FY 2001 Intermountain proposal 199800300

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
HEP Report	Narrative Attachment
Management Plan	Narrative Attachment
199800300 Narrative	Narrative
199800300 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
Intermountain: Spokane Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map
Intermountain: Spokane Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Spokane Tribe of Indians Wildlife Operations and Maintenance
Proposal ID	199800300
Organization	Spokane Tribe of Indians (STOI)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	B.J. Kieffer
Mailing address	P.O. Box 100 Wellpinit, Wa. 99040
Phone / email	5092587055 / bjk@spokanetribe.com
Manager authorizing this project	B.J. Kieffer
Review cycle	Intermountain
Province / Subbasin	Intermountain / Lake Roosevelt
Short description	Partial mitigation to protect, mitigate, and enhance wildlife mitigation lands on the Spokane Indian Reservation for construction and inundation losses of wildlife habitat on the Spokane Indian Reservation caused by Grand Coulee Dams
Target species	Species targeted for this project are identified in the "Wildlife Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Planning for Grand Coulee Dam Final Report 1986". Mule Deer, White-tail Deer, Ruffed Grouse, Sharp-tailed Grouse, Mourning Dove, and Riparian Forest,

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
47.9642	-118.2169	McCoy Lake
47.9361	-118.0383	Turtle Lake
47.8835	-118.1496	Blue Creek
		Fox Creek

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
1993	Washington Interim Agreement was completed
	Spokane Tribe completed Blue Creek Project Phase 1
1996	Spokane Tribe secured funds of $1.8 Million from BPA for partial mitigation for Grand Coulee Dam
1997	Spokane Tribe began purchasing lands for wildlife mitigation
1998	Spokane Tribe completed partial mitigation from funds, 1863.5 acres purchased for mitigation.
	Release of Biological Weed Control:
	100 (Rhinocyllus conicus) Seed Head Weevil for Canada Thistle Along McCoy Lake Watershed Management Area to control approximately 5 acres of Canada Thistle along the creek.
	200 (Larinus minutus) Seed eating beetle for knapweed, along McCoy Lake Watershed Management Area to control approximately 15 acres of knapweed along the creek.
	Approximately 900 acres was purchased within the McCoy Lake Watershed.
	Spokane Tribe entered into Carbon Offset Program (COP) through Upper Columbia RC&D to plant 50 acres of ponderosa pine trees within the McCoy Lake Watershed Management Area, (No cost was attributed to BPA)
	The Spokane Tribe Natural Resource Managers developed a 7,000 acre Geographic Priority Area (GPA) McCoy Lake Watershed Management Area, and submitted to USDA in Colville, Wa for funding of restoration and enhancements activities.
1999	STOI Wildlife Program completed Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) on the 1863.5 acres and report was submitted to BPA..
	Site Specific Habitat Enhancement Plans completed on 1863.5 acres and submitted to BPA.
	Noxious weed control on 20 acres of land; thistle, knapweed, Dalmation Toadflax.
	30 acres of agriculture land that was infested with knapweed was planted with native grass seed.
	Spring (March-May) Planted 10,350 trees and shrubs on 40 acres at 260 stems per acre along McCoy Lake Creek.
2000	Spring: gathered 350 cottonwoods shoots on the Spokane Reservation and planting them along McCoy Lake Creek.
	gathered 100 Aspen from areas on the Reservation and transplanted them along McCoy Lake Creek.
	Began initail baseline information on at least one target species, developed and implemented a Ruffed Grouse Drumming survey.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
199106100	Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area (SLWA)	Protect and maintain a self sustaining sharp-tailed grouse population, establish sage grouse in viable numbers, increase mule deer use of the project site, and enhance associated shrub-steppe habitat for other shrub-steppe obligate species.
199609400	Scotch Creek Wildlife Area	Protect and maintain a self sustaining sharp-tailed grouse population, increase and enhance mule deer winter range, and enhance associated shrub-steppe habitat for other shrub-steppe/conifer forest species.
199506700	Colville Tribes Performance Contract for Continuing Acquisition	Protect, enhance and evaluate wildlife habitat and species for partial mitigation for losses to wildlife resulting from Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph Dams.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2001 cost	Subcontractor

