Recovery Implementation Teams Fall Call/Webinar

March 2014

May 2014

Summer 2014

November 2014

Feb/March 2015

TBD 2015

March 2014-March 2015

RIT Timeline & Next Steps

Circulate table for reconciliation of

Recovery Action Plan footnotes

You are here

MOG Meeting December 18

2-Page Project Concept Proposals

Purpose of 2-Page Project Concept Proposals: To create site-specific and cost-specific project proposals tiered off a priority 1 action in Recovery Action Plan

2-Page Project Concept Proposals

DTRO received a total of 50 project proposals from 22 RIT members (plus 5 already-funded projects from Clark County)

• 37 complete proposals -Some are more shovel-ready than others-

• 3 with no budget • 9 multi-workgroup or non-specific proposals which

didn’t really tier off Recovery Action Plans (plus 2 duplicates)

• 1 research proposal All proposals are posted at: http://www.fws.gov/nevada/desert_tortoise/dtro/dtro_rits.html

2 Page Project Concept Proposals: Sept 2014

26

15

9

Number of Proposals by RIT Membership

Number of Proposals by Workgroup 11

10

5

2

4

9 9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

CA Desert NE Mojave UVR

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2-Page Project Concept Proposals: Sept 2014

Where each proposal would actually be implemented

Several of these are “programmatic”

proposals

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2 Page Project Concept Proposals: Sept 2014

Types of RIT Proposals

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Multi-workgroup/ non-specific

UVR

NE Mojave

CA Desert

SDSS Rank of Proposal

2 Page Project Concept Proposals: Sept 2014

SDSS Rank of RIT Proposals

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Multi-workgroup/non-specific

UVR

NE Mojave

CA Desert

8 proposals < $50K < 7 proposals

2-Page Project Concept Proposals: Sept 2014

RIT Proposals by Budget Request

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

$5-100K $100-200K $200-400K $400-500K $500K-1M $1-2.5M

Multi-workgroup/non-specific

UVR

NE Mojave

CA Desert

Discussion Questions

• What should we present to the MOG about project concepts?

• What additional coordination is needed for action implementation?

• Are there project concepts from other RITs that are relevant to your RIT?

• Do you have any projects with broad support that need immediate funding and implementation?

• Are there any ideas for specific funding opportunities?

• Any other observations?

Reconciliation of Action Plan Footnotes

Purpose of reconciliation exercise: To facilitate clean-up of footnotes and promote discussion for Recovery Action Plan v2

Recovery Action Plan Footnotes

10

3 0

34

6

29

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

CA Desert NE Mojave UVR

RIT members who providedcomments

Number of RIT Members

Who Provided Comments in Spreadsheet for Footnote Reconciliation

Recovery Action Plan Footnotes

Total RAP footnotes and actions by RIT

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

CA Desert NE Mojave UVR

Total number of footnotes

Total number of actions

4

365 382

63 36 38

Recovery Action Plan Footnotes

19 17

4 4

36 38

Unique Footnote Topics by RIT

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

CA Desert NE Mojave UVR

Unique footnote topics

Total number of footnotes

Recovery Action Plan Footnotes

All Unique Footnote Topics

Unreconiled

Reconcilable

Comment Only

8 12

19

8 Unreconciled Footnote Topics

1. Grazing: Not shown to be deleterious to tortoise populations; can contribute to fuel management; need to evaluate effects of livestock removal on tortoise habitat 11 footnotes (RIT priority 1,2,3)

2. Grazing: No data showing grazing benefits tortoises; known impacts 4 (1,2,3)

3. Herbicides should not be used in habitat restoration 4 (1,2)

4. Mining: No evidence of deleterious effects on the tortoise 3 (2,3)

5. Complicated restoration proposal not feasible (watering, containerized plants); problems with herbicide; BFOD still too experimental 1 (2)

6. Fiber optic line near Corn Creek Road does not warrant restoration 1 (3)

7. Fencing Red-Rock Randsburg, Garlock, & Randsburg-Mojave roads not worth investment 1 (3)

8. Fencing Red Hills Parkway: significant cost; bad PR; neither UDOT nor St. George would agree since have complied with their agreement 1 (2)

Discussion Questions

• What should we present to the MOG about footnote reconciliation?

• What are your thoughts about the reconciliation exercise?

• Are there any issues with the recommendations provided in the spreadsheet?

• Are there any outstanding dissent issues relative to any of the 2-page project concept proposals?

Final Discussion Questions

• Are there any other RIT topics you would like to discuss?

• Is there anything else the MOG should be aware of that you would like us to bring to the Dec meeting?

• What would you like to see happen between now and our next meeting?

MOG Meeting March 2014

RIT Call Summer 2014

RIT Call Nov 2014

RIT Call Feb/March

2015

MOG Meeting TBD 2015

MOG Meeting December 18