FY07-09 proposal 199204800
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Colville Confederated Tribes Wildlife Mitigation Project |
| Proposal ID | 199204800 |
| Organization | Colville Confederated Tribes |
| Short description | The focus of the CCT Wildlife Mitigation Project is the protection/restoration/enhancement of critical winter habitat, riparian, shrub-steppe, and other species and habitats on lands purchased/managed for mitigation on the Colville Indian Reservation |
| Information transfer | Infornation gained from this project will result in the production of site specific management plans for project lands, as well as provide baseline habitat information to other resource managers both tribal and non-tribal to further proper management at the regional level. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Patrick Tonasket | Colville Tribal Fish and Wildlife | [email protected] |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Patrick Tonasket | Colville Tribal Fish and Wildlife | [email protected] |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Intermountain / Columbia Upper
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 48 | 118.55-119.55 | Columbia River | Lake Rufus Woods |
| 48-48.30 | 118.10-118.55 | Columbia River | Upper Columbia |
| 48.00-48.30 | 118.45 | Columbia River | San Poil |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: All WildlifeAdditional: Bobcat, Canada goose, Lewis' woodpecker, Mink, Mule deer, Ring-necked pheasant, Sage grouse, Sharp-tailed grouse, Spotted sandpiper, Yellow warbler
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|---|
| 2005 | Acquired and protected 18,812 acres of habitat, maintained 44,313 acres for targeted species. Conducted 478 acres of weed control. Maintained 150 miles of fence and replaced 10 miles of fence with new materials. Submit annual report. |
| 2004 | Acquired and protected 1,927 acres of habitat, maintained 25,501 acres for target species. Conducted 600 acres of weed control. maintaiined 110 miles of fence with 10 miles of fence replaced with new materials. Submit annual report. |
| 2003 | Protected and maintained 23,574 acres of habitat. Treated 400 acres for noxious weeds. Constructed 10 miles of new fence. Maintained 100 miles of boundary fence. Submit annual report. |
| 2002 | Protected and maintained 23,574 acres of habitat. Treated 350 acres for noxious weeds. Constructed 10 miles of new fence. Maintained 100 miles of boundary fence. Submit annual report. |
| 2001 | Acquired 2,939 acres of habitat, crediting BPA 756 HUs. Maintained 100 miles of boundary fence, replaced 10 miles of fence. Purchased/Install 2 cattle gaurds, 350 acres of noxious weed control. Submit annual report. |
| 2000 | Maintained and protected 20,635 acres. 350 acres of noxious weed control. Breeding bird surveys started. 80 miles of boundary fence maintained. Submit annual report. |
| 1999 | 20,635 acres protected and managed. 380 acres of noxious weeds treated. 8 miles of new fence constructed. Conducted small mammal trapping. 80 miles of boundary fence maintained. Submit annual report, Site Specific Mgmt Plan, Mule Deer HSI Model |
| 1998 | Acquired 770 acres of habitat, 80 miles of boundary fence maintained, 5 miles replaced with new materials. 210 acres addresses for noxious weeds. Permanent transects with photo points established. Submit annual report. |
| 1997 | Acquired 791 acres of habitat. Conducted HEP on acquired lands and credited BPA 395 HUs. 40 miles of boundary fence maintained with 2 miles of new fence constructed. 257 acres of noxious weeds addressed. Submit annual report. |
| 1996 | 100 acres treated for noxious weeds, 2 miles of new boundary fence, 10 miles of boundary fence replaced with new materials. Submit annual report. |
| 1995 | Acquired 9,460 acres of habitat, conducted HEP on new acquisition crediting BPA 4,750 HUs, 100 acres treated for noxious weeds, maintained 70 miles of boundary fence, replaced 10 miles with new materials. Submit annual, Assessment and HEP analysis report |
| 1994 | Acquired and protected 4,800 acres of wildlife habitat, conducted HEP on acquired lands crediting BPA 3,795 HUs. 40 miles of boundary fence maintained, 10 miles of boundary fence replaced with new materials. 113 acres treated for noxious weeds |
| 1993 | Acquired, maintained and protected 4,814 acres of wildlife habitat from W. Kuehne for big game and other wildlife species. Submitted annual report. Developed (Hellsgate Winter Range Mitigation Project Long -Term Management Plan) |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 200103000 | Sharp Tailed Grouse Habitat | project activities included mitigation lands occupied by current populations of the species. |
