FY 2003 Upper Snake proposal 199505702

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
199505702 Narrative	Narrative
199505702 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
Upper Snake: Snake Upper Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map
Upper Snake: Snake Upper Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation Program
Proposal ID	199505702
Organization	The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (SBT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Chad Colter
Mailing address	Box 306 Fort Hall, Idaho 83203
Phone / email	2084783761 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	Chad Colter
Review cycle	Upper Snake
Province / Subbasin	Upper Snake / Upper Snake
Short description	Protect, enhance, restore and maintain wildlife habitats to mitigate for construction losses at Palisades and Minidoka dams.
Target species	All wildlife species affected hydropower development including Bald Eagle, Sage, Sharp-tailed, & Ruffed Grouse, Pheasant, Trumpeter Swan, Canada Goose, Mallard, Chickadee, Yellow Warbler, Yellow-rumped warbler, mule deer, elk, river otter, mink.

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
42.92	-113.26	Throughout the Upper Snake subbasin

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
1985	Wildlife impact assessment: Palisades Project (Sather-Blair and Preston 1985).
1986	Wildlife protection, mitigation and ehancement plan: Palisades Project (Martin and Hansen 1986).
1989	Minidoka dam wildlife impact assessment (Martin and Meuleman 1989).
1991	Wildlife protection, mitigation and enhancement plan: Minidoka Dam (Meuleman, Martin and Hansen 1991).
1995	Established interagency work groups to define and prioritize potential mitigation projects.
1996	IDFG and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (SBT) signed an MOA to implement wildlife mitigation projects.
1997	Purchased conservation easement on 422 acres of upland and riparian habitat to prevent further anthropogenic disturbance/development. Easement provided 383 habitat units (HU's) credited to Palisades wildlife mitigation.
1997	Purchased conservation easement on 800 acres of upland and riparian habitat to prevent further anthropogenic disturbance/development. Easement provided 813 HU's credited to Palisades wildlife mitigation.
1997	Purchased fee-title to 140 acres of wetland habitat. Purchase provided 317 HU's credited to Palisades wildlife mititgation.
1997	Purchased fee-title to 310 acres of wetland habitat. Purchase provided 900 HU's credited to Palisades wildlife mititgation.
1997	Purchased fee-title to 2135 acres of wetland and upland habitat within the boundaries of IDFG's Tex Creek WMA. BPA funded one-third of purchase and received1254 HU's credited to Palisades wildlife mitigation.
1997	Palisades biocontrol of noxious weeds project implemented on 10,000 acres. Project provided 499 HU's credited to Palisades wildlife mitigation.
1998	Purchased fee-title to 2563 acres of upland habitat within the boundaries of the BLM Soda Springs Hills Wildlife Habitat Area. Project provided 3896 HU's credited to Palisades wildlife mitigation.
1998	Big Cottonwood Wildlife Management Area wildlife habitat enhancement project implememted. Project will provide 122 HU's credited to Minidoka wildlife mitigation by restoring shrub steppe and riparian habitat on the IDFG Big Cottonwood WMA.
1999	Purchased fee-title to 2556 acres of wetland and upland habitat. Purchase provided 6918 HU's credited to Palisades wildlife mitigation.
2000	Purchased fee-title to 2450 acres of upland habitat. Purchase provided 406 HU's credited to Palisades and 1596 HU's credited to Minidoka wildlife mitigation.
2001	Implemented wildlife habitat enhnacement actions (shrub plantings) on Quarter Circle/Tex Creek WMA property.
All Years	Conducted operation and maintenance (O&M) and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) on all previously acquired properties.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
199206100	Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation	SBT and IDFG is a member of the interagency work group supporting this project and there is close coordination with both projects.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1.Conduct pre-acquisition activities associated with protection of 3000 HU's of wildife habitat.	a. Plan and coordinate identification of priority areas/properties for protection.	10+	$42,129
	b. Develop a GIS database to help prioritize potential projects which includes limiting factors, critical areas, ownership and other relevant parameters.	2	$89,805	Yes
	c. Identify landowners willing to sell easements or fee-titles.	10+	$42,129
	d. Complete environmental compliance and due diligence requirements (appriasal, title search, environmental survey, cultural survey).	10+	$50,332	Yes
	e. Complete NEPA requirements.	10+	$5,593
	f. Consult and coordinate throughout the process with NWPPC, BPA, CBFWA, IDFG, Tribes, interagency work groups, local governments and the public.	10+	$87,675
2. Plan, design and coordinate enhancement activities to provide 1000 HU's of wildlife habitat.	a. Plan and coordinate identification of priority areas/properties for enhancement using criteria developed by interagency work groups and information from GIS database.	10+	$58,450
	b. Plan enhancement actions.	10+	$31,597
	c. Complete environmental compliance requirements.	10+	$37,749	Yes
	d. Complete NEPA requirements.	10+	$4,195
	e. Determine cost-share partners' roles when appropriate and develop MOA among partners when necessary.	10+	$29,225
	f. Consult and coordinate throughout the process with NWPPC, BPA, CBFWA, IDFG, Tribes, interagency work groups, local governments and the public.	10+	$58,450

