FY 2002 Mountain Columbia proposal 199106000

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
199106000 Narrative	Narrative
199106000 Sponsor Response to ISRP	Response
Intermountain: Pend Oreille Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map
Intermountain: Pend Oreille Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Pend Oreille Wetlands Wildlife Mitigation Project - Kalispel
Proposal ID	199106000
Organization	Kalispel Tribe of Indians (KNRD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Ray D. Entz
Mailing address	P.O. Box 39 Usk, WA 99180
Phone / email	5094451147 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	Ray D. Entz
Review cycle	Mountain Columbia
Province / Subbasin	Mountain Columbia / Pend Oreille Lower
Short description	Protect, restore, enhance and maintain important wetland/riparian wildlife habitat along the Pend Oreille River as partial mitigation for the construction and operation impacts associated with Albeni Falls Dam consistent with regional planning documents.
Target species	Bald Eagle (breeding and wintering), Black-capped Chickadee, Canada Goose, Mallard, Muskrat, Yellow Warbler, and White-tailed deer

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
48.45	-117.29	T34N R44E, Section 18
48.43	-117.29	T34N R44E, Section 19
48.43	-117.27	T34N R44E, Section 20

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
1992	Land acquisition of 436 acre parcel for baseline protection of 371 HU's
1993	Began management efforts on the project
1994	Completed bio-engineered shoreline stabilization projects on highly eroded banks
1995	Completed implementation of three wetland control structures for increased wetland quantity, quality, and diversity
1996	Completed the construction of two nesting islands for waterfowl
1997	Land acquisition of additional 164 acre adjjacent parcel for baseline protection of 246 HU's
1997	Five-year HEP update on original purchase showing an increase of 182 HU's through management activities
1998	Completed 25 acres of riparian cottonwood reforestation on the main acquisition site
1998	Completed 30 acres of hardwood stand improvement on the main acquisition site
1998	Completed the draft management plan for the additional parcel
1999	Implemented breeding and wintering bird surveys
1999	Implemented objectives and tasks consistant with the project managmenet plans
2000	Completed 5 acres of emergent wetland enhancements
2000	Completed 5 acres of shrub-scrub wetland enhancements
2000	Implemented breeding and wintering bird surveys
2000

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
9206100	Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation Project - IDFG	complimentary and interconnected in fulfilling wildlife mitigation for Albeni Falls Dam
9004401	Lake Creek Watershed Acquisition - Coeur d'Alene Tribe	complimentary and interconnected in fulfilling wildlife mitigation for Albeni Falls Dam

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Contract Administration and Compliance	a. Annual contract budget negotiation	ongoing	$1,250
	b. Meet reporting requirements	ongoing	$1,250
	c. Track budgeting and assist in billing	ongoing	$1,250
	d. Supervise implementation of the project	ongoing	$1,250

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Contract Administration	1993	2006	$21,600

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$5,100	$5,250	$5,500	$5,750

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Restore and enhance approximately 600 acres and 700 Habitat Units (HUs) on the two properties comprising the project	a. Restore approximately 30 acres of eroded shoreline into a riparian black cottonwood forest	1	$16,500
	b. Increase hardwood stands densities from 100 stems/acre to 900 stems/acre	1	$10,500
	c. Restore approximately 20 acres of pasture to scrub-shrub wetland habitat	1	$12,000
	d. Increase wetland quantity by approximately 90 surface acres and quality by using moist soil management techniques	1	$10,250
	e. Increase overall stand health and individual tree heights using standard silviculture practices	1	$9,500
	f. Stabilize and protect 1,500 feet of eroding shoreline and manage pasture for meeting life history requisites of various waterfowl	1	$11,250
	g. Reduce human disturbance to species/habitats	1	$5,500

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Restore and enhance approximately 600 acres and 700 Habitat Units (HUs) on the two properties comprising the project	1994	2003	$78,500