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 2001 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 2001 cost	Subcontractor
1) Protect wildlife species and habitats	a) Procure manpower to implement and maintain project.	99+	$104,671
	b) Maintain project equipment and supplies.	99+	$1,000
	c) Road closures of 3 miles of road within the Blue Creek Winter Range Management Area.	2	$2,500	Yes
	d) Remove trespass livestock	99+	$500
	e) Maintain and repair boundary fences on 1863.5 acres.	99+	$4,500
	f) Manage 1863.5 acres using HEP data and/or site specific management plans to complete restoration and enhancement activities..	99+	$1,000
2) Monitor and Evaluate Invasion of noxious weeds.	a) Noxious weed control for 200 acres identified per year as needed/ or required by STOI Natural Resource and submitted under the intial site specific mangement plans	12+	$500
	b) Use of biological weed control methods to manage 100 acres invaded with knapweed to help reduce the spread of knapweed throughout the rest of the project.	3+	$0
	c) Use of biological weed control methods to manage 30 acres of Canada Thistle to help prevent the spread along the McCoy Lake Watershed Area.	3+	$0
	d) Use of mechanical weed control to manage 50 acres of knapweed along the McCoy Lake Watershed Management Area.	3+	$0
	e) Establish monitoring sites within treated areas to determine cost effectiveness of treatment methods.		$0
	f) Report annually on noxious weed control progress	12+	$100
3) Maintain Project Lands	a) Maintain Project lands to at least baseline HEP.	99+	$1,000
	b) Provide fire protection (working with BIA Fire Management planning)	99+	$1,000
4) Coordination	a) Coordination with Tribal and BIA Natural Resource Staff.	99+	$1,500
	b) Coordination with other land managers in Lake Roosevelt Subbasin as well as within the Columbia Basin on mitigation	99+	$1,000
5) Mitigation Land Management	a)Develop Wildlife Species Specific Management Plans for mitigation lands and acres in close proximity to mitigation lands.	99+	$1,000
	b) Use best available scientific information to manage mitigation lands for species and their habitats.		$0
	c) Use HEP Baseline and Site specific management plans for enhancement on mitigation lands.	99+	$1,500
6) Habitat Enhancements	a) Submit and report ground disturbance information to Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO)	99+	$1,500
	b) Use Site specific management plans to identify selected habitats for enhancements.	99+	$1,000
	c) Continue to Implement Site Specific Management plans on mitigation lands.	99+	$2,000
	d) Enhance mitigation lands for winter range habitat for both species of deer		$0
	e) Enhance riparian areas to benefit terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species.		$0
	f) Begin to work with NRCS and enroll certain habitat types into EQIP and WHIP.	99+	$0
7) Communication	a) Maintain communication with all interested and involved parties.	99+	$1,790
	b)Continue with information exchange with all involved parties.	99+	$1,900
	c) Hold informational meetings for interested parties.	99+	$2,000
8) Submit Reports	a) Prepare and submit required reports to Tribal Government, BPA, NWPPC, CBFWA	99+	$1,700
	b) Prepare and submit quarterly and annual reports to BPA.	99+	$1,595
	c) Prepare and submit for BPA Publication Project Studies.	99+	$1,442

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005
$140,115	$143,618	$147,208	$150,888

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2001 cost
1) Monitor and Evaluation habitat enhancements on mitigation lands	a) Procure manpower to implement monitoring and evaluation of wildlife habitats and species.	99+	$32,240
	b) Conduct HEP on 3-5 year intervals to determine habitat response from enhancement measures.	99+	$1,937
	c) Conduct wildlife population surveys for Target Species, and all other species using mitigation lands..	99+	$1,937
	d) Monitor Noxious Weed Control sites and use adaptive management to meet objectives.	15+	$1,937
	e) Monitor habitat enhancement and use adaptive management to meet objectives	99+	$1,937
	f) Monitor human impacts on mitigation lands. (i.e. trespass livestock, fence damage)	99+	$1,937
	g) Monitor plant propagation from cuts from Spokane Indian Reservation.	99+	$1,937
	h) Begin to assess the feasibility of a reintroduction of sharp-tailed grouse back to the Spokane Indian Reservation		$0
2) Identify specific factors limiting/affecting mule deer populations in the Lake Roosevelt subbasin and adjacent subbasins/provinces by 2004 (Figure 3).	a) Develop mule deer habitat quality/browse nutrition research project.		$0
	b) Monitor doe/fawn ratios and hunter harvest annually.		$0
	c) Conduct mule deer winter counts annually.		$0
	d) Control non-native weedy vegetation on critical mule deer habitat and re-establish preferred mule deer forage plant species where practical.		$0
	e) Monitor livestock use and determine grazing impacts.		$0
	f) Develop restoration strategies for altered landscapes/habitat		$0
	g) Monitor mule deer predation.		$0
3) Increase present sharp-tailed grouse populations within the Intermountain Province and associated subbasins to a minimum of 800 grouse by 2010.	a) Develop cooperative management agreements with private landowners and government agencies (NRCS, WDFW, CCT, STI, DNR, BLM, Conservation Districts etc.)		$0
	b) Acquire, protect, enhance, and maintain sharp-tailed grouse habitat		$0
	c) Identify and document the locations of existing meta populations/population sinks.		$0
	d) Identify and map critical/potential habitat.		$0
	e) Conduct sharp-tailed grouse trap and transfer programs to increase genetic variation.		$0
	f) Monitor sharp-tailed grouse using radio telemetry, lek surveys, etc., to identify movement corridors and habitat use, and determine mortality factors.		$0
	g) Monitor habitat quality and develop strategies to improve habitat conditions based on monitoring results and species response to habitat changes.		$0
		99+	$1,937

