FY 2003 Middle Snake proposal 200302600
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 |
|---|---|
| 32008 Narrative | Narrative |
| 32008 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| Habitat Evaluation, Wildlife Inventory and Monitoring Plan | Response Attachment |
| 32008 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Middle Snake: Owyhee Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Middle Snake: Owyhee Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Letter from S. McNary (BPA) to G. Dodson (Shoshone-Paiute Tribes - Duck Valley) Re: Final Funding Decision for project proposal 32008 | BPA Decision Letter |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Wildlife Inventory and Habitat Evaluation of Duck Valley Indian Reservation |
| Proposal ID | 200302600 |
| Organization | Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation (SPT - DVIR) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Guy Dodson, Sr., Wildlife And Parks Department |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 219 Owyhee, NV 89832 |
| Phone / email | 2087593246 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Guy Dodson, Sr. |
| Review cycle | Middle Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Middle Snake / Owyhee |
| Short description | Conduct wildlife surveys to determine species composition and relative abundance on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. HEP analyses will be conducted to determine habitat suitability index for target wildlife species. |
| Target species | Columbian spotted frog, sage grouse, white-faced ibis, American white pelican, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, waterfowl, sensitive bat species (including spotted bat), pygmy rabbit. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Duck Valley Indian Reservation boundaries. | ||
| 41.79 | -115.95 | Owyhee River |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 9701100 | Enhance and Protect Habitat and Riparian Areas on Duck Valley Indian Reservation | Habitat information from this proposed project will aid in identifying habitat areas on the Reservation in need of enhancement and/or protection |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Develop wildlife monitoring plan | a. Contract with University wildlife scientist (Ph.D) with expertise in wildlife sampling design | .05 | $560 | |
| b. Contract with Univ. of Idaho Landscape Dynamics Lab for satellite image of Reservation and analysis | .05 | $560 | ||
| c. Develop wildlife monitoring program to assess species composition, and population status of wildlife species on DVIR. | .3 | $16,868 | ||
| d. Submit draft monitoring plan to CBFWA for review and approval | .10 | $280 | ||
| e. Review of monitoring plan by UI consultant | .05 | $3,440 | Yes | |
| f. Finalize monitoring plan | .05 | $2,428 | ||
| 2. Purchase field equipment | a. Purchase GPS unit, ANABAT2 bat monitoring system, field supplies, binoculars, etc. | .05 | $15,086 | |
| 3. Prepare for data collection | a. Set up databases, develop and generate sampling forms | .10 | $3,431 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. DVIR Habitat Analysis | a. Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite image taken of reservation | .2 | $6,000 | Yes |
| b. Groundtruthing | .2 | $5,447 | ||
| c. Delineate habitat types and area extent | .05 | $280 | ||
| d. Incorporate habitat data into monitoring plan | .1 | $916 | ||
| 2. Conduct Wildlife Monitoring | a.Spotted frog presence/absence surveys | 2 | $17,273 | |
| b. Sage grouse lek surveys | 2 | $4,984 | ||
| c. Waterfowl production surveys | 2 | $5,871 | ||
| d. Bat surveys | 2 | $8,692 | ||
| e. Raptor surveys | 2 | $7,454 | ||
| f. Point counts for avian species | 1? | $0 | ||
| g. Small mammal surveys | 2 | $5,630 | ||
| h. Amphibian and reptile surveys | 1 | $0 | ||
| i. Big game surveys | 2 | $3,973 | ||
| j. White-faced ibis surveys | 2 | $1,000 | ||
| k. Pygmy rabbit survey | 1 | $0 | ||
| 3. Evaluate Wildlife Habitat | a. Conduct HEP analysis | 1 | $0 | |
| b. Analyze HEP data | 1 | $0 | ||
| 4. Compile Data, Evaluate and Report Results | a. Compile and analyze data | 2 | $6,324 | |
| b. Share data with Conservation Data Center, Nevada Natural Heritage Program and appropriate land management agencies in region | 3 | $916 | ||
| c. Review of data and monitoring protocols by technical consultant | .2 | $2,060 | Yes | |
| d. Meet with appropriate agencies to review data and to coordinate 2004 sampling | 1 | $1,448 | ||
| c. Reports to BPA | 3 | $2,910 | ||
| d. Produce final report | 1 | $3,630 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. DVIR Habitat Analysis | $0 | ||
| 2. Conduct Wildlife Monitoring | 2004 | 2004 | $90,646 |
| 3. Evaluate Wildlife Habitat | 2004 | 2004 | $16,020 |
| 4. Compile Data, Evaluate and Report Results | 2004 | 2005 | $37,213 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| $120,010 | $23,869 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1.0 Wildlife Biologist, .5 Wildlife Tech. | $48,360 |
| Fringe | .20 | $9,672 |
| Supplies | trapping equipment, mist nets, ANABAT2 equipment, GPS unit, binoculars, spotting scope, field equip. | $14,300 |
| Travel | Symposiums, travel to Univ. of Idaho to discuss monitoring protocols, Wildlife Society meeting | $4,612 |
| Indirect | .266 | $25,477 |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | University wildlife scientist (Ph.D) with statistical survey design expertise (40 hrs. x $76.00/hr) | $3,040 |
| Other | GSA lease & maint. (10,000), airplane/ helicopter rental (10,000), horse rental (2000) | $22,000 |
| $127,461 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $127,461 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $127,461 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| USFWS | Review of sampling protocols (spotted frog) and field training, PIT tags for frogs | $6,000 | in-kind |
| IDFG, BLM, USFS | Technical assistance | $0 | in-kind |
Other budget explanation
The Tribes will actively pursue opportunities to work with state and federal management agencies to coordinate sampling efforts and to share information.
