FY 2002 Mountain Columbia proposal 199106000
Contents
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 / rentz@knrd.org |
| 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 | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
Fundable only if response is adequate
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.
Comment:
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.
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......".
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.
Comment:
Fund, consistent with Council recommendation. Project implementation will require an O&M plan and revised goals and objectives and a M&E plan.Comment:
Contract overlap for accrual, accrual number would be higher for 04. 130K for accrual.Comment:
Continuing O&MNW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
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