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005
$45,799	$46,945	$48,118	$49,321

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2001 cost
Personnel	FTE: 3.3	$100,330
Fringe	@ 18% plus medical insurance	$26,214
Supplies	fence materials, monitoring equipment, office supplies, GIS Support,	$9,500
Travel	at least two training courese (HEP) or EDT for 3 people at Tribe's Travel Rate of $1,500 x 3	$4,500
Indirect	17.6 %	$27,313
Other	Equipment Maintenance, Vehicle Maintenance, and other NRD Support	$14,640
		$182,497

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$182,497
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2001 budget request	$182,497
FY 2001 forecast from 2000	$97,187
% change from forecast	87.8%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Through the 1999 and 2000 project selection process, the ISRP made some comments on the lack on monitoring and evaluation on mitigation lands the Spokane Tribe has purchased. The increase to the proposed budget for FY2001 reflect the funding needs of the Spokane Tribal Wildlife Program to implement the Site Specific Management Plans and develop M&E on the mitigation lands. Over the course of the last three years, the Spokane Tribe had requested a small portion of funds for O&M Funding to begin implementation of Habitat Evaluation Procedures and develop the Site Specific Management Plans for mitigation lands to allow us to better identify the actual needs of funding. Upon completion of these two phases of our project, we have identified two major components that need to be addressed. Lack of funding to implement the Site Specific Management Plans, and the need to develop a Monitoring and Evaluation Component to be incorporated into the long term funding needs of the Spokane Tribe.

Reason for change in scope

The Spokane Tribe has added another objective to its Scope of Work for FY 2001 and into the Future. The Wildlife Program will be adding M&E as an objective to monitor all phases of our implementation of our Site Specific Management Plans for Mitigation Parcels. The Spokane Tribe has identified this as an area that also needs to be addressed as we implement the Site Specific Management Plans. This will allow us to better monitor our target enhancement measures and to determine if our objectives for enhancements are being met. The Wildlife Program will also be conducting baseline wildlife species assessments on project lands for wildlife species occurance of listed Target Species.

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
National Youth Corp (NYC)	This is a summer youth program on the Spokane Indian Reservation.	$0	in-kind
Water Resources Program	Water quality analysis	$0	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 2000-8)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Oct 6, 2000

Comment:

Fundable only if the response provides adequate detail concerning the methods for enhancement and monitoring of target species. The concerns with the proposal were mostly addressed at the presentation and should be elaborated on in a written response.

Comments and specific questions.

The proposal is improved from past versions, however additional details are needed on enhancement and monitoring methods for target species. For example, what are the methods for"...more intensive vegetation monitoring ...", including criteria for location of sites for noxious weed control.
It is not acceptable to include tasks of, for example, "This year we will determine how many plots are needed and protocol on collecting information ..." Proposals should contain designs and protocols with references for data collection in the monitoring and evaluation section. Plans should be included for electronic storage of data and metadata. Comparable methods are needed for monitoring and evaluation of this and other projects in the Inter Mountain Province and to evaluate progress toward meeting objectives of the subbasin summaries. The site-specific management plan that is stated as having been submitted to Bonneville might be provided to facilitate review of methods and sampling designs.
Explain why it is possible to have too much bitterbrush on deer winter range. Are these old desiccate stands? What are the criteria for planting the different grass species, e.g., crested wheatgrass? Crested wheatgrass has frequently been used to quickly stabilize soils, but has proven to be poor habitat for wildlife. Explain other apparently contradictory management practices such as burning to reduce shrubs versus active fire suppression and planting to increase them, and planting crested wheatgrass versus actively removing non-native species. This does not sound like working with natural habitat potential.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Urgent/High Priority

Date:
Nov 15, 2000

Comment:

T1&T4- Revisions will address slight deficiencies

T8-will address in revision

M2-The proposed work is not associated with an urgent issue involving a listed (i.e., sensitive threatened, endangered) species. However, for many of the projects urgency does exist in the form of mitigation opportunities.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2000-9)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Dec 1, 2000

Comment:

Fundable. The proposal is adequate as amended.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jan 31, 2001

Comment:

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 11, 2001

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:
$190,563	$190,563	$190,563

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website