FY 2000 proposal 199506700
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 |
|---|---|
| 199506700 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199506700 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Colville Tribes Performance Contract for Continuing Acquisition |
| Proposal ID | 199506700 |
| Organization | Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Steven L. Judd |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 150 Nespelem, WA 99155 |
| Phone / email | 5096342117 / |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Inter-Mountain / Columbia Upper |
| Short description | To project, enhance and evaluate wildlife habitats and species for partial mitigation for losses to wildlife resulting from Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph Dams. |
| Target species | Mule deer, sharp-tailed and blue grouse, mourning dove, Lewis and downy woodpecker, yellow warbler, bobcat, mink, bald eagle, and spotted sandpiper. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
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 |
|---|---|
| 1993-1998, we have acquired 18,512 acres of land for wildlife mitigation purposes. See umbrella proposal for details. Biological objectives are being met at acceptable levels for this stage of a very long-term project. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9204800 | Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range Operation and Maintenance Project | |
| 20509 | Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range Wildlife Mitigation Umbrella Project |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $0 | |
| Fringe | $0 | |
| Supplies | fencing, etc. | $5,000 |
| Operating | Secure property | $25,000 |
| Capital | Purchase land | $1,460,000 |
| Indirect | @ 39.2% of salaries | $0 |
| Other | Baseline HEP | $10,000 |
| $1,500,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $1,500,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $1,500,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | $0 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: NOTE: Above items 5 through 7 are ongoing and costs are to be determined. Breakdown of negotiations with landowners could cause schedule changes and delays.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fund. Proposal is technically inadequate. Proposers need to describe their plan, the specific properties they plan to protect, specific benefits to fish and wildlife, and criteria to prioritize potential acquisitions.Comments: The proposal is attractive for its attempt to acquire conservation rights to lands adjacent to those already set aside for conservation purposes. This has the potential to significantly increase the value of the conservation area. How important this is in relation to acquiring disjunct lands that may benefit a different suite of species, however, is not addressed in the proposal. Furthermore, while the proposal clearly indicates what wildlife species are expected to benefit, it makes no attempt to discuss what potential benefit there may be to these resources as requested by the Council. Other than suggesting that the proposed acquisitions may serve as winter range for large mammals and be suitable for a variety of other species, the actual or potential habitat(s) sought and their relation to already acquired habitats are not described.
Sponsors seek $1.5 million, but give no detail on the properties they propose to acquire and neglect to describe criteria to prioritize acquisition of properties. The proposal should describe the conservation easements, etc, to be placed on the lands. It is inadequate to justify an acquisition by simply providing a "list of state sensitive and/or candidate species" which may or may not occur on or near proposed acquisitions. Also, there is no clear relationship between species to be benefited and the habitat needs and/or limiting factors (locally and regionally) of those species. In addition, relationships between this project and others in the region are not presented. Finally, project objectives are poorly thought out and vague. What was accomplished with last year's $150k budget? Why were not candidate properties located and assessed so that they could be prioritized for this year's work? There does not seem to be any plan or systematic thinking here.
Comment:
Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Proposal very brief, but well described in umbrella proposal 20509.Explain how this project fits into a watershed context.
Comment:
Proponent reductionComment:
Fund at some level; the CBFWA recommended level looks appropriate. Future funding for operation and management of these lands should be contingent on supplying a clear management plan that includes adequate monitoring and evaluation, using direct measures of target species.The responses clarify the opportunistic nature of the proposal, that is, having funds available to purchase properties that may come on the market and meet the selection criteria. The respondents also supplied a summary and discussion of criteria for selecting and prioritizing lands for acquisition. The responses did not clearly answer the question about priority for disjunct versus contiguous lands in terms of wildlife needs, but overall selection criteria are biologically reasonable. Although the respondents do not clarify the type of conservation easements they might seek or accept, they clarify that purchase is the main objective of this proposal.
Comment:
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
capital
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $0 | $0 | $0 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website