Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199505700

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 Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation
BPA Project Proposal Number 199505700
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
Business acronym (if appropriate) IDFG/SBT
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Michele Beucler
Mailing Address P.O. Box 25
City, State, Zip Boise, ID 83707
Phone 2083343180
Fax 2083342114
E-mail mbeucler@idfg.state.id.us
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Upper Snake
Subbasin Snake Upper
 
Short Description Protect, enhance, and maintain wildlife habitats to mitigate construction losses (a total of 54,292 HU) for Palisades, Anderson Ranch, Black Canyon, and Minidoka hydroelectric projects as described in Section 11 of the FWP. This project has been ongoing
Target Species Mallard, mink, yellow warbler, black-capped chickadee, ruffed grouse, blue grouse, mule deer, Canada goose, ring-necked pheasant, sharp-tailed grouse, bald eagle, elk, peregrine falcon, redhead, western grebe, marsh wren, and river otter.


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: 11.2D.1, 11.2E.1, 11.3D.4, 11.3D.5, 11.3D.7, 11.3D.8
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: Not applicable
Other Planning Document References The following document refers to the need to mitigate for hydropower impacts: Bonneville Power Administration Wildlife Mitigation Program Final Environmental Impact Statement (BPA 1997) The following documents support the need to protect habitat in the South Fork Snake Project Area: FS/BLM Snake River Activity/Operations Plan (1991) USFWS Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (1986) Idaho Department of Water Resources South Fork Basin Plan (1997) Idaho Department of Water Resources Henrys Fork Basin Plan (1991) Targhee National Forest Plan (USFS 1997) Conservation Strategy for Southeast Idaho Wetlands (Jankovsky-Jones 1997b) The following documents supports the need to protect wetland habitat in Camas Prairie: Conservation Strategy for Big Wood River Basin Wetlands (Jankovsky-Jones 1997a) Rivers of Life: Critical Watersheds for Protecting Freshwater Biodiversity (Master et. al. 1998) The following documents support protection of wildlife habitat in the Boise Foothills: Ada County Land Use Plan 1997 Boise City Comprehensive Plan City of Boise Foothills Plan The following documents support protecting and restoring habitat in southern Idaho: Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plans for Medicine Lodge Resource Area Pocatello Resource Area Shoshone Resource Area Bruneau Resource Area Cascade Resource Area Each of the following plans recognize that the federal hydropower system has impacted wildlife habitat in Idaho and calls for mitigation of the net losses: IDFG 5-Year Mule Deer Plan (Scott et al. 1991) IDFG 5-Year Nongame Plan (Groves and Melquist 1991) IDFG 5-Year Upland Game Plan (Smith et. al. 1990) IDFG 5-Year Waterfowl Plan (Connelly and Wackenhut 1990) A Vision for the Future: IDFG Policy Plan 1990-2005 (IDFG 1991)


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
Protected and/or enhanced 2,013 HU (on approx. 11,362 acres)
Protected and/or enhanced 6,051 HU (on 5,008 acres)
Maintained above 2,013 HU
6,920 HU (on 2,600 acres) is to be permanently protected by March 1999
Maintained above 8,064 HU


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
5501700 Minidoka; incorporated into 9505700, Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation Yes
9206100 Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation; coordinates with Southern Idaho Wildlife Yes
5501400 Black Canyon/Bruneau; incorporated into 9505700, Southern Idaho Wildlife M Yes
5519200 Remaining Palisades; incorporated into 9505700, Southern Idaho Wildlife Mi Yes
9505700 South Fork Snake/Sand Creek; incorporated into 9505700, Southern Idaho Wild Yes
9206000 Camas Prairie/Anderson Ranch; incorporated into 9505700, Southern Idaho Wi Yes