| BPA | 199506700 | Colville Confederated Tribes P | This project was used to capitalize land acquisitions to add to the ongoing Hellsgate O&M Wildlife Mitigation Project. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Increase desired vegetative land cover | Acquired land cover is not adequate to support management species to pre-dam population status. Protection/resoration/enhancement activities must take place to maintain and increase HU values on mitigation lands. | Intermountain | # in ( ) are sub basin priorities Obj. 1A-1A9(1) a-c, 1B2(3) a-b, 2A2(4) a-c, 2A3(9) a-c, 2A4(8) a-b, 2B1(7) a-c:e-I, 2B2(6) a-g, |
| Mitigate Wildlife Losses | Species and habitats impacted and inundated by operation and construction of Chief Joeseph and Grand Coulee Dams | Intermountain | # in ( ) are sub basin priorities Obj. 1A-1A9(1) a-c, 1B2(3) a-b, 2A2(4) a-c, 2A3(9) a-c, 2A4(8) a-b, 2B1(7) a-c:e-I, 2B2(6) a-g, |
| Mitigate Wildlife Losses | Species and habitats impacted and inundated by operation and construction of Chief Joeseph and Grand Coulee Dams | Intermountain | # in ( ) are sub basin priorities. 1A1(2), 1A2(#1), 1A3(3), 1A4(9), 1A5(10), 1A6(8), 1A7(4), 1A8(5), 1A9(6), 1A10(7), Strategies a-f, 2A1(15) a, 2A2(14) a-f, 2A3(13) a-f, 2A4(16) a-b, 2B a-b, 2B1(17) a, 2B2(18) a-h, |
| Mitigate Wildlife Losses | Species and habitats impacted and inundated by operation and construction of Chief Joeseph and Grand Coulee Dams | Intermountain | # in ( ) are sub basin priorities Obj. 1A, 1A1(9), 1A2(8), 1A3(6), 1A4(4), 1A5(3), 1A6(5), 1A7(1), 1A8(2), 1A9(7), Strategies a-d, 1B1(10) a, 1B2(11), 2A1(12) a-d, 2A2(13) a-d, 2A3(12) a-d, 2A4(16) a-c, 2A5(15) a-c, 2B1(21) a-c, 2B2(18) a-f, 2B3(17) a-j |
| Protect Bobcat | Bobcat addresses rock and rockland habitat losses resulting from construction of the Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Projects. | Intermountain | # in ( ) are sub basin priorities 1A9(6) |
| Protect Canada goose | Protect, enhance, or replace Canada goose habitat to address island/sandbar losses resulting from construction of the Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Projects. | Intermountain | # in ( ) are sub basin priorities 1A4(9) |
| Protect HU values from tresspass livestock | Install and maintain fences on mitigation lands to prevent unauthorized grazing (effecting ground nesting birds, erosion, loss of vegetative community dynamics and ecological functions). | Intermountain | # in ( ) are sub basin priorities Obj. 1A, 1A1(9), 1A2(8), 1A3(6), 1A4(4), 1A5(3), 1A6(5), 1A7(1), 1A8(2), 1A9(7), Strategies a-d, 1B1(10) a, 1B2(11), 2A1(12) a-d, 2A2(13) a-d, 2A3(12) a-d, 2A4(16) a-c, 2A5(15) a-c, 2B1(21) a-c, 2B2(18) a-f, 2B3(17) a-j |
| Protect Lewis' woodpecker | Protect, enhance, or replace Lewis’ woodpecker habitat to address ponderosa pine savanna and mixed forest losses resulting from construction of the Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Projects. | Intermountain | # in ( ) are sub basin priorities 1A6( 8) |
| Protect Mink | Mink address riverine/riparian habitat losses resulting from construction of the Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Projects. | Intermountain | # in ( ) are sub basin priorities 1A7(4) |
| Protect Mule Deer | We have found winter range habitat to be a limiting factor for deer and elk. It is the tribes goal to provide adaquate winter range to support 12,000 to 15,000 deer, 1,500 to 2000 elk, and 50 to 75 moose. | Intermountain | # in ( ) are sub basin priorities Obj 1A8(5) a-f, 2A4(16) A-B, 2B2(18) a-f |
| Protect Ring-necked pheasant | Protect, enhance or replace ringnecked pheasant wintering habitat to address agricultural losses resulting from construction of the Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Projects. | Intermountain | # in ( ) are sub basin priorities 1A5(10) |
| Protect sage grouse | Currently extirpated within the bounds of the reservation, but they are culturally and traditionally important to the CCT. We have acquired 19,231 acres of shrub-steppe to protect and manage for this and other shrub-steppe obligate species. | Intermountain | # in ( ) are sub basin priorities. 1A2(1) a-f, 2A3(13) a-f, 2A4(16) a-b, 2B a-b, 2B1 a |
