FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding

Proposal 199505703: Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
January 10, 2006 Finalized Tim Dykstra

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 199505703
Proposal Name: Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation
BPA Project Manager: Dorothy Welch
Agency, Institution or Organization: Shoshone Paiute Tribes
Short Description: The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes propose to protect, enhance/restore and maintain native habitats through land acquisition in the Middle Snake Province as mitigation for the construction of Anderson Ranch, Deadwood, and Black Canyon hydroelectric projects.
Information Transfer: All data from this work will be included in annual reports to BPA, uploaded to StreamNet or other regional databases as needed.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Tim Dykstra Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley Reservation Highway 51 Stateline P.O. Box 219
Owyee NV 89832-0219
Ph: 208.759.3246
Fax: 208.759.3248
Email: dykstra_tim@yahoo.com
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Tim Dykstra Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley Reservation Highway 51 Stateline P.O. Box 219
Owyee NV 89832-0219
Ph: 208.759.3246
Fax: 208.759.3248
Email: dykstra_tim@yahoo.com
Form Submitter

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Middle Snake ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Owyhee ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
41.9102 -115.5934 [none] The area selected marks the location that the Shoshone Paiute Tribes have pursued land acquisitions in the past due to the areas cultural and fish/wildlife importance. [none], Nevada Bruneau No
42.2908 -116.9614 [none] The Owyhee Canyonland area is an another area that the Tribes are interested in for land acquisition, due to their cultural and fish/wildlife importance. Owyhee, Idaho Owyhee No
Land within the the Owyhee and Bruneau subbasins will be the primary focus for the Tribes. Land within these subbasins are part of the Tribes aboriginal territory. , Owyhee Yes

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
All Wildlife
Bull Trout
Interior Redband Trout
Mountain Whitefish

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 Search for potential land acquisitions has continued. However, an agreement between BPA and the three SIWM group members needs to be formalized before acquisition can occur.
2004 Meetings were held between the SPT, SBT, IDFG, and BPA informing the group members that funding for land acquisition was being reinstated. Correspondence with the Dave’s Island owners was reinitiated.
2003 The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes continued with efforts to acquire the Dave’s Island Property. However, a moratorium was placed on land acquisitions and hampered progress.
2002 The Tribes pursued Dave’s Island Property for fee-title acquisition. While the property is of critical importance to the Tribes fish, wildlife and cultural resources, negotiations stalled as the landowners disagreed with the original appraised value.
2001 The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes became a member of the SIWM collaborative group and began to pursue Perkins Ranch (Bruneau subbasin) for fee-title acquisition. The Tribes also identified Dave’s Island (Bruneau subbasin) for a potential conservation easement.
2000 The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes actively pursued inclusion into the SIWM collaborative group.
1999 The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes restated their interest in joining IDFG and SBT as members of the SIWM collaborative group.
1998 The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes restated their interest in joining IDFG and SBT as members of the SIWM collaborative group.
1997 The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes indicated an interest in joining IDFG and SBT as members of the SIWM collaborative group.
1996 IDFG and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes signed an MOA, and SIWM program was created.

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
BPA 199206100 Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigati This is a similar wildlife mitigation program in the northern part of Idaho. The Tribes will coordinate with the Albeni Falls Interagency Work Group when developing monitoring and evaluation plans and conducting HEP evaluations.
BPA 199505700 S Idaho Wildlife Mitigation This is the umbrella wildlife mitigation program currently in place that provides funding for mitigation activities in the Middle and Upper Snake Provinces. In addition to the hydroelectric projects identified in this document, the SIWM conducts mitigation activities for Palisades and Minidoka Dams.
BPA 199505701 S Idaho Wildlife Mitigation This is the umbrella wildlife mitigation program currently in place that provides funding for mitigation activities in the Middle and Upper Snake Provinces. In addition to the hydroelectric projects identified in this document, the SIWM conducts mitigation activities for Palisades and Minidoka Dams.
BPA 199505702 S Idaho Wildlife Mitigation This is the umbrella wildlife mitigation program currently in place that provides funding for mitigation activities in the Middle and Upper Snake Provinces. In addition to the hydroelectric projects identified in this document, the SIWM conducts mitigation activities for Palisades and Minidoka Dams.
BPA 199701100 Shoshone-Paiute Habitat Enhanc This is a fish and wildlife habitat protection/enhancement program in place at DVIR. Some of the restoration techniques that are currently being employed on the Reservation may be utilized on mitigation properties, such as spring protection, riparian fencing, and riparian area restoration.
Other: NWPCC F&W Program Substitution for Wildlife Losses The program includes a commitment to mitigate for losses resulting from construction and inundation losses, direct operational losses or through secondary losses.

