BPA Fish and Wildlife FY 1997 Proposal

Section 1. Administrative
Section 2. Narrative
Section 3. Budget

see CBFWA and BPA funding recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Title of project
Remaining Palisades Wildlife Mitigation

BPA project number   5519200

Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Sponsor type   ID-Tribe

Proposal contact person or principal investigator
 NameShaun Robertson
 Mailing addressThe Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
P.O. Box 306
Fort Hall, IID 83203
 Phone208/238-3758

BPA technical contact   ,

Biological opinion ID   

NWPPC Program number   11.3D.8

Short description
Implementation planning and initiation of mitigation projects for the remainder of Palisades mitigation in consultation with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and other appropriate parties. The IDF&G has completed planning for mitigation projects focused on bald eagles, the species of priority within the Palisades mitigation plan. The Tribes' efforts are intended to supplement the ongoing efforts of the agencies.

Project start year   1997    End year   

Start of operation and/or maintenance   2000

Project development phase   Planning/Implementation

Section 2. Narrative

Related projects
9505700 South Fork 1,;nake/Sod Creek Wildlife Mtiaation: This project covers a limited geographic and species scope for the overall Palisades mitigation effort. New project is proposed for remainder of mitigation at Palisades.

Project history

Biological results achieved

Annual reports and technical papers

Management implications

Specific measureable objectives
Approximately 22,000 HU's in Idaho and 1,800 in Wyoming remain to be mitigated for the Palisades effort. The South Fork Snake River and Sand Creek activities are covered in separate planning and implementation documents which focus on bald eagles. Remainder of Palisades mitigation will focus on other target species in expanded geographic scope.

Testable hypothesis
Not a research project. Long-term monitoring of protection and enhancement projects will allow wildlife and land managers to gain a better understanding of wildlife-habitat relationships and project effectiveness.

Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
Principles of adaptive management would be used throughout the implementation and longterm management of the projects.
Wiffing sellers and landowners interested in participating in this project are identifiable.
Local public and governmental support of the project can be realized.
Funds will be available to implement and maintain this project.
Coordination and compliance efforts will occur on a timely basis.
Funding committed to this project would not be jeopardized by other Basin efforts.
Funding availability, certainty, and stability are critical constraints.

Methods
This is a wildlife habitat protection and enhancement project, not a research project. Planning will utilize appropriate public and agency coordination, scientific methods, and publication procedures. Landowners will be compensated at fair market value, based on federally qualified appraisals, under a purchase or conservation agreement. Habitat Evaluation Procedures will be implemented to determine HU benefits for each project area.

Coordination with other agencies will include identifying opportunities to implement habitat enhancement projects on existing public land.

Brief schedule of activities
Complete implementation plan by December 1996. Tier to BPA's programmatic wildlife EIS for NEPA compliance. Begin implementation actions as soon as possible following publication of plan.

Biological need
Riparian areas located downstream of the South Fork planning area, including the mainstem Snake River and Blackfoot River, represent critical habitat areas in short supply throughout eastern Idaho. A diversity of species including bald eagles, river otters, mule deer, and other gametnon-game animals are represented in the river corridor and adjacent habitat. Habitats are threatened from various sources such as residential and agricultural development.

Critical uncertainties
Funding. Cooperating agencies, local interest groups, and landowners quickly lose interest in participating in the mitigation projects when a reasonable assurance of funding cannot be provided. In addition, funding for operations, maintenance, and monitoring may be a concern.

Summary of expected outcome
A comprehensive strategy for management of the Snake River corridor, involving management of existing public lands and implementation of mitigation actions, wifl promote a holistic approach to river corridor protection. Mtigation actions will also protect remaining critical habitat, preserve open spaces, help meet "green-belt" objectives of adjacent communities, and preserve the agricultural and rural lifestyle when possible.

Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation
It is anticipated that the implementation plan can tier to BLM project level and BPA programmatic EIS's and EA's for NEPA compliance.

The Tribes are committed to cooperating with other agencies such as the IDF&G, BLK and county governments. A MOU is being developed by the Tribes and other parties in the river corridor for general cooperation and coordination efforts involving natural resource protection and enhancement efforts. In addition, the Tribes have completed other enhancement projects on private lands within the analysis area and have maintained an excellent working relationship with local residents and communities.

Risks
The credibility of BPA, IDF&G, and the NPPC Columbia Basin Wildlife Program would be at risk if funding does not allow us to follow through with implementation and long-term maintenance of

Monitoring activity
A monitoring plan will be developed for each mitigation project as part of the site-specific management Habitat Evaluation Procedures (BEP) will be used to determine the HU benefits of each project. The BEP methodology may also be used for long-term monitoring and to determine benefits of habitat enhancements.

Section 3. Budget

Data shown are the total of expense and capital obligations by fiscal year. Obligations for any given year may not equal actual expenditures or accruals within the year, due to carryover, pre-funding, capitalization and difference between operating year and BPA fiscal year.

Historic costsFY 1996 budget data*Current and future funding needs
(none) New project - no FY96 data available 1997: 500,000
1998: 1,500,000
1999: 1,500,000
2000: 1,500,000
2001: 500,000

* For most projects, Authorized is the amount recommended by CBFWA and the Council. Planned is amount currently allocated. Contracted is the amount obligated to date of printout.

Funding recommendations

CBFWA funding review group   Wildlife

Recommendation    No recommendation