| Protect Sharp-tailed grouse | Acquisition and maintenance of critical habitats to meet this species seasonal life requirements. Currently mitigation lands have low HSI values for this species and restoration/enhancement is nessessary for sustainability of the population on the Reservation. | Intermountain | # in ( ) are sub basin priorities. 1A1(2) a-f, 2A3(13) a-f, 2A4(16) a-b, 2B a-b, 2B1 a, and upper Col |
| Protect shrub-steppe obligate species | Protection of shrub-steppe habitat for obligate species. Including; brood rearing, nesting, lekking, winter range, hiding cover, water sources, to increase and sustain viable species populations. | Intermountain | # in ( ) are sub basin priorities. 1A1(2), 1A2(#1), 1A5(10), 1A8(5), Strategies a-f, 2A2(14) a-f, 2A3(13) a-f, 2A4(16) a-b, 2B a-b, 2B1(17) a, 2B2(18) a-h, |
| Protect Spotted sandpiper | Protect, enhance, or replace 1,254 habitat units of spotted sandpiper habitat to address the sand/gravel/cobble losses resulting from construction of the Chief Joseph Project. | Intermountain | # in ( ) are sub basin priorities 1A10(7) |
| Protect Yellow Warbler | Yellow Warbler addresses palustrine habitat losses. | Intermountain | # in ( ) are sub basin priorities 1A3(3) |
| Restore/enhance grassland habitat | Restore and enhance 2000 acres of grassland habitat per year too increase biodiversity through quality forage and cover habitat requirements for grassland species. | Intermountain | # in ( ) are sub basin priorities. 1A1(2), 1A2(#1), 1A3(3), 1A4(9), 1A5(10), 1A6(8), 1A7(4), 1A8(5), 1A9(6), 1A10(7), Strategies a-f, 2A1(15) a, 2A2(14) a-f, 2A3(13) a-f, 2A4(16) a-b, 2B a-b, 2B1(17) a, 2B2(18) a-h, |
| Restore/enhance riparian habitat | Restore and enhance 50 acres of riparian habitat per year too increase biodiversity through quality forage/cover and seasonal habitat requirements for riparian species. | Intermountain | # in ( ) are sub basin priorities. 1A1(2), 1A2(#1), 1A3(3), 1A4(9), 1A5(10), 1A6(8), 1A7(4), 1A8(5), 1A9(6), 1A10(7), Strategies a-f, 2A1(15) a, 2A2(14) a-f, 2A3(13) a-f, 2A4(16) a-b, 2B a-b, 2B1(17) a, 2B2(18) a-h, |
| Restore/enhance shrub-steppe habitat | Restore and enhance 2,000 acres of shrub-steppe habitat per year too increase biodiversity through quality forage and cover habitat requirements for shrub-steppe obligate species. | Intermountain | # in ( ) are sub basin priorities. 1A1(2), 1A2(#1), 1A3(3), 1A4(9), 1A5(10), 1A6(8), 1A7(4), 1A8(5), 1A9(6), 1A10(7), Strategies a-f, 2A1(15) a, 2A2(14) a-f, 2A3(13) a-f, 2A4(16) a-b, 2B a-b, 2B1(17) a, 2B2(18) a-h, |
| Suppliment lands with poor HSI | Due to low HSI values on some project lands supplimental efforts are needed to ensure population health. | Intermountain | # in ( ) are sub basin priorities. 1A1-1A10 a-f, 2A3(13) a-f, 2A4(16) a-b, 2B a-b, 2B1 a, and upper Col |
| Wildlife species management | Institute wildlife population management practices that maintain sufficient wildlife numbers to meet the cultural, subsistence, recreational, and economic needs of Colville Tribal Members. | Intermountain | # in ( ) are sub basin priorities. 1A1(2), 1A2(#1), 1A3(3), 1A4(9), 1A5(10), 1A6(8), 1A7(4), 1A8(5), 1A9(6), 1A10(7), Strategies a-f, 2A1(15) a, 2A2(14) a-f, 2A3(13) a-f, 2A4(16) a-b, 2B a-b, 2B1(17) a, 2B2(18) a-h, |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Certifications and Permits for pesticide use | Covers any work by the contractor to assemble, gather, acquire, or prepare documents in support of obtaining environmental compliance from BPA(such as filling out NEPA checklist, providing maps, drafting a biological assessment, obtaining permits, conducting public involvement activities, comleting cultural site surveys. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2007 | $36,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Develop Terrestrial Habitat Features | Poor habitat suplimentation and enhancement | Supplimentation of project lands which are in poor condition to ensure the health of wildlife populations utilizing the lands. | 4/1/2007 | 11/30/2009 | $50,000 |
|
Biological objectives Increase desired vegetative land cover Suppliment lands with poor HSI Wildlife species management |
Metrics * # of features: develope springs where applicable * # of features: develope food plots in areas of poor quality |
||||
| Install Fence | Construct new or repair existing boundary fences | install 15 miles of new perimeter fence to limit livestock damages to protect lands | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2007 | $400,000 |
|
Biological objectives Increase desired vegetative land cover Protect HU values from tresspass livestock |