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
Coordinate subbasin-wide land acquisitions Coordinate subbasin-wide land acquisitions, conservation easements and riparian habitat improvements. Owyhee a. Fund and facilitate coordinator position in subbasins where the Tribes have historical natural resource, cultural interests, or aboriginal territory. b. Fund and implement habitat protection and restoration across state and jurisdictional boundaries 104-105
Protect habitat through fee-title acquisition Protect 2500 HUs of wildlife habitat and associated aquatic habitat through fee-title acquisition or conservation easement Owyhee control noxious weeds; construct/repair/maintain fencing; conduct stream protection activities; rehabilitate/restore habitat by planting native seed stock or by transplanting native plants; manipulate vegetation to achieve enhancement objectives 107-108
Protect/enhance/acquire mitigation properties Protect, enhance, and/or acquire wildlife mitigation properties in the Middle Snake Province, with emphasis on the Owyhee and Bruneau subbasins. Owyhee a. Work with landowners to discus identify acquisition opportunities. b. Evaluate habitat of acquisition parcel(s) c. Work collaboratively with interested entities. d. Explore opportunities to develop “grass banks” in the Owyhee/Bruneau Subbasins 104-105
Restore habitat with enhancements Protect 500 HUs of wildlife habitat and associated aquatic habitat through habitat enhancement activities Owyhee control noxious weeds; construct/repair/maintain fencing; conduct stream protection activities; rehabilitate/restore habitat by planting native seed stock or by transplanting native plants; manipulate vegetation to achieve enhancement objectives 107-108

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
Land Purchase Protect habitat through fee-title acquisition Habitat will be protected through fee-title acquisition. 4/1/2007 3/31/2009 $7,500,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Protect habitat through fee-title acquisition
# of HU's protected by land purchase or easement: minimum of 2500 HU's
* # of riparian miles protected: Dependent on condition of acquired habitat

Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Fulfill environmental compliance requirements Environmental compliance requirements will be adhered to. 4/1/2007 3/31/2009 $50,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Coordinate subbasin-wide land acquisitions
No Metrics for this Work Element

Develop Terrestrial Habitat Features Develop Terrestrial Habitat Features Terrestrial habitat features will be developed. The types of features are dependent on the condition of the acquired habitat. 9/1/2008 3/31/2009 $19,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Restore habitat with enhancements
* # of features: Dependant on condition of acquired habitat

Install Fence Install Fence Fences to protect important habitat features will be developed. The extent of the fencing is dependent on the condition of the acquired habitat. 7/1/2008 3/31/2009 $25,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Restore habitat with enhancements
* # of miles of fence: Dependent on condition of acquired habitat

Conduct Pre-Acquisition Activities Secure conservation easements, fee-title, and lease agreements Fee-title agreements will be diligently pursued. 4/1/2007 3/31/2009 $80,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Coordinate subbasin-wide land acquisitions
No Metrics for this Work Element

Coordination SIWM Coordination Coordinate SIWM land acquisition 4/1/2007 3/31/2009 $50,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Coordinate subbasin-wide land acquisitions
No Metrics for this Work Element

Manage and Administer Projects Manage and and Administer Projects The SIWM project will be properly managed and and administered. 4/1/2007 3/31/2009 $65,049
Biological Objectives Metrics
Coordinate subbasin-wide land acquisitions
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Inventory or Assessment SIWM Parcel Identification SIWM Parcel Identification, Inventory and Assessment 4/1/2007 3/30/2009 $90,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Coordinate subbasin-wide land acquisitions
Protect habitat through fee-title acquisition
Protect/enhance/acquire mitigation properties
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Annual Report Produce annual report Annual report will be produced and submitted to BPA. 4/1/2007 3/31/2009 $30,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Coordinate subbasin-wide land acquisitions
Protect habitat through fee-title acquisition
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Status Report Produce status reports Status reports will be produced and submitted to BPA. 4/1/2007 3/31/2009 $5,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Coordinate subbasin-wide land acquisitions
Protect habitat through fee-title acquisition
No Metrics for this Work Element


