FY07-09 proposal 199505701
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | S Idaho Wildlife Mitigation |
| Proposal ID | 199505701 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish & Game |
| Short description | This is for on-going coordination within the Council's CBF&W Program; and for on-going annual operation, maintenance, and monitoring for the Krueger property, purchased by BPA 1999 as part of the Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation Project. |
| Information transfer | Project tracking and reporting in Pisces. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Bob Martin | Idaho Department of Fish & Game | [email protected] |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Bob Martin | Idaho Department of Fish & Game | [email protected] |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Middle Snake / Boise
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Middle Snake Province for coordination; 166 acres within Section 2 of T 2 N, R 3 E for annual O&M&M&E. |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: All WildlifeAdditional: Primary focal: Mule deer. Other species: mallard, mink, ruffed grouse, blue grouse, yellow warbler, black-capped chickadee, sharp-tailed grouse, Canada goose, ring-necked pheasant, bald eagle, elk.
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|---|
| 2005 | On Krueger property, manage noxious weeds and maintain fences. |
| 2004 | On Krueger property, manage noxious weeds and maintain fences. |
| 2003 | Coordinate and plan wildlife mitigation implementation activities within the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. On Krueger property, manage noxious weeds and maintain fences. |
| 2002 | Coordinate and plan wildlife mitigation implementation activities within the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. On Krueger property, manage noxious weeds and maintain fences. |
| 2001 | Coordinate and plan wildlife mitigation implementation activities within the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. On Krueger property, manage noxious weeds and maintain fences. |
| 2000 | Coordinate and plan mitigation implementation activities within the Council's Fish and Wildlife Prog. On Krueger property, conduct Hab't Eval Procedure and determine baseline HUs for wildl mitigation crediting. Manage noxious weeds and maintain fences. |
| 1999 | Coordinate and plan wildlife mitigation implementation activities within the Council's Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Acquire the 166-acre Krueger property in the lower Boise foothills for $339,893. |
| 1998 | Coordinate and plan wildlife mitigation implementation activities within the Council's Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. |
| 1997 | Coordinate and plan wildlife mitigation implementation activities within the Council's Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. |
| 1996 | Coordinate and plan wildlife mitigation implementation activities within the Council's Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. |
| 1995 | Coordinate and plan wildlife mitigation implementation activities within the Council's Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 199505700 | S Idaho Wildlife Mitigation | Administered by same IDFG staff within the same Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation project. |
| BPA | 199505702 | S Idaho Wildlife Mitigation | This Shoshone-Bannock Tribes project is part of the collaborative Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation program. |
| BPA | 199505703 | S Idaho Wildlife Mitigation | This Shoshone-Paiute Tribes project is part of the collaborative Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation program. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mitigation...for effects to wildl. from hydropower | From NW Power Act and NWPCC's Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. | Boise/Payette/Weiser | Numerous |
| Protect BPA-purchased mitigation property | Protect 164 acres of shrub-steppe and 2 acres of deciduous scrub-shrub wetland on Krueger property, and its 46 mule deer HUs and 2 yellow warbler HUs. | Boise/Payette/Weiser | Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program wildlife mitigation targets. |
| Protect, enhance, or restore riparian habitats... | 3 strategies concerning riparian habitat protection and monitoring. | Boise/Payette/Weiser | 14B2, 14B3, 14B9 |
| Protect, enhance, or restore shrub-steppe hab't... | 3 strategies concerning shrub-steppe protection, restoration, and monitoring. | Boise/Payette/Weiser | 15A2, 15A6, 15A7 |
| Protect, enhance, or restore wetlands... | 4 strategies concerning riparian habitat protection and monitoring. | Boise/Payette/Weiser | 14A4, 14A3, 14A6, 14A7 |
| Protect...native plant comm's by preventing weeds. | 10 strategies dealing with weed monitoring, treatments, and prevention of spread. | Boise/Payette/Weiser | 10A1 through 10A6, 10B1 through10B4 |
| Protect/enhance/acquire mitigation properties | Protect, enhance, and/or acquire wildlife mitigation properties in the Middle Snake province | Boise/Payette/Weiser | Re-start wildlife mitigation implementation in the Middle Snake portion of the Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation program area through coordination and planning with the Sho-Ban and Sho-Pai tribes, BPA, NWPCC, and others. |
| Reduce conflicts betw. livestock and native wildl. | 2 strategies concerning protecting wildlife and plants from livestock grazing. | Boise/Payette/Weiser | 12B2, 12B4 |
| Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing .. | 2 strategies concerning livestock grazing elimination and monitoring impacts of exclusion. | Boise/Payette/Weiser | 12A2, 12A4 |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remove vegetation | Remove noxious weeds on Krueger property. | Manage noxious weeds through herbicide application. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $4,500 |
|
Biological objectives Mitigation...for effects to wildl. from hydropower Protect, enhance, or restore riparian habitats... Protect, enhance, or restore shrub-steppe hab't... Protect...native plant comm's by preventing weeds. |
Metrics * # of acres treated: Survey 166 ac. Treat as needed. |
||||
| Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage | Maintain fences and gates | Manage fences and gates to restrict undesirable livestock grazing and motorized recreation. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $3,000 |
|
Biological objectives Mitigation...for effects to wildl. from hydropower Protect, enhance, or restore riparian habitats... Protect, enhance, or restore shrub-steppe hab't... Protect, enhance, or restore wetlands... Protect...native plant comm's by preventing weeds. Reduce conflicts betw. livestock and native wildl. Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing .. |
Metrics |
||||
| Remove Debris | Remove trash | One-time trash removal from site to improve wildlife habitat and aesthetics of the property. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $2,500 |
|
Biological objectives Protect, enhance, or restore shrub-steppe hab't... |
Metrics |
||||
| Coordination | Coordinate Fish and Wildlife Program activities and planning with CBFWA, NWPCC, BPA, Sho-Ban and Sho-Pai tribes, etc. | Includes coordination with Tribes, BPA, and NWPPC to continue mitigation implementation for Anderson Ranch, Black Canyon, and Deadwood dams. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $49,952 |
|
Biological objectives Protect, enhance, or restore riparian habitats... Protect, enhance, or restore shrub-steppe hab't... Protect, enhance, or restore wetlands... Protect...native plant comm's by preventing weeds. Reduce conflicts betw. livestock and native wildl. Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing .. |
Metrics |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | Manage and administer the contract and tasks included in the contract | Required contract oversight. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $463 |
|
Biological objectives Protect, enhance, or restore riparian habitats... Protect, enhance, or restore shrub-steppe hab't... Protect, enhance, or restore wetlands... Protect...native plant comm's by preventing weeds. Reduce conflicts betw. livestock and native wildl. Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing .. |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Annual Report | Produce annual report for FY04 | Contract requirement. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $300 |
|
Biological objectives Protect, enhance, or restore riparian habitats... Protect, enhance, or restore shrub-steppe hab't... Protect, enhance, or restore wetlands... Protect...native plant comm's by preventing weeds. Reduce conflicts betw. livestock and native wildl. Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing .. |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Status Report | Produce quarterly status reports | Contract requirement. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $600 |
|
Biological objectives Protect, enhance, or restore riparian habitats... Protect, enhance, or restore shrub-steppe hab't... Protect, enhance, or restore wetlands... Protect...native plant comm's by preventing weeds. Reduce conflicts betw. livestock and native wildl. Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing .. |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Collect and analyze field monitoring data. | Contract requirement. | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $3,000 |
|
Biological objectives Protect, enhance, or restore riparian habitats... Protect, enhance, or restore shrub-steppe hab't... Protect, enhance, or restore wetlands... Protect...native plant comm's by preventing weeds. Reduce conflicts betw. livestock and native wildl. Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing .. |
Metrics |
||||
| Develop RM&E Methods and Designs | Coordinate a monitoring and evaluation program | Develop site-specific monitoring plan for vegetation and wildlife. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $1,000 |
|
Biological objectives Protect, enhance, or restore riparian habitats... Protect, enhance, or restore shrub-steppe hab't... Protect, enhance, or restore wetlands... Protect...native plant comm's by preventing weeds. Reduce conflicts betw. livestock and native wildl. Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing .. |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | [blank] | $11,430 | $11,774 | $12,129 |
| Fringe Benefits | [blank] | $3,709 | $3,820 | $3,935 |
| Supplies | [blank] | $3,000 | $2,600 | $2,600 |
| Overhead | [blank] | $3,475 | $3,376 | $3,467 |
| Totals | $21,614 | $21,570 | $22,131 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $65,315 |
| Total work element budget: | $65,315 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | 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: $23,048 FY 2011 estimated budget: $23,048 |
Comments: Based on FY09 and 5% annual inflation. |
Future O&M costs: For Krueger property, $4,630 in FY2010, $4,800 in FY2011. For Middle Snake province program coordination and Krueger contract administration, $8,800 in FY2010, $9,100 in FY1011.
