Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199204800

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date

Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range Operation and Maintenance Project
BPA Project Proposal Number 199204800
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Colville Confederated Tribes
Business acronym (if appropriate) CCT

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Steven L. Judd
Mailing Address P.O. Box 150
City, State, Zip Nespelem, WA 99155
Phone 5096342117
Fax 5096342126
Manager of program authorizing this project
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Inter-Mountain
Subbasin Columbia Upper
Short Description To protect, 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

[No information]

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal

NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: Section 11
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: N/A
Other Planning Document References N/A

CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): wildlife

Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
1993 Acquired and conducted HEP on 4814 ac.
1994 113 ac. treated for noxious weeds
1994 10 miles of boundary fence repaired
1995 Acquired and conducted HEP on 4800 ac.
1995 100 ac. treated for noxious weeds
1995 Acquired and conducted HEP on 6300 ac.
1996 200 ac. treated for noxious weeds
1996 2 miles of new boundary fence constructed
1996 10 miles of existing fences repaired
1997 Acquired and conducted HEP on 798 ac.
1997 257 ac. treated for noxious weeds
1997 2 miles of new boundary fence
1997 10 miles of existing fences repaired
1998 Acquired 1,800 ac.
1999 Conduct baseline HEP on new acquisition
1999 Maintain boundary fences
1999 Implemented M&E on all acquisitions (1993-1999)

Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
20509 Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range Umbrella Project Yes
9204800 Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range Operation and Maintenance Project Yes
9506700 CCT Performance Contract for Continuing Acquisition Project Yes

Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Protect wildlife species & habitats a. Procure necessary manpower for Project
1. b. Maintain Project Equipment & Supplies
1. c. Maintain leases and/or lands under agreements
1. d. Post signs, close roads and/or gates
1. e. Remove trespass livestock
1. f. Maintain boundary fences and/or construct new
1. g. Establish permanent transects with photo points
1. h. Manage units using HEP data and/or site plans
1. i. Protect wildlife species and habitats on Project lands
1. j. Prepare site specific management plans
2. Noxious Weed Control a. Control Noxious Weeds as required
2. b. Produce annual weed control report
3. Maintain Project Lands a. Secure property
3. b. Maintain all physical improvements
3. c. Provide fire protection
3. d. Clean up hazardous and/or other materials added after acquisition
4. Monitor and Evaluate a. Collect data
4. b. Analyze data
4. c. Relate findings to objectives
4. d. Use adaptive management when appropriate to meet objectives
5. Coordination a. Coordinate with Tribal Departments
5. b. Coordinate with federal, state and other agencies on mitigation
5. c. Maintain education and/or training for current licenses
5. d. Manage species and habitats using best scientific info. and/or systems
6. Communication a. Maintain communication between all involved parties and agencies
6. b. Continue informational updates to all involved parties
6. c. Hold and/or attend meetings on Project issues
7. Submit Reports a. Prepare and submit necessary reports
7. b. Prepare and submit monthly and annual progress reports
7. c. Prepare and submit for BPA publication Project studies
8. Enhancements a. Clear ground disturbing activities with Tribal History/Archeology
8. b. Identify selected habitat sites from site specific management plan
8. c. Implement small scale enhancement and restoration activities
8. d. Enhance and maintain lands enrolled in cost share programs (CRP & WHIP)

Objective Schedules and Costs

n/a or no information

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel $135,258
Fringe $ 35,797
Supplies $ 10,500
Operating Secure property $ 72,649
Capital Equipment $ 8,000
Travel $ 3,000
Indirect @ 39.2% of direct salaries $ 53,021
Subcontractor $ 65,000
Total Itemized Budget $383,225

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $383,225
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $383,225
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable

Reason for change in scope

Not applicable

Cost Sharing

Organization Item or service provided Amount Cash or In-Kind
NRCS Habitat Enhancement Cost Sharing $- 10,000 unknown
USDA Conservation Reserve Program $- 23,225 unknown


Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $350,000 $350,000 $500,000 $500,000
Total Outyear Budgets $350,000 $350,000 $500,000 $500,000