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
Personnel [blank] $15,700 $31,740 $32,370
Fringe Benefits [blank] $4,400 $8,900 $9,050
Travel training expenses included $2,600 $5,250 $5,360
Supplies [blank] $5,725 $39,000 $41,000
Overhead Indirect $9,600 $25,000 $26,000
Other Professional Services $33,300 $34,000 $34,500
Other Vehicle/Insurance $9,890 $20,181 $20,483
Other Land Acquisition $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000
Totals $2,581,215 $2,664,071 $2,668,763

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$7,914,049
Total Work Element budget$7,914,049

Cost sharing
Funding Source or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$2,673,000 $2,678,000 This project should continue until all habitat unit losses have been mitigated for.
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
O&M costs will continue to maintain acquired land.
 
Termination Date Comments
unknown This project will terminate when all habitat unit losses have been mitigated for that resulted from the construction of Anderson Ranch, Black Canyong and Deadwood dams.
 
Final Deliverables
All impacted habitat units will be mitigated for through land acquisitions and habitat enhancements.

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Both Capital and Expense
Location:
Province: No Change
Subbasin: No Change
Primary Focal Species
No Change
ARG Comments:


BPA Capital/Expense Review Results (March 14, 2006) [Download full document]

Initial BPA Capital/Expense Determination (Subject to final review):
Capitalize land acquisition
Primary Uncertainty for Capitalization: Land acquisition requirements


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$2,481,215
FY 2008 Budget
$2,564,071
FY 2009 Budget
$2,568,763
Total NPCC Rec
$7,614,049
Budget Type:Capital
Budget Category:ProvinceCapital
Recommendation:Fund
Comments: Capital component.


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$100,000
FY 2008 Budget
$100,000
FY 2009 Budget
$100,000
Total NPCC Rec
$300,000
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Fund
Comments: Expense portion of project. Pre-acquisition costs. See capital budget for capital component.


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$100,000
FY 2008 Budget
$100,000
FY 2009 Budget
$100,000
Total NPCC Rec
$300,000
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Comments:
NPCC Staff Comments: Expense portion of project. See capital budget for capital recommendation

Local or MSRT Comments: Move to Capital $2,481,215/2007; $2,564,071/2008; $2,568,763/2009


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$2,481,215
FY 2008 Budget
$2,564,071
FY 2009 Budget
$2,568,763
Total NPCC Rec
$7,614,049
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceCapital
Comments: Capital portion of project

Local or MSRT Comments: Move to Capital $2,481,215/2007; $2,564,071/2008; $2,568,763/2009


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC Comments: This is a cogent and compelling proposal. Where relevant, scientific resources are used well. The maps add clarity regarding benefits to sage grouse and mule deer and associated species. The technical and scientific background is complete, and even includes policy and cultural elements. The proposal is linked closely to the goals of the Program and subbasin plans involved. There may be some threatened and endangered and State agency programs that complement this proposal as well. The proposal identifies that the Tribes have a key leadership role and strong collaborations with many other stakeholders. Objectives are clear, measurable, and realistic. The tribes’ approach to locating suitable property was sound and yielded several prospects. Until the tribes reach the management planning phase, most of the described work is administrative and plans for this are appropriate. History to date is primarily administrative and development of collaborative links. Pre-acquisition work was technically and scientifically well grounded.

Focal species include riparian species, sage grouse and mule deer. Potential links to other efforts are not fully explained, but proximity of USFS and Reservation lands implies opportunities. The isolation of these sites and location within watersheds will provide some protection from other, possibly deleterious activities in the basin. Fire management goals will be needed and fire protection and off-road vehicle use are threats that are not addressed. Elimination of livestock grazing (presumed?) may cause some invader and weed plants to become more problematic, but if properly managed these impacts should be minor. The need for monitoring is recognized and a preliminary plan is in place. Plans for storing and sharing data are included. Riparian PFC is not a monitoring tool so cause-effect relationships cannot be detected using this tool. Facilities and equipment are adequate and it appears they have well-trained staff.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC Comments: This is a cogent and compelling proposal. Where relevant, scientific resources are used well. The maps add clarity regarding benefits to sage grouse and mule deer and associated species. The technical and scientific background is complete, and even includes policy and cultural elements. The proposal is linked closely to the goals of the Program and