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003
$78,500

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Operate and maintain approximately 600 acres and 1,300 HUs on the two properties comprising the project	a. Property management and reporting requirements	ongoing	$8,500
	b. Management enforcement	ongoing	$5,500
	c. Fire protection and fire management	ongoing	$8,000
	d. fence repair and maintenance	ongoing	$14,000
	e. water control structure management, operation and maintenance	ongoing	$13,500
	f. Building maintenance	ongoing	$4,000
	g. Noxious weed control	ongoing	$5,600	Yes
	h. Maintain habitat improvements	ongoing	$10,100

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Operate and maintain approximately 600 acres and 1,300 HUs on the two properties comprising the project	1993	2006	$307,000

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$72,000	$75,000	$78,000	$82,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Monitor and evaluate wildlife habitat and management activities on 600 acres	a. Conduct HEP on 5-year intervals to determine increase in HUs from enhancement measures	ongoing	$4,100
	b. Conduct appropriate wildlife guild/species population surveys on a random basis	ongoing	$5,100
	c. Monitor burned areas at regular intervals including soil and vegetation response	ongoing	$2,200
	d. Monitor control of noxious weeds	ongoing	$1,600
	e. Monitor human use	ongoing	$1,100
	f. Amend and update management plans as necessary	ongoing	$3,500

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Monitor and evaluate wildlife habitat and management activities on 600 acres	1994	2006	$78,000

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$18,300	$19,000	$19,800	$20,900

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 2.4	$77,000
Fringe	29% of Salaries	$22,300
Supplies	Plants, field equipment, rip-rap, filter fabric, culverts, etc…	$13,655
Travel	Training, mileage, per diem associated with project implementation	$6,000
Indirect	17.5% of Direct Costs minus Capital and Contract Services	$25,445
Capital	Truck and Office lease	$10,400
Subcontractor	Weed Control and Bird Surveys	$4,500
Other	Heavy Equipment Rental	$8,000
		$167,300

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$167,300
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$167,300
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$162,300
% change from forecast	3.1%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Inflation and increased need for contract administration due to the increase in process asscoiated with contracting funding for mitigation of Fish and Wildlife resourses impacted by the Federal Hydropower System.

Reason for change in scope

Increased need for contract administration due to the increase in process asscoiated with contracting funding for mitigation of Fish and Wildlife resourses impacted by the Federal Hydropower System.

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
Kalispel Tribe	law enforcement	$3,000	in-kind
Kalispel Tribe	project vehicles/equipment	$3,000	in-kind
Kalispel Tribe	Computer, printer	$3,000	in-kind

Other budget explanation

N/A

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-2)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Feb 9, 2001

Comment:

A response review is needed to address ISRP concerns.

This is a proposal for maintenance and enhancement of lands previously purchased by BPA, apparently near the north end of Lake Pend Oreille. (The proposal would benefit from a map or maps showing location of lands and of on-going restoration, enhancement, and monitoring efforts.) The ISRP previously recommended that this proposal be funded for one year and that subsequent funding be contingent on a better description of the maintenance and monitoring methods. The project appears to include extensive active enhancement activities, and it is critical that the effectiveness of these be tested by a monitoring and evaluation program. However, descriptions of monitoring and maintenance on this project proposal continue to be sparse. The proposal states that a detailed M&E plan will be developed in conjunction with regional efforts, but why has one not been developed in the year since getting the last review comments that indicated M&E detail was required? The data presented at the oral presentation led the reviewers to believe that the current M&E was inadequate. The proposal lists 8 types of monitoring that will be included, but includes little specific detail on methods; it does not adequately describe how the monitoring will be done, nor does it give a description of the sampling design for monitoring. Monitoring of interactions between wildlife enhancement efforts and fishery enhancement also is not discussed. The critical missing elements that should be provided for the response review are:

Description (with data presented) of past successes and failures of enhancement activities. These evaluations should be shown in terms of ultimate biological objectives (benefit to fish and wildlife) as possible. The proposal should note adaptive management decisions that have been made using M&E.
Measurable biological objectives, associated with tasks by which they will be addressed.
Description of monitoring and evaluation plans, including their sampling design, how data will be analyzed and evaluated, and the rationale for choosing particular species, processes, or components for monitoring. A list of sample techniques is not adequate to establish a scientifically sound, useful monitoring system.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Mar 16, 2001

Comment:

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-4)

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Apr 6, 2001

Comment:

Do not fund, the response does not provide a reporting of results or a monitoring and evaluation plan as requested in this and last year's reviews.