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: None

Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Ashley, P. and M. Berger, 1997. Columbia River Wildlife mitigation Habitat Evaluation Evaluation Procedures Report, January 1997. DOE/BP-95-AI39607. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. No
Berger, M., 1993. Hellsgate Winter Range Wildlife Mitigation Project Long Term Management Plan. Draft Report 1993. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. No
Berger, M., 1995. Hellsgate Winter Range Mitigation Project Proposed Mitigation Lands Assessment and HEP Analysis. Draft Report, 1995. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. No
Berger, M., 1997. Hellsgate Winter Range Mitigation Project HEP Report for New Acquisitions, 1997. Draft Report, 1997. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. No
Berger, M., 1998. Hellsgate Winter Range Wildlife Mitigation Project Site Specific Management Plan. Draft in progress. No
BPA, 1995. Hellsgate Winter Range: Wildlife Mitigation Project, Final Environmental Assessment, DOE/EA-0940, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon No
BPA, 1997. Wildlife Mitigation Program, Final Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0246, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. No
Creveling, J. and B. Renfrow, 1986. Wildlife Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement Planning for Grand Coulee Dam, Final Report, DOE/BP, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OregonHays, R.L., C. Summers, and W. Seitz, 1981. Estimating Wildlife H No
Kuehn, D. and M. Berger, 1992. Wildlife Habitat Assessment Chief Joseph Dam Project, Washington Project Report, 1992, DOE/BP-91BP14775, Bonneville Power administration, Portland, Oregon. No
U.S. Department of Interior, 1976. Habitat Evaluation Procedures: For use by the Division of Ecological Services in evaluating water and related land resource development projects. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. No
USFWS, 1980. Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP). 102 ESM. Division of Ecological Services. No

Section 7. Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

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

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 99-2 Recommendation:
Do not fund
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Recommendation: Do not fund. The proposal is technically inadequate.

Comments: Although the review team included staunch advocates of acquisition as mitigation for loss of wildlife habitat, the group could not recommend this project for funding. The project is described as a means to "provide increased bio-diversity" but how this would be accomplished is not explained. There is no clear relationship established between habitat acquisition and the species that will benefit, i.e. conservation status of species, seasonal distributions, limiting factors, etc. In addition, the proposal states "This project is not directly linked to projects being carried out by other entities in the basin." The team found that statement incredible and failed to see how any acquisition program can be effective without coordination with other such programs in the area.

The proposal is not a stand-alone document and it should be. It refers to a draft document but they do not summarize the document. The existence of a BPA statement of work is not sufficient. Proponents should describe their restoration methods and not just the tasks, as noted last year (see ISRP FY99 report, Appendix A page 65).

The proposal is quite vague in explaining what tasks are required for specific sites and why. A reviewer cannot tell what specifically needs to be done in particular areas to meet specific objectives. Thus, one cannot begin to assess the appropriateness of the budget. Too little information is provided on objectives, methods, enhancement goals, and measurable milestones, although the proposal says that its purpose is to "protect, enhance and evaluate habitats and species." The group noted that the proponents were advised in the ISRP's FY99 comments to better justify their project.

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999

CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Good planning, successful projects.

Explain how this project fits into a watershed context.

CBFWA: Wildlife Committee Comments Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Proponent need is actually $350,000

ISRP Final Review , ISRP 99-4 Recommendation:
Delay Funding
Oct 29, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Delay funding until the proposers supply a management plan that includes protocols for monitoring and evaluation, including at least some well-chosen direct biological measures (e.g., censuses or indexes of condition of animals for some target populations, measures of diversity and abundance of wildlife). The proposers should be able to provide the needed information from their draft management plan and by developing some appropriate monitoring and evaluation protocols to support it.

The responses adequately address many of the ISRP's concerns. However, several key elements remain unavailable for scientific review. The response states existence of a draft site-specific management plan, but its key elements (target management units, management goals, methods, and evaluation procedures for each) are not provided. This is the central information needed for scientific evaluation of a proposal for management and operations of land to benefit wildlife. Further, the responses do not provide a scientifically sound monitoring and evaluation plan. The ISRP accepts that goals of land management to benefit wildlife are long-term and may be realized only over many years; they accept that active enhancement need not be a part of effective land management. Nevertheless, monitoring for benefits to wildlife, measured at the level of at least some well-chosen species, is a necessary element of evaluation of this sort of project. HEP alone is an indirect measure of habitat attributes, does not necessarily generalize from site-to-site well or translate into wildlife abundance, and thus does not meet scientific standards for evaluation of benefit to wildlife. The respondents greatly overstate the information provided by HEP. Also, they seem to rely on habitat-typing for assessment of site potential to determine management goals; this approach has many scientific shortcomings and can result in management goals that are poorly suited to a site and difficult or expensive to attain. The project managers should at least be aware of the potential shortcomings of this method of habitat evaluation.

The responses adequately described what was meant by increasing biodiversity by letting agricultural and grazing lands revert to natural conditions. The "letting nature heal itself" approach is a good strategy that should often be cost-effective. The responses adequately described the species intended to be supported. Linkages among projects by way of coordination are fine. The summarization of the site-specific management plan was helpful, though too limited for full evaluation. Ideally, the respondents could supply a summary of the management plan that more fully developed their management goals and, especially, how progress toward them is assessed and evaluated. Although the philosophical approach of the group is now much more clear, it is not clear how decisions to adopt active management are reached or how the outcome of such active management is judged.

NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Delay funding
Nov 8, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund pending compliance
Mar 1, 2000
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]; Fund pending compliance with ISRP Comments through BPA's Contract Process

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
Sponsor (Colville Confederated Tribes) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page