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Protect 40,719 HU of wildlife habitat by 2010 by acquiring easements or fee-titles. This accounts for 75% of the construction losses for Palisades, Anderson Ranch, Minidoka, and Black Canyon. a. Negotiate with willing landowners to buy easements and/or fee-titles.
1. b. Consult and coordinate throughout process with the NWPPC, BPA, CBFWA, Tribes, local governments, and other affected interests.
1. c. Complete due diligence investigations and NEPA compliance (e.g., Level I environmental survey, cultural resources survey).
1. d. Seek approval from CBFWA and BPA on HEP report and management plan, and determine protection credit to be given to BPA.
1. e. Close real estate transaction.
2. Enhance 13,573 acres of wildlife habitat by 2010. This accounts for 25% of the construction losses for Palisades, Anderson Ranch, Minidoka, and Black Canyon. a. Negotiate with partners to enhance existing protected areas.
2. b. Exclude livestock (or intensively manage when it can benefit wildlife).
2. c. Seed and/or transplant native plant species.
2. d. Manipulate water and water control structures to mimic natural water regimes.
2. e. Remove undesirable and exotic plant species using biological, mechanical, or chemical methods.
2. f. Compare baseline with enhanced HU and credit BPA appropriate number.
2. g. Manage public access sites to minimize human disturbance.
3. Maintain HU on all protected and enhanced properties in perpetuity. There will be no net loss of HU. a. Control human access to wildlife habitat areas during critical time periods.
3. b. Maintain fencing at all properties to exclude livestock.
3. c. Control noxious weeds by biological, mechanical, and chemical means at all properties.
3. d. Enforce regulations and restrictions as appropriate.
4. Monitor all properties in perpetuity to maximize benefits to wildlife. a. Conduct baseline inventories of wildlife species (target species, indicator species, and species of special concern).
4. b. Conduct baseline inventories of plants and plant communities.
4. c. Conduct HEPs every 5 years to determine increase in HU.
4. d. Conduct various animal surveys at regular intervals (interval depends on species and survey method used).
4. e. Conduct various vegetation surveys at regular intervals (intervals will vary according to species/community of interest).
4. f. Continously monitor public use.
4. g. Amend and update management plans.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 10/01/97 09/01/10 Protect approximately 40,719 HU (75% of total debt) Each additional 10,000 HU protected 87.8%
2 04/01/98 09/01/10 Enhance approximately 13,573 HU (25% of total debt) Every 5 years after enhancements are initiated 4.8%
3 04/01/99 No net loss of protected and enhanced HU On-going 4.7%
4 04/01/99 Net gain of target species populations On-going 2.7%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel Includes both IDFG and SBT personnel. $196,479
Fringe About 30% of Personnel costs. $ 58,944
Supplies Maps, film, and film processing photocopies, computer supplies. $ 2,400
Operating $ 87,647
Capital Conservation easement and fee-title acquisitions; 2 vehicles; 2 vehicle radios; 1 computer; 1 office $3,393,600
NEPA Cultural resources surveys. $ 26,970
Travel Site visits, coordinate with local working groups and governments, coordinate with CBFWA. $ 18,788
Indirect Overhead rate 25% $188,182
Other Enhancement costs for Minidoka NWR and BCWMA. $ 91,800
Subcontractor Pre-acquisition services such as appraisals, environmental surveys, propert $269,700
Total Itemized Budget $4,334,510


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $4,334,510
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $4,334,510
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
U.S. Bureau of Land Management Pre-acquisition costs on some properties; cultural resources and environmental surveys; equipment; weed control, ORV control. $ 2,391 unknown
Idaho Department of Fish and Game Aerial monitoring; bitterbrush seedlings; ORV patrol; equipment. $ 4,640 unknown
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Equipment; pre-project bird monitoring. $ 12,750 unknown

 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000
Total Outyear Budgets $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: Appraisals, Level I environmental surveys, cultural resource surveys, and property boundary surveys cannot be completed when the ground is snow-covered. Most habitat enhancements occur in the spring and summer as well. Closing acquisition deals take time -- it is very difficult to predict how long negotiations will take.