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
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed. The ISRP is very much in favor of the type of objectives described, but the proposal is not amendable to scientific review. A detailed wildlife inventory, monitoring, and habitat evaluation plan should be developed and included in the response, perhaps in cooperation with the subcontractor.The proponents may wish to work with the interagency work group supporting Proposal #1992-06100"Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation," to help develop the plans for monitoring and evaluation. These plans were reviewed by the ISRP in the addendum to report ISRP 2001-4"Review of Draft Albeni Falls M&E Plan."
Comment:
Comment:
Fundable with high priority. The ISRP appreciates the proponents efforts in providing an excellent (but, understandably incomplete) draft wildlife inventory and monitoring plan. This draft provides a step toward development of a model plan for inventory, monitoring, and evaluation of wildlife that might be recommended by CBFWA to state and federal agencies and tribes in the Columbia Basin.The draft plans for inventory, monitoring and evaluation of wildlife species is an excellent response and represents a good step toward methods that might be recommended throughout the Columbia Basin. The habitat evaluation section of the plan appears to be minimal, emphasizing the need for the region to develop common site selection protocols and data collection methods for monitoring of terrestrial habitat. The ISRP encourages the proponents to continue the association with the interagency work group to develop plans for monitoring and evaluation of wildlife and terrestrial habitat.
Comment:
Do not recommend. The discussions are agreements among responsible entities, as called for in the Council's 1995 F&W Program have not yet taken place. Findings on Section 10.5B. As BPA commented in 1995, FWL Program amendments, it may not be an FCRPS responsibility to mitigate above Hells Canyon dam if not affected by the construction or operation of Black Canyon, Anderson Ranch, Boise Diversion, Minidoka, or Palisades reservoirs.Comment:
Project Issue 7: New projects that were prioritized by the Middle Snake province group
The sponsors in the province have proposed four new projects to utilize the funds within the Council's province allocation that remains after the existing projects discussed above have been funded.
(c) Shoshone Paiute Tribe -- 32008 (Wildlife Inventory and Habitat Evaluation of Duck Valley Indian Reservation) ($127, 461 in Fiscal Year 2003, $120,010 in Fiscal Year 2004 and $23,869 in Fiscal Year 2005).
The ISRP rated this project as "Fundable at a high priority", and CBFWA rated it as "High Priority." Bonneville rated the project as "C", stating that the regional agreement regarding Bonneville's responsibility for such projects above Hell's Canyon Dam that were called for in the Council's 1995 program have not been achieved. Bonneville questions if the project is within the scope of its obligations under the Act.
The sponsor states that this is the nature of the work that the ISRP stated was important and necessary in its reviews in prior years.
Council Recommendation: The Council recommends funding this project. Again, this is a project that remained a priority of the province managers within the limited budget. The Council does not believe that the failure of the region to respond to the Council's request in its 1995 program to reach an agreement about Bonneville's responsibility above the Hell's Canyon complex is sufficient basis for a deferral -- Bonneville was one of the primary parties that was called upon to engage that discussion, and could have done so, but did not.
The Council believes that this sort of inventory work is exactly the type of information that would assist the Shoshone Paiute tribe, Bonneville and others, in determining if, where, and how much hydrosystem construction and operation impacted fish and wildlife in the area that would contribute to a discussion and resolution of Bonneville's obligations under the Act in this part of the Columbia basin. Further, the ISRP provided extra emphasis in its support of this project stating that it should proceed as a high priority.
Comment:
Phase 3 will be initiated upon resolution of identified issues. BPA will reengage with the Council regarding applicability of this project to the FCRPS mitigation responsibility prior to issuing a final decision.Comment:
Phase III. Realign budget one year.Comment:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $127,461 | $0 | $0 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website