BPA Fish and Wildlife FY 1998 Proposal

Section 1. Summary
Section 2. Goals
Section 3. Background
Section 4. Purpose and methods
Section 5. Planned activities
Section 6. Outcomes, monitoring and evaluation
Section 7. Relationships
Section 8. Costs and FTE

see CBFWA and BPA funding recommendations

Section 1. Summary

Title of project
Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range

BPA project number   9204800

Short description
Protect and enhance approximately 4,900 acres of upland shrub-steppe, forest habitat on the Colville Reservation.

Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding
Colville Confederated Tribes

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Section 2. Goals

General
Supports a healthy Columbia basin; maintains biological diversity; maintains genetic integrity; increases run sizes or populations; provides needed habitat protection

Section 3. Background

Stream area affected

Hydro project   Grand Coulee, Chief Joseph
Subbasin   Upper Columbia
Land ownership   Tribal
Acres affected   4950

History
Proposed in 1992 by the Colville Tribes as partial mitigation for Grand Coulee. To date the Project has protected about 5,000 acres of habitat.

Biological results achieved
The Project has permanently protected about 5,000 acres of big game winter range and habitat for a variety of other species.

Project reports and papers
Hellsgate Winter Range Mitigation Project Long Term Management Plan, 1993. Hellsgate Winter Range Wildlife Mitigation Evironmental Assessment, 1995.

Adaptive management implications
Baseline HEP analysis of portion of protected properties is providing data for site specific management planning.

Section 4. Purpose and methods

Specific measureable objectives
Complete the protection phase of the planned project area.

Critical uncertainties
Funding quantity and stability.

Biological need
Many thousands of acres and their associated habitat units were lost due to inundation. This project will help mitigate some of those losses. It will provide benefits for the regions wildlife and fisheries far into the future.

Hypothesis to be tested
Long term protection, management, and enhancement of project lands will provide increased biodiversity, improves soil, water and vegetation quality and quantity. Animal populations will benefit because of these actions.

Alternative approaches
N/A

Justification for planning
N/A

Methods
We are primarily in the implementation and protection phase. Methods, etc. will be developed during and following the completion of the site specific management plans.

Section 5. Planned activities

Constraints or factors that may cause schedule or budget changes
No project is without risk. However barring catastrophic wildfire or a prolonged drought period major risks should be minimal. The greatest risk would be loss of funding to manage and maintain the project.

Section 6. Outcomes, monitoring and evaluation

SUMMARY OF EXPECTED OUTCOMES

Expected performance of target population or quality change in land area affected
We expect this project to provide improved wildlife habitat and wildlife benefits, in perpetuity, for the Colville Tribes and the public in general.

Present utilization and convservation potential of target population or area
Currently protected by project. Some further acquisition desirable to buffer protected area and provide more habitat diversity.

Assumed historic status of utilization and conservation potential
Project lands were livestock operations which competed with wildlife on critical habitat types and areas. High potential that project areas would have been converted to recreational home site development.

Long term expected utilization and conservation potential for target population or habitat
Types should increase over time with enhancements and long term management.

Contribution toward long-term goal
Permanent protect, manage and enhance wildlife habitat units for specific big game species. Will also benefit a large array of non-targeted wildlife species through increase in protection of biodiversity.

Indirect biological or environmental changes
Improved water quality. Reduction of erosion, return portions of project area to natural sustaining vegetative community conditions.

Physical products
Currently 48 miles of fence, 20 miles of additional fence needed. 4,800 acres acquired. 7 buildings that will need some level of maintenance.

Environmental attributes affected by the project
Several miles of river and stream frontage that will directly benefit resident fish habitat. This along with protection and management of the adjacent uplands will indirectly benefit anadamous fish through improved water quality.

Changes assumed or expected for affected environmental attributes
Protection will provide improved cover and forage for wildlife populations using project lands. Increase overall biomass and species diversity because of enhancement and other management activities.

Measure of attribute changes
Projected total HUs for protection is 4931. Projected HUs for enhancement may be calculated following completion of site specific management plans.

Assessment of effects on project outcomes of critical uncertainty
If adequate funding is not available then desired levels of management activities will not be achieved. If catastrophic events occur such as wildfire, drought, etc., then achievement of long term goals will be set back or slowed. These things will be assessed through our monitoring program.

Information products
Periodic reports on analysis and evaluations of project conditions.

Coordination outcomes
Developed a comprehensive long-term management plan. Completed the NEPA review. Protected 5,000 acres of critical wildlife habitat.

MONITORING APPROACH
We are primarily in the implementation and protection phase. Methods, etc. will be developed during and following the completion of the site specific management plans.

Provisions to monitor population status or habitat quality
HEP is in place to monitor and evaluate habitat responses. Other methods such as: permanent vegetation transects, trends in animal species and abundance surveys are being developed.

Data analysis and evaluation
By using uptodate scientific methodologies and techniques available to us.

Information feed back to management decisions
Results of data analysis will be compared to project goals and objectives and management actions will be taken to see that these are being met.

Evaluation
Compare the monitoring results with project goals and objectives. Compare results of current monitoring with baseline HEP data.

Incorporating new information regarding uncertainties
When identified it will be evaluated by project and Department personnel. As with other adaptive management items it will be used to adjust management plans and objectives.

Increasing public awareness of F&W activities
Through signs on project property, press releases when appropiate, word of mouth among user groups, and periodic updates to the project advisory groups.

Section 7. Relationships

Opportunities for cooperation
Availability of enhancement funds due to BPA market conditions. Otherwise things should go forward fairly well.

Section 8. Costs and FTE

Other non-financial supporters
Tribes, BIA, WDFW and NPS

How does percentage apply to direct costs
% applies only to salaries

Supplemental wildlife evaluation factors
Land in this project was formerly a livestock operation. The owner was approaching retirement and the land would have made prime recreational home sites. Development of this property would have serious adverse impacts to wildlife and habitats on surrounding areas. The property lies within an area that the Tribes has designated to receive special management considerations for wildlife. The property is buffered largely by Tribal lands. Much of the project parcel sites have large enough contiguous acreage to buffer themselves fairly well.