Return to Proposal Finder FY 2001 Ongoing 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. 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
No documents associated with this request


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 AND Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
Business acronym (if appropriate) IDFG/SBT
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Michele Beucler And Anders Mikkelsen
Mailing Address P.O. Box 25 AND P.O. Box 306
City, State, Zip Boise, ID 83707 AND Fort Hall, ID 83203
Phone 2083342596
Fax 2083342114
E-mail mbeucler@idfg.state.id.us
 
Manager of program authorizing this project Michele Beucler AND Anders Mikkelsen
 
Review Cycle FY 2001 Ongoing
Province Upper Snake
Subbasin Mainstem Snake
 
Short Description Protect, enhance, and maintain wildlife habitats to mitigate construction losses for Palisades, Minidoka, Anderson Ranch, and Black Canyon hydroelectric projects (a total of 52,292 unannualized HU). This project has been ongoing since 1997.
Target Species


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


Biological Outcomes of this project: Programmatically, we expect to (1) protect a total 40,719 HU by 2010; (2) enhance 13,573 HU by 2010; and (3) observe no net loss of protected and enhanced HU in perpetuity. Biologically, we expect (1) changes in vegetative composition and structure of native riparian, wetland, and upland habitats as indications of improved ecological function; (2) gains in target and other wildlife species populations as a result of protection and enhancement actions; and (3) re-establishment of other native wildlife that may have become locally absent. A fundamental assumption is that protecting and enhancing habitat will result in increased populations of wildlife, increased "health" of wildlife populations, and increased biodiversity. Protecting and enhancing land for wildlife would provide both immediate and long-term benefits to habitat and wildlife populations. Habitat protection activities (site protection) and termination of land use practices harmful to native vegetation, such as livestock grazing and crop farming, would be sufficient in most cases to improve habitat conditions to increase wildlife populations and native plant and animal diversity. The methods we use to protect and enhance naturally-occurring habitats are expected to benefit both wildlife and resident fish. Habitat protection and elimination of harmful land uses in wetland, riparian, and upland areas will increase plant cover and allow plant community succession to occur resulting in increased diversity of essential food resources for wildlife. Protecting and restoring lacustrine and palustrine systems will increase shoreline habitat for waterfowl production, shorebird feeding, and nesting bird colonies. Habitat protection in riverine areas will contribute to increased water quality and quantity; over the long-term this could increase the amount of submerged macrophytes and invertebrates in aquatic systems, thereby increasing the food supply available to wildlife and fish. Over time, structural improvements in forest canopies will increase the quality and quantity of bald eagle nesting and winter habitats. Protection and enhancements in riparian habitat will increase the quantity, quality, and diversity of fish habitat structure over the long-term, thus providing greater security for fish and additional shading essential for lowering summer water temperatures. An increase in fallen riparian foliage will expand a critical food source for aquatic insects that are consumed by fish.
Biological Data: Baseline HEPs are conducted within one year of purchase and will be conducted at regular intervals to assess habitat changes. We currently are developing a statewide M&E program that will more explicitly link habitat changes with wildlife species to measure progress towards reaching our biological objectives. Available habitat data include: tree canopy closure, average height of overstory trees, number of snags, height and density of residual herbaceous vegetation, presence of seasonal wetlands, percent shoreline dominated by emergent and/or scrub-shrub vegetation, ground cover height, canopy coverage of emergent herbaceous vegetation, deciduous shrub crown cover and average shrub canopy height. Available wildlife data include: bald eagle nest location and nesting activity, Canada goose nesting activity and brood counts, other waterfowl nesting activity and brood counts, neotropical migratory bird census, sage and sharp-tailed grouse lek counts, elk and mule deer herd composition and population surveys.