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1.Conduct pre-acquisition activities associated with protection of 3000 HU's of wildife habitat.	2003	2007	$1,411,902
2. Plan, design and coordinate enhancement activities to provide 1000 HU's of wildlife habitat.	2003	2007	$1,175,599

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$555,598	$481,630	$498,005	$514,938

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost
1. Protect 3,000 HU's of wildlife habitat.	a. Secure easement and/or fee title.	10+	$2,000,000
	b. Complete baseline HEP report and site-specific management plan.	10+	$39,974
2. Implement enhancement actions to provide 1000 HU's of wildlife habitat.	a. Establish and/or restore native vegetation or other permanent wildlife habitat.	10+	$275,000
	b. Enter into cooperative agreements to control undesirable and exotic vegetation using biological, mechanical and chemical methods.	10+	$41,000
	c. Construct or maintain boundary fences to prevent trespass livestock grazing.	10+	$80,000
	d. Construct water level and water control structures to mimic natural hydrologic regimes.	10+	$120,000
	e. Develop/control public access to minimize impacts to wildlife and habitat.	10+	$22,000
	f. Develop facilities as appropriate.	10+	$25,000

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Protect 3,000 HU's of wildlife habitat.	2003	2007	$10,917,446
2. Implement enhancement actions to provide 1000 HU's of wildlife habitat.	2003	2007	$4,987,838

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$4,048,181	$4,048,181	$2,602,974	$2,602,974

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1. Maintain HU's on all protected and enhanced areas.	a. Maintain native vegetation or other permanent wildlife habitat.	10+	$54,350
	b. Control undesireable and exotic vegetation using biological, mechanical and chemical methods.	10+	$128,672
	c. Maintain fences to prevent trespass livestock grazing.	10+	$38,990	Yes
	d. Manage water level and water control structures to mimic natural hydrologic regimes.	10+	$4,375
	e.Manage public access to minimize impacts to wildlife and habitat.	10+	$15,675
	f. Maintain facilities and infrastructure as appropriate.	10+	$42,400
	g. Update GIS database annually.	10+	$24,500

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Maintain HU's on all protected and enhanced areas.	2003	2007	$1,544,810

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$308,962	$308,962	$308,962	$308,962

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost
1. Monitor wildlife and habitat response to protection, enhancement and maintenance activites annually.	a. Develop and implement a Tier 2 level monitoring plan/program for the province.	1	$29,225
	b. Develop and manage a GIS database to support the monitoring program.	10+	$29,225
	c. Conduct HEP surveys as needed to document mitigation credit.	10+	$19,483
	d. Conduct vegetation (habitat) and wildlife surveys as prescribed in monitoring plan.	10+	$19,483
	e. Continuously monitor public use.	10+	$6,494
2. Adaptively manage mitigation projects using information from the monitoring program.	a. Evaluate monitoring data.	10+	$19,483
	b. Review site-specific management plans and amend or update as needed based on evaluation of monitoring information.	10+	$19,483

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Monitor wildlife and habitat response to protection, enhancement and maintenance activites annually.	2003	2007	$428,921
2. Adaptively manage mitigation projects using information from the monitoring program.	2003	2007	$208,537

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$117,515	$121,511	$125,642	$129,914

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2003 cost
Personnel	FTE: 3.5	$123,760
Fringe	calculated @ 34%, but will vary by position	$42,078
Supplies		$215,332
Travel		$30,000
Indirect	=(personnel+fringe)*27%	$44,776
Capital		$2,909,531
NEPA		$9,788
Subcontractor		$216,876
		$3,592,141

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 cost	$3,592,141
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2003 budget request	$3,592,141
FY 2003 forecast from 2002	$6,673,636
% change from forecast	-46.2%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Acquiring and enhancing HUs is a time consuming process. Identifying willing land owners, creating conservation agreement, and implementing enhancement actions was found to take additional hours.

Reason for change in scope

No change in scope

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
SBT	Office space	$7,200	in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2002-2)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

A response is needed that describes the prioritization process and a modified M&E section that ensures consistency with recommendations developed by the Albeni Falls Workgroup and review recommendations by the ISRP in addendum to Report ISRP 2001-4 (see http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2001-4.htm).

