objectives, work elements, and methods
The sponsors provide a complete and detailed response. This is a large project with many work elements ranging from noxious weed control, to habitat improvements on Pine Creek, which when water conditions allow, appears to be a significant steelhead spawning area. Objectives, work elements, and methods seem appropriate to the management goals for the project.
4. M&E
This is an excellent example of what a detailed monitoring program should look like.
We support continuation of the photo-plot monitoring but recommend more rigorous analysis (Dr. Fred Hall has a fine publication on this). Validation with on-the-ground monitoring is recommended because of resolution/interpretation difficulties associated with satellite imagery.
from May 19, 2009 ISRP 2009-17 report
ISRP preliminary recommendation: Meets scientific criteria? Yes
The project should move forward as planned. This project has produced one of the best monitoring reports in all of the wildlife projects (i.e., the Feb 2006 monitoring report is very comprehensive and thorough). Once again, this is a strong and exemplary proposal that could serve as a reporting model for others.
A search of BPA Annual reports finds regular reports which usually were brief narrative reports of accomplishments, but the 1999-2005 monitoring report is what is needed for proper review and evaluation. If shorter periods existed between similarly thorough reports, benefits from the project could be tracked in a more timely manner to adapt to successes and failures ¬- adaptive management.
The ISRP FY 2007-09 review comments still hold true "This proposal meets the ISRP review criteria, benefits wildlife, and is an exemplary proposal among the wildlife set of proposals. The project sponsors may want to explore work with their neighbors to expand the benefits of this project."
The ISRP regrets the sponsors did not participate in the project proposal presentations during the March 3-4 2009 ISRP meeting. Presentations are informative and allow for dialogue with the review team members to enhance understanding of the projects goals, objectives, and progress. We encourage sponsors to present their project and work in the next review cycle.
Additional comments on each of the sections of the proposal are provided below:
1. Technical justification, program significance and consistency, and project relationships:
This is an exceptionally well constructed and presented project proposal. It provides a clear description of the project's significance to the Program, its relationships to other subbasin and regional projects, and its technical justification. Technical justification for this proposal is excellent and includes a large number of supporting references, links to further supporting information/reports, photo comparisons, etc. The project is fully justified with significant potential benefits, to not only wildlife and their habitats, but also fish and aquatic habitats. Significance to regional plans and programs is well detailed including the Council’s 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program, John Day Subbasin Plan, Oregon Land Trust and many others. This project is linked with many local projects and partnerships including: CWCD, ODFW, OMSI, USFWS, and USGS.
2. Project History and Results
This section is well done. The sponsors use this extensive section of the proposal as a detailed reporting document, and it includes a good summary of much of the M&E reporting and results. This section is somewhat difficult to review because of its size, but it is better to include too much than not enough. The monitoring results report in the appendix are excellent and are outstanding as an example of how M&E data can indicate the value of well thought-out habitat restoration projects. This proposal is a model worthy of emulation.
A search of BPA Annual reports finds regular reports which usually were brief narrative reports of accomplishments but the 1999-2005 monitoring report is what is needed. If shorter periods between such reports could be done, benefits from the project could be tracked in a more timely manner to adapt to successes and failures - adaptive management.
3. Objectives, work elements, and methods
The sponsors provide a complete and detailed response. This is a large project with many work elements ranging from noxious weed control, to habitat improvements on Pine Creek, which when water conditions allow, appears to be a significant steelhead spawning area. Objectives, work elements, and methods seem appropriate to the management goals for the project.
4. M&E
This is an excellent example of what a detailed monitoring program should look like.
We support continuation of the photo-plot monitoring but recommend more rigorous analysis (Dr. Fred Hall has a fine publication on this). Validation with on-the-ground monitoring is recommended because of resolution/interpretation difficulties associated with satellite imagery.
from Mar 26, 2009 ISRP 2009-7 report