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Bleiker, H., and A. Bleiker. 1997. Citizen participation handbook for public officials and other professionals serving the public. Tenth Edition. Institute of Participatory Management and Planning, Monterey, California. No
Boccard, B. 1980. Important fish and wildlife habitats of Idaho: an inventory. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Boise, Idaho. No
Bonneville Power Administration. 1997. Wildlife mitigation program final environmental impact statement. DOE/EIS - 0246. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. No
Caicco, S. L., J. M. Scott, B. Butterfield, and B. Csuti. 1995. A gap analysis of the management status of the vegetation in Idaho (U.S.A.). Cons. Biol. 9:498-511. No
Chaney, E., and S. Sather-Blair. 1985a. Wildlife mitigation status report: Anderson Ranch Dam and Reservoir. Pages C1-14 in Martin, R. C., L. A. Mehrhoff, J. E. Cheney, and S. Sather-Blair. 1985. Status review of wildlife mitigation at 14 of 27 major No
Chaney, E., and S. Sather-Blair. 1985b. Wildlife mitigation status report: Black Canyon Dam and Reservoir. Pages D1-13 in Martin, R. C., L. A. Mehrhoff, J. E. Cheney, and S. Sather-Blair. 1985. Status review of wildlife mitigation at 14 of 27 major h No
Chaney, E., and S. Sather-Blair. 1985c. Wildlife mitigation status report: Palisades Dam and Reservoir. Pages I1-17 in Martin, R. C., L. A. Mehrhoff, J. E. Cheney, and S. Sather-Blair. 1985. Status review of wildlife mitigation at 14 of 27 major hydr No
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildife Authority. 1998. Guidelines for enhancement, operation, and maintenance activities for wildlife mitigation projects. Wildlife Caucus, CBFWA, Portland, Oregon. No
Conservation Data Center. 1994. Rare, threatened and endangered plants and animals of Idaho. Third Edition. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. No
Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetlands -- Losses in the United States, 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report to Congress, Washington, D.C. No
Hays, R. L., C. Summers, and W. Seitz. 1981. Estimating wildlife habitat variables. U.S. Dept. of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. No
Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 1996. Idaho Sage Grouse Management Plan, 1996-2000. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. No
Idaho Division of Financial Management. 1997. Idaho Economic Forecast. Vol. XIX No. 4. Idaho Department of Commerce, Division of Financial Management, Boise, Idaho. No
Jankovsky-Jones, M. 1997a. Conservation strategy for Big Wood River Basin wetlands. Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. No
Jankovsky-Jones, M. 1997b. Conservation strategy for southeastern Idaho wetlands. Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. No
Kaltenecker, G. S., M. J. Bechard, and R. B. Tiedemann. 1994. Boise River wintering bald eagle study, Boise River corridor, Lucky Peak Dam to Ada/Canyon County line. Report prepared for Ada Planning Association, Bald Eagle Task Force, Boise, Idaho. No
Kellner, C. J., J. D. Brawn, and J. R. Karr. 1992. What is habitat suitability and how should it be measured? Pages 476-488 in McCullough, D. R., and R. H. Barrett, eds. Wildlife 2001: Populations. Elsevier Applied Science, New York, New York. USA. No
Kiester, A.R., J.M. Scott., B. Csuti, R.F. Noss, B. Butterfield, K. Sahr, and D. White. 1996. Conservation prioritization using GAP data. Cons. Biol. 10:1332-1342. No
Mancuso, M. 1996. Scientific name: Allium aaseae, common name: Aase’s onion. Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. No
Martin, R. C., and K. Ablin-Stone. 1986. Wildlife impact assessment, Anderson Ranch, Black Canyon, and Boise Diversion Projects, Idaho. Proj. 85-1. Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. No
Martin, R. C., and H. J. Hansen. 1991. South Fork Snake River Programmatic Management Plan, Implementation Phase I. Proj. 91-063. Bonneville Power Administration Project, Division of Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. No
Martin, R. C., and H. J. Hansen. 1986. Wildlife protection, mitigation, and enhancement plan: Palisades Project. Proj. 91-063. Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. No
Martin, R. C., and L. A. Mehrhoff. 1985. Wildlife mitigation status report: Minidoka Dam and Reservoir Project. Pages H1-18 in Martin, R. C., L. A. Mehrhoff, J. E. Cheney, and S. Sather-Blair. 1985. Status review of wildlife mitigation at 14 of 27 ma No
Martin, R. C., and G. A. Meuleman. 1989. Minidoka dam wildlife impact assessment. Final report. Proj. 88-110. Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. No
Martin, T. E. 1989. Breeding productivity considerations: what are the appropriate habitat features for management? Pages 455-473 in Hagen, J. M., and D. W. Johnson, eds. Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institut No
Master, L. L., S. R. Flack, and B. A. Stein (eds.). 1998. Rivers of life: critical watersheds for protecting freshwater biodiversity. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. No
Mergliano, M. 1996. Ecology and management of the South Fork Snake River cottonwood forest. Montana Riparian-Wetland Research Program, Univ. of Montana School of Forestry, Missoula, Montana. No
Meuleman, G. A., H. J. Hansen, and R. C. Martin. 1987. Wildlife protection, mitigation, and enhancement plans: Anderson Ranch and Black Canyon Facilities. Proj. 86-73. Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. No
Meuleman, G. A., R. C. Martin, and H. J. Hansen. 1991. Wildlife protection, mitigation, and enhancement plan: Minidoka Dam. Proj. 90-050. Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. No
Northwest Power Planning Council. 1995. Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife program, 1995 amendments. NPPC, Portland, Oregon. No
Sather-Blair, S., and S. Preston. 1985. Wildlife impact assessment: Palisades Project. Proj. 84-37. Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. No
Scott, J. M., F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. Noss, B. Butterfield, C. Groves, H. Anderson, S. Caicco, F. D’Erchia, T. C. Edwards, Jr., J. Ullman, and R. G. Wright. 1993. Gap analysis: A geographic approach to the protection of biological diversity. Wildl. Mono No
U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Bennett Hills draft resource management plan and draft environmental impact statement. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, Shoshone District, Shoshone, Idaho. No
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1995. County population estimates. U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. No
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat evaluation procedures. Ecological Services Manual 102. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services, Washington, D.C. No
U.S. Forest Service. 1996. Status of the Interior Columbia Basin: summary of scientific findings. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-385. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; U.S. Department of the No