Metrics * # of miles of fence: Construct or Replace 15 miles of fence per year |
||||
| Remove vegetation | Control of noxious/undesirable weeds | survey, map, develope and impliment noxious weeds control measures on project lands. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2007 | $400,000 |
|
Biological objectives Increase desired vegetative land cover |
Metrics * # of acres treated: Plant desired species to restore ecological funct * # of acres treated: Integrated weed control on 1600 acres |
||||
| Investigate Trespass | Removal of trespassing livestock | Reduction in potential risk factors of livestock damages on Mitigation lands. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2007 | $170,000 |
|
Biological objectives Protect HU values from tresspass livestock |
Metrics |
||||
| Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage | Fence Maintenance | Efforts to maintain 270 miles of boundary fence lines | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2007 | $700,000 |
|
Biological objectives Increase desired vegetative land cover Protect HU values from tresspass livestock |
Metrics |
||||
| Prepare HEP Report | Inventory and assess habitat conditions using HEP | Collect habitat vegetation data for selected indicated species ( CJ & GC Dams loss assessments), and make management recomendations | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2007 | $75,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Coordination | Coordination with concerned/involved organizations | Information gathering/sharing, participating, with concerned/involved organizations dealing with Columbia River Mitigation. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2007 | $60,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | Project Administration | The necessary day-to-day obligations required by the Colville Tribes and BPA to track and administer this project. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2007 | $400,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Collect wildlife species data and habitat information | Annual estimation of population parameters for deer, eagle, sharp-tailed grouse,Peregrine Falcon, small mammals and resident and migratory bird species. The annual estimations are compiled to assess habitat conditions and wildlife needs on project lands. Deficiencies are addressed through management actions. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2007 | $135,000 |
|
Biological objectives Protect Bobcat Protect Canada goose Protect Lewis' woodpecker Protect Mink Protect Mule Deer Protect Ring-necked pheasant Protect sage grouse Protect Sharp-tailed grouse Protect Spotted sandpiper Protect Yellow Warbler |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Plan | Develop and update, and follow management plans | Management plans addressing issues and actions on lands within the project area (to include new acquisitions when purchased). Site specific management plans will be developed and updated as project landbase increases. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2007 | $115,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Annual Report | Annual Report | Annual report will be required consistent with the terms and conditions of this contract. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2007 | $30,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Status Report | Monthly reporting to BPA via Pisces | Three quarterly reports and a final status report on project activities through fiscal year 07' | 4/1/2007 | 12/31/2007 | $15,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Locations and data points for habitat assessment | M&E of project lands to maintain HUs for mitigation and best scientific methodologies to protect enhance and restore species and habitats. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2007 | $314,000 |
|
Biological objectives Protect Bobcat Protect Canada goose Protect Lewis' woodpecker Protect Mink Protect Mule Deer Protect Ring-necked pheasant Protect sage grouse Protect Sharp-tailed grouse Protect Spotted sandpiper Protect Yellow Warbler |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: conduct fawn counts Primary R, M, and E Type: Conduct LEK counts Primary R, M, and E Type: Conduct Areal ungulant surveys Primary R, M, and E Type: eagle surveys Primary R, M, and E Type: blue grouse surveys Primary R, M, and E Type: ruffed grouse survey Primary R, M, and E Type: small mammal survey |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | [blank] | $350,000 | $350,000 | $350,000 |