This is one of four Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation proposals (199505700 though 03). All are more or less identical. Project history and some of the text are identical. Apparently the Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation (SIWM) project was split into Upper and Middle Snake with the IDFG/IOSC, submitting proposals in both places along with the Shoshone-Bannock and Shoshone-Paiute Tribes. The response should more clearly point out their continuing relationship to each other. The ISRP comments on each are mostly identical (except the plant center under 199505702) and a coordinated response from the sponsors would be appropriate. The program has a good track record for acquisition of fee-title to project lands and should be supported. Council should consider the budgets carefully and evaluate the overall cost of the four projects. The M&E program is underdeveloped. The proponent mentions that they are a member of the interagency work group supporting Proposal #199206100"Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation," but should have included and more completely developed the plans for monitoring and evaluation that were developed by the Albeni Falls Workgroup and reviewed by the ISRP in the addendum to report ISRP 2001-4"Review of Draft Albeni Falls M&E Plan." For monitoring and evaluation of aquatic resources, the proponents may wish to work with the sponsors of Project 199405400 from the ODFW for methods of selection of sampling sites for study of aquatic resources. The proponents should ensure that data collected in this project will be comparable to data collected in other Provinces using common sampling procedures for site selection and common data collection procedures. It is not adequate to simply state that a national monitoring program, such as EMAP or NRI sampling, will be used. The specific sample areas, methods, and sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what type where and when) need to be specified. The ISRP review for FY2000 funding commented that: "However the management plan and the monitoring and evaluation component are not well developed. A clear management plan needs to be developed"...."Data supporting the long-term benefits of particular plantings, weed control, etc., should be taken and presented."..." The monitoring and evaluation plans lack detail. What populations will be monitored? Will a survey design be used that could detect value of enhancements or other active management techniques versus passive restoration?" We note that these deficiencies continue to exist and should be addressed in the response.

This proposal suggests using a programmatic approach rather than identifying specific actions and specific land purchases. Given this approach, it is necessary for the sponsors to describe their prioritization protocol in detail. How will the Albeni Falls model be used? Will some or all of the components of the Albeni Falls prioritization process be used? Although the sponsors are familiar with the Albeni Falls plan, they should ensure that this Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation proposal is consistent with the habitat acquisition and restoration plans developed by the Albeni Falls Workgroup and reviewed by the ISRP in the addendum to the report ISRP 2001-4"Review of Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes' Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Plan."

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

The proposed work provides for ongoing O&M activities. Project sponsors indicate credits will be applied to Palisades and Minidoka.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-11)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Fundable in part. The ISRP recognizes the need for a reliable source of seeds and stock for native plants. However, funding of a plant materials center at the Deer Parks Wildlife Mitigation Unit should be postponed until a detailed operations and management plan (i.e., a business plan) is available for review. Additionally, the ISRP recommends that the Council carefully evaluate funding of the Deer Parks plant materials center to determine if it satisfies requirements for off site mitigation in the Fish and Wildlife Program.

The proponents have adopted the Albeni Falls M&E Plan for use in southern Idaho in wetland cover types and are in the process of expanding that plan to include techniques for monitoring upland habitat and wildlife species. They anticipate having the draft Southern Idaho Monitoring and Evaluation Plan completed and ready for review by August 1, 2002. The plan should be reviewed by the ISRP before implementation. Also, the proponents should review the response provided by the sponsors of Proposal #32008. Their draft wildlife monitoring and evaluation plan constitutes a significant step toward development of wildlife monitoring protocols that might be recommended to Provinces in the Columbia Basin.

ISRP Final Review Comments for 32008:

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.

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
A w/ conditions

Date:
Jul 23, 2002

Comment:

While these SIWMP projects are addressing FWP priority species, the funding of the projects needs to be coordinated with other SIWMP proposals. Implementation Phase funding for new habitat acquisitions should be maintained at the FY01 levels (plus inflation factor) pending adoption of Subbasin Plans. In addition, on-going O&M and M&E should be funded to maintain past investments.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment:

Project Issue 1: Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation Project

Council Recommendation: Support funding this ongoing project. In addition to the carry forward balances on existing projects, fund IDFG in the amount of $287,500 in Fiscal Year 2003 and the Shoshone Paiute Tribe in the amount of $287,500 in Fiscal Year 2003 for operation and maintenance and monitoring and evaluation needs. Increase those amounts by 3.4% in each of the two subsequent fiscal years.

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Apr 30, 2003

Comment:
Fund as recommended

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:
Waiting on contract,6 months behind as a result. 04, 05 rec amounts still on target. Once contract received, should get work statement completed this year.

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

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:

$297,295 $297,295 $297,295

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$297,295	$297,295	$297,295