Section 7. Abstract

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:
Fund for one year
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund for 1 year. Subsequent funding contingent on submission of a proposal that includes detailed monitoring plans and evidence of outcomes assessment and achievement.

Comments: This appears to be a successful habitat mitigation program that fits most of the proposal evaluation criteria. The proposed land purchase is well justified and should benefit a variety of fish and wildlife. However the management plan and the monitoring and evaluation component are not well developed. A clear management plan needs to be developed. Reasons for continuing enhancement should be given. Are these directly beneficial to wildlife? Enhancement and other management activities are the long-term costs of the project. They are substantial, and they should be clearly justified as needed and should not inhibit development of a self-sustaining system. Data supporting the long-term benefits of particular plantings, weed control, etc., should be taken and presented. Such techniques as large-scale spraying and removal of Russian olives require explanation. There are likely ecosystem-level effects of these activities, and they likely would create conditions favorable to weedy growth. If such large-scale, hard restoration is done, then it should be done under an experimental design that will allow clear evaluation of effectiveness and costs/benefits of the removal and of the techniques used. 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? What does it mean to manage for maximum benefit to wildlife? Objective 4 of this proposal refers to monitoring in perpetuity to "maximize benefit to wildlife." But "maximum benefit" is not defined, nor are measurements for monitoring and evaluating it specified. It is also not clear why 11 more years are needed to achieve the remaining 25% HUs. It would be helpful to keep active reference to the final objective: "achieve and sustain levels of habitat and species productivity" and to try to develop quantified indicators of this productivity. How else will success be evaluated?


CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$1,154,000
Comment:

CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
High costs for personnel, vehicles, and office space.

Explain how this project fits into a watershed context.


CBFWA: Wildlife Committee Comments Recommendation:
Fundable
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:

CBFWA: Wildlife Committee Comments Recommendation:
Fundable
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
2000
$1,153,964
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
capital
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$4,300,000
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$4,300,000
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$4,300,000
Sponsor (IDFG; Shoshone-Bannock Tribes; Shoshone-Paiute Tribe) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Sponsor (IDFG) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page