Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199506700

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 Colville Tribes Performance Contract for Continuing Acquisition
BPA Project Proposal Number 199506700
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 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

[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
1993-1998, 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 Umbrella
9204800 Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range Operation and Maintenance Project No
20509 Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range Wildlife Mitigation Umbrella Project Yes

Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Acquire Property a. Negotiate transactions
1. b. Amend to CCT-BPA agreement
2. Do baseline HEP a. Conduct HEP
2. b. Analyze data
2. c. Produce HEP report
3. O & M (short term) a. Secure property
3. b. Maintain boundary fences
3. c. Remove trespass livestock
3. d. Noxious weed control
4. Develop site plans a. Collect data
4. b. Analyze data
4. c. Produce site plans
5. O & M (long term) a. Implement O & M based on Obj. 4
6. Enhancements a. Implement based on Obj. 4
7. M & E a. Implement based on Obj. 4

Objective Schedules and Costs

n/a or no information

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
Total Itemized Budget $1,500,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project 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%

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
N/A $ 0 unknown


Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000
Total Outyear Budgets $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000

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.

Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
BPA, 1995. Hellsgate Winter Range: Wildlife Mitigation Project, Final Environmental Assessment, DOE/EA-0940, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. No
BPA, 1997. Wildlife Mitigation Program, Final Enviromental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0246, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 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, Oregon. 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

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. 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.

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.]
Proposal very brief, but well described in umbrella proposal 20509.

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 reduction

ISRP Final Review , ISRP 99-4 Recommendation:
Oct 29, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
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.

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

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Mar 1, 2000
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$ 0
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$ 0
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$ 0
Sponsor (Colville Confederated Tribes) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page