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
1997 Protected and/or enhanced 2,013 HU (on approx. 11,362 acres)
1998 Protected and/or enhanced 6,051 HU (on 5,008 acres); Maintained above 2,013 HU
1999 Protected 6,974 HU (on 2,757 acres); Maintained above 8,064 HU
2000 Protect approximately 2,000 HU (on 2,450 acres; acquisition in progress); Enhance approx. 800 HU (project being developed)


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

n/a or no information


Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2001 cost Subcontractor
1. Conduct pre-acquisition activities necessary to protect 40,719 HU of wildlife habitat by 2010. This accounts for 75% of the unannualized construction losses for Palisades, Minidoka, Anderson Ranch, and Black Canyon. a. Identify willing landowners from whom to buy easements and/or fee-titles 10 $ 47,336  
b. Consult and coordinate throughout process with the NWPPC, BPA, CBFWA, Tribes, local governments, etc. 10 $ 65,674  
c. Complete due diligence investigations and NEPA compliance 10 $ 62,837 x
d. Seek approval from IDFG, SBT, CBFWA, BPA, etc. for program consistency 10 $ 32,837  
2. Investigate opportunities for enhancement projects on existing public lands to mitigate 14,113 HU by 2010. This accounts for 25% of the unannualized construction losses for Palisades, Minidoka, Anderson Ranch, and Black Canyon. a. Determine viability of proposed project 10 $ 32,837  
b. Determine cost-share cooperators' roles when appropriate 10 $ 32,837  
c. Develop MOA among partners when necessary 10 $ 32,837  
d.Consult and coordinate throughout process with the NWPPC, BPA, CBFWA, Tribes, local governments, etc. 10 $ 32,837  
e. Seek approval from IDFG, SBT, CBFWA, BPA, etc. for program consistency 10 $ 32,837  


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Planning and Design Phase

FY 2003 FY 2005 FY 2004 FY 2002
$384,139 $395,750 $389,901 $378,462


Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2001 cost Subcontractor
1. Protect 40,719 HU of wildlife habitat by 2010 by acquiring easements or fee-title. This accounts for 75% of the unannualized construction losses for Palisades, Minidoka, Anderson Ranch, and Black Canyon. a. Secure fee-title and/or easement. 10 $5,643,359  
b. Complete HEP report and management plan. 10 $ 29,947  
2. Enhance 14,113 HU on protected wildlife habitat by 2010. This accounts for 25% of the remaining unannualized construction losses for Palisades, Minidoka, Anderson Ranch, and Black Canyon. a. Exclude livestock (or intensively manage when it can benefit wildlife) 10 $ 3,339  
b. Seed and/or transplant native plant species 10 $ 3,339 x
c. Manipulate water and water control structures to mimic natural water regimes 10 $ 3,339  
d. Remove undesirable and exotic plant species using biological, mechanical, or chemical methods 10 $ 3,340 x
e. Compare baseline with enhanced HU and credit BPA appropriate number 10 $ 3,340  
f. Manage public access sites to minimize human disturbance. 10 $ 3,340  


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Construction and Implementation Phase

FY 2003 FY 2005 FY 2004 FY 2002
$3,500,000 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $3,500,000


Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2001 cost Subcontractor
1. Maintain HU on all protected and enhanced areas (i.e., protect and manage for target species habitats). There will be no net loss of HU. a. Control trespass livestock grazing (primarily using fencing). 100 $130,000 x
b. Control noxious weeds using mechanical, biological and chemical methods. 100 $270,000 x
c. Restore permanent vegetative cover to provide habitat for target species. 10 $ 50,000 x
d. Manage vegetation to provide optimal habitat for target species. 100 $106,951  
e. Control soil erosion. 10 $ 20,000 x


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Operations and Maintenance Phase

FY 2003 FY 2005 FY 2004 FY 2002
$884,549 $1,201,445 $1,041,818 $729,605


Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2001 cost Subcontractor
1. Monitor plant and animal species and communities on all properties in perpetuity and evaluate management effectiveness. a. Conduct baseline inventories of wildlife and plant species and communities, and develop GIS databases. 100 $ 20,000 x
b. Conduct HEPs every 5 years to quantify habitat value changes. 100 $ 0  
c. Conduct various wildlife surveys at regular intervals (determined by species and survey method). 100 $ 3,487 x
d. Conduct various vegetation surveys at regular intervals (determined by species and survey method). 100 $ 3,486 x
e. Continuously monitor public use. 100 $ 1,500  
f. Amend and update management plans. 100 $ 2,000  