| Fringe Benefits | [blank] | $97,860 | $97,860 | $97,860 |
| Supplies | [blank] | $52,240 | $52,240 | $52,240 |
| Travel | [blank] | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 |
| Other | GSA & other vehicles, fuel, tires, etc.. | $50,000 | $50,000 | $50,000 |
| Overhead | [blank] | $132,055 | $132,055 | $132,055 |
| Other | subcontractor (fencing) | $150,000 | $150,000 | $150,000 |
| Other | noxious weed control | $77,845 | $77,845 | $77,845 |
| Other | subcontractor (restoration/enhancements) | $33,334 | $33,333 | $33,333 |
| Other | 5% COLA | $0 | $20,000 | $20,000 |
| Totals | $953,334 | $973,333 | $973,333 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $2,900,000 |
| Total work element budget: | $2,900,000 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Totals | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $1,200,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $1,200,000 |
Comments: [Outyear comment field left blank] |
Future O&M costs: This is an estamate of the O&M costs at $20/acre on 60,000 acres. Estimates were derived from the 1986 Final Report of the Grand Coulee Dam Loss Assessments page 36.
Termination date: none
Comments: This project is designed to annually offset wildlife losses in perpetuity due to the inundation of wildlife habitats through the construction and operation of hydropower projects on the Columbia River.
Final deliverables: Protect, restore, and enhance 60,000 acres of land to mitigate 35,820 HUs on an annual bassis for the life of Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph hydropower projects.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
| [Attached Document] | Jul 2006 |
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $953,333 | $973,333 | $973,333 | $2,899,999 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $953,333 | $973,333 | $973,333 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
|
Comments: ISRP fund in part (qualified): sponsors should address ISRP concerns during contracting. Programmatic issue: wildlife o&m/m&e |
||||||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: This proposal focuses on many habitats and includes a good monitoring program, but the analysis and applications of information from the monitoring program need to be reported. The project emphasizes game species, and it appears that efforts to increase grouse populations have been quite successful. However, data to support the asserted increase in grouse are not provided. The proposal is well written at a general level, but does not provide details on monitoring and evaluation of results. Specifically, the ISRP requests a response that provides data on project effectiveness, such as summary tables or graphs illustrating effects of the project on grouse. The ISRP believes that monitoring and evaluation is a priority for this project because of the high costs of the management. Large costs of O&M has long-term consequences for what can be invested in other efforts, such as further acquisition or protection of wildlife habitat. A step towards understanding management costs is to evaluate past work efforts.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable in part (Qualified)
NPCC comments: Fundable in part for FY07 to complete an assessment of past work. Future funding of the active management part of the budget should be contingent upon a meaningful analysis of the data, which should be a relatively easy task for this project. What is needed is one or more graphs (or some other form of data summary) that clearly address project objectives, along with some text stating how the project proponents interpret the provided results and how they apply the results to their management. The response indicates that some relevant data are being collected, but there is not evidence that the project proponents are using (analyzing and evaluating) the data. The guidelines for proposal submission clearly stated the need to provide reporting of results with interpretive dialogue. It is not adequate to refer the ISRP to annual reports to BPA, which may or may not provide information that reviewers would find to constitute adequate M&E. This mitigation project describes a nice piece of land with likely benefits to wildlife, but the project must determine whether its O&M, especially active management, is actually beneficial and is not counterproductive or destructive. This proposal is not scientifically justified until some evaluation has been reported.