This is a proposal for maintenance and enhancement of lands previously purchased by BPA, apparently near the north end of Lake Pend Oreille. The ISRP recommended in 2000 that this proposal be funded for one year and that subsequent funding be contingent on a better description of the maintenance and monitoring methods. The project appears to include extensive active enhancement activities, and it is critical that the effectiveness of these be tested by a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) program. However, descriptions of monitoring and maintenance on this project proposal continue to be sparse. The proposal and the response state only that a detailed M&E plan will be developed in conjunction with regional efforts. The data presented at the oral presentation led the reviewers to believe that the current M&E was inadequate and the response acknowledged that that is the case. The critical missing elements remain:

Description (with data presented) of past successes and failures of enhancement activities. These evaluations should be shown in terms of ultimate biological objectives (benefit to fish and wildlife) as possible. The proposal should note adaptive management decisions that have been made using M&E.
Measurable biological objectives, associated with tasks by which they will be addressed.
Description of monitoring and evaluation plans, including their sampling design, how data will be analyzed and evaluated, and the rationale for choosing particular species, processes, or components for monitoring. A list of sample techniques is not adequate to establish a scientifically sound, useful monitoring system.

The response that this project has previously been well reviewed and that it will take time to amend the project to new technical needs is not compelling. To "fully intend" to develop adequate M&E does not address the review concern. With no progress on implementing and M&E plan, the request to continue active management can only be judged scientifically unsound.

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fundable w/cond

Date:
May 30, 2001

Comment:

Disagree with the ISRP recommendation of Do Not Fund

- Recommend full funding for the O&M and M&E portions contingent upon the sponsor submitting a complete M&E plan as outlined in the cover document of the report (Page 1, Section 1).

- The MOA and subsequent covenant with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Kalispell Tribe of Indians states that in the event of failure to meet the goals and expectations listed in the MOA, BPA can cease payment for all or part of the activities related to the parcel and that such responsibility falls on the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Kalispell Tribe of Indians.

- Article 13 of the MOA states: "BPA shall provide reasonable amounts of funding for operation, maintenance, monitoring, and evaluation of the Ranch that is determined to be necessary to maintain positive wildlife and or wildlife habitat benefits for the life of the project. The life of the project is the time it will take to improve the habitat to achieve the minimum habitat unit values guaranteed by the Tribe in paragraph 3(b) above. BPA may fund operation, maintenance, monitoring, and evaluation up to the levels suggested in the plan".

- Article 16 states: "In the event BPA reasonably determines the Tribe has substantively breached this Agreement, the management plan, or any agreement or plan to which this Agreement is appended, BPA may discontinue payment of all or a portion of any funds due to the Tribe, and the Tribe shall hold harmless and indemnify BPA for any loss of credit BPA suffers as a result of the discontinuance of funds......".

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Oct 19, 2001

Comment:

The ISRP (p. 32) recommends no funding for Pend Oreille Wetlands wildlife mitigation project (199106000). Primary comments were lack of monitoring and evaluation and documentation of results of past measures for a project proposing to continue active enhancement measures. Bonneville comments state support for funding the O&M and M&E portions of the project, subject to a revamped M&E plan being submitted.

Council recommendation: Fund O&M for property management only. Resubmit M&E plan in coordination with Albeni Falls mitigation program for consistent approach and then obtain ISRP peer review as a basis for further funding of M&E and active management. Reserve requested funding pending resolution of acquisition and monitoring and evaluation issues.

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Mar 25, 2002

Comment:

Fund, consistent with Council recommendation. Project implementation will require an O&M plan and revised goals and objectives and a M&E plan.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Contract overlap for accrual, accrual number would be higher for 04. 130K for accrual.

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Continuing O&M

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$99,250	$99,250	$99,250

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website