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation Phase

FY 2003 FY 2005 FY 2004 FY 2002
$ 24,000 $ 32,800 $ 28,400 $ 19,900


Section 8. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2001 Cost
Personnel FTE: 3.7 $145,090
Fringe rate varies with job titles and agencies $ 35,237
Supplies office, field, vehicle lease and repair, computers, title reports and other pre-acquisition costs $ 45,200
Travel CBFWA and Work Group coordination, training, site visits $ 26,746
Indirect approx. 28% of personnel and operating $ 83,096
NEPA cultural surveys (subcontracted) $ 15,000
Subcontractor appraisals $ 12,500
Subcontractor BPA appraisal review $ 1,500
Subcontractor environmental surveys $ 8,000
Subcontractor GIS digitizing $ 500
Personnel FTE: 1.0 $ 22,215
Fringe rate varies with job titles and agencies $ 5,065
Supplies herbicide, seed, ATV gas and repair, fence repair $ 6,080
Travel 4,000 mi @ .33/mi, per diem @$100/day $ 3,320
Indirect approx 28% $ 10,914
Capital Fee-title and/or easement $5,636,449
Subcontractor native seed planting $ 800
Subcontractor herbicide applications $ 1,500
Other options, closing costs $ 7,000
Personnel FTE: 3.34 $ 86,503
Fringe rate varies with job titles and agencies $ 32,774
Supplies Tools and equipment, seeds for restoration, weed control and fencing supplies, vehicle leases, etc. $206,965
Travel Sites are located across southern Idaho $ 11,700
Indirect approx 28% $ 94,659
Capital Vehicles and motorized equipment, GPS units, storage shed, computer equipment, etc. $111,650
Subcontractor Agricultural equipment and services for planting permanent vegetation. $ 32,700
Personnel FTE: 0.5 (includes both IDFG and SBT personnel) $ 5,400
Fringe rate varies with job titles and agencies $ 1,782
Supplies Maps, aerial photos, GPS units, miscellaneous mensuration equipment $ 500
Travel Sites are located across southern Idaho $ 1,125
Indirect 28% overhead rate $ 6,666
Subcontractor GIS services and database management assistance $ 15,000
Total Itemized Budget $6,673,636


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 project cost $6,673,636
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2001 budget request $6,673,636
FY 2001 forecast from 2000 $3,500,000
% change from forecast 90.7%


Reason for change in estimated budget

The IDFG and SBT FY00 project proposal was ranked by CBFWA and approved by NWPPC as a Tier 1 project but received only 26% of the requested funding due to a lack of Wildlife Program funding. As a result of the 74% budget shortfall in FY00, the IDFG and SBT missed several opportunities to meet objectives (i.e., acquire fee-titles and easements). For FY01, we have kept the forecasted total from FY00 ($3.5 million) and added the difference ($3,180,546) between the FY00 approved total ($4,334,510) and the amount received ($1,153,964).


Reason for change in scope

There was no change in the scope.


Cost Sharing

Not applicable
 

Outyear Budget Totals

2002 2003 2004 2005
Planning and design $378,462 $384,139 $389,901 $395,750
Construction/implementation $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $3,500,000
Operations and maintenance $729,605 $884,549 $1,041,818 $1,201,445
Monitoring and evaluation $ 19,900 $ 24,000 $ 28,400 $ 32,800
Total Outyear Budgets $4,627,967 $4,792,688 $4,960,119 $5,129,995
 

Other Budget Explanation

Not applicable


Reviews and Recommendations

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

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 14, 2000
2001
$2,507,424
Comment:

NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 13, 2000
2001
$2,507,424
Comment:
Wildlife acquisitions

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