Termination date: N/A
Comments: This ongoing work is required under Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program guidance for BPA to provide reasonable funding for operation, maintenance, monitoring, and evaluation at previously acquired wildlife mitigation properties.
Final deliverables: Wildlife mitigation HU credits protected in perpetuity.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
| 199505701 - S Idaho Wildlife Mitigation.doc | 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] | ||||||
| $21,614 | $21,570 | $22,131 | $65,315 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $21,614 | $21,570 | $22,131 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: It appears that these funds are already contractually committed, but if that were not the case, this proposal is not fundable as currently written. The scientific background section focuses more on mitigation policy than science. For instance, it is not clear in the current proposal that any species will benefit now or in the future. Authors must make this link explicit. The proposal should be rewritten to be specific to the parcel in question, the parcels role in the landscape, and benefits to both focal and non-focal fish and wildlife. Management should be linked to State program goals relating to threatened and endangered or sensitive species. Currently there is no indication of any Federal or NGO collaboration although shrub-steppe is a priority with the Nature Conservancy. Objectives are stated as activities rather than outcomes and it appears objectives have been unchanged for some time and are continuous rather than goal oriented. It seems that some of the text is being recycled from earlier proposals, with reference to revegetation and monitoring that "will be" done, but apparently already have been. There is no mention of monitoring results to date, or the success in general of revegetation, weed management, and site protection. Are any species besides deer being monitored - this is not clear? There are sagebrush obligate species that should be monitored such as shrike, jackrabbits, and others mentioned in the proposal background. Objective 3 is unclear. It would be difficult to measure outcomes, yet this is the largest portion of the budget. All objectives should be stated in terms of measurable biological outcomes. Work elements are too general. Integrated weed management is discussed, but there is no indication that this is being pursued as only spraying has been conducted. The ISRP requests an evaluation of the results from spraying. Towards this goal, authors should address if annual spraying is on same sites year after year, or if previously sprayed sites have improved. Spraying alone is rarely the best method of weed control without being part of an overall Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategy in coordination with neighboring land managers. In general, details on monitoring are not sufficient to determine what is being done and if results are being used in adaptive management.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: The sponsors were asked to respond concerning this parcel’s role in the landscape, goals in terms of measurable biological outcomes, more detailed work elements, and monitoring and evaluation activities. Specific questions were raised about weed control strategies. The response clarified many issues, particularly weed control and the landscape context for management of this parcel. The scope of the project, 166 acres of winter mule deer habitat, justifies limited monitoring and evaluation. The revised project proposes to increase the budget to develop a monitoring plan beyond HEP. HEP is not recommended unless they need to do it for some compliance reason. Not particular to this proposal, but illustrated within is the intent to repeat HEP analysis as monitoring, an ongoing concern for ISRP and ISAB. For this project, monitoring could be limited to presence of necessary habitat elements for expected season of use, presence of target species during anticipated season of use, and status of weed populations.