FY 2003 Middle Snake proposal 199505701

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Reason for change in estimated budget

Project has been separated into two province-based components.

Reason for change in scope

Changes in NWPPC Fish and Wildlife Program to province based implementation.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

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."

Comment:

Comment:

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.

Comment:

Comment:

Project Issue 1: Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation Project

As noted in the general issue above, only the operations and maintenance and monitoring and evaluation elements of this project were considered existing ongoing work for establishing the base budget for the province. This is also the base amount that the staff attached to the project for Fiscal Years 2003 through 2005 (with 3.4% increases in each year). The project sponsors have argued that additional administrative (such as planning and design) and capital costs should have also been considering "ongoing" and considered as base costs for setting the province allocation, and those additional amounts should also have been attached to the project for Fiscal Years 2003 through 2005.

The basic position of the sponsor is that the SIWM is an existing and ongoing wildlife mitigation program, and the needs anticipated by the sponsors for this project over the period covered by this provincial review exceed the base O&M and M&E budget (approximately $732,000) that have been attached to the project. The sponsors describe these needs to include new acquisitions, administration, and O&M on new acquisitions. The Council staff advised the sponsors that new acquisitions, administrative costs relating to securing new properties, and O&M on new acquisitions are new work that should be prioritized on equal footing with all other new work proposed within the province.

The parent SIWM project continues to have approximately $3.7 million in carry-forward funding from past years. In addition, IDF&G has approximately $172,000 carry- forward under an administrative contract; Shoshone-Bannock has approximately $89,000 carry-forward in an administrative contract; and the Shoshone-Paiute has approximately $50,000 carry-forward in an administrative contract.

Second, the Council understands that some of the specific parcels that have been acquired to date will require some O&M funding for Fiscal Year 2002. While many of the properties have carryforward funds available to cover the final few months of FY 2002, there are some newly acquired properties that do not have any FY 2002 funds for O&M and do require some work in the next few months. A preliminary meeting with the sponsors, and based on a spreadsheet provided by Bonneville shows that there are three parcels that will require, in total, approximately $20,000 for O&M needs during these last few months of Fiscal Year 2002.

Council Recommendation: The Council recognizes that this part of the basin is lagging behind others in addressing wildlife mitigation for the wildlife losses that have been documented. The Council also recognizes that the SIWM is a project that is relatively new and is in its "ramp- up" in terms of securing properties and developing plans for them. As such, the historical spending commitments that were used by the Council to establish budgets for the FY 03 through FY 05 period do not reflect where the sponsors had hoped and planned to be in those and future years. The sponsors have said that the carry forward funds available for acquisition will soon be spent on properties that are "in the pipeline," and once those are gone, a funding approach that supports only O&M puts this mitigation program in a holding pattern for the next three years, doing little to continue forward progress towards mitigating for losses that have been documented as Bonneville's responsibility.

The sponsors have asked the Council if an exception should be made to the basic concepts that were used to set budget allocations for provinces and projects in order to allow the SIWM to grow more quickly than is possible within the budget allocation that has been set for the provinces. The Council recommendation here does not support that request. Rather, the recommendation is that the project should utilize what seem to be the substantial carry- forward contract balances for new acquisitions, as well as the administration and subsequent O&M related to them. With the carry- forward balances on hand, and the $732,000 dedicated to the project in each fiscal year in this funding cycle, this project has approximately $6.2 million dollars for Fiscal Years 2003 through 2004. The sponsors state that much of the carry- forward will be spent in the near future with projects that are "in the pipeline." If that is the case, the within year reallocation process is the appropriate venue for seeking additional capital funds for additional acquisitions in this funding period.* That proposal could be evaluated against other regional priorities (Estuary, Columbia Cascade, capital needs, etc) for possible funding with general unallocated funds.

The recommendation is that the project be funded in the Middle Snake province at $157,000 for Fiscal Year 2003, with $78,500 to the IDFG and $78,500 to the Shoshone Paiute Tribe. Those figures would be increased by 3.4% in each of the following two fiscal years.

The Council recommends that Bonneville provide a relatively small amount of funds ($20,000) required for O&M on three newly acquired parcels for needs in the remainder of Fiscal Year 2002. The Council staff will work with Bonneville and the sponsor to confirm the exact costs.

* It is worth noting that if the existing capital fund of $3.7 million will soon be spent on projects that are currently subject to transactions that will be imminently completed, the argument for additional planning and design funds is even more difficult to understand. If these projects are near closing, it would seem that planning and designing (appraisal, due diligence, legal, negotiation and administration time, etc.) should be largely completed. Moreover, what would the project be planning and designing for if the $3.7 million on hand in capital funds is actually spent soon? If the sponsors group had prioritized additional capital funds for the SIWM over existing and new projects, it would follow that there would be some planning and design costs that go with determining how to use those capital funds. However, that did not happen. The group supported continuing existing work and starting new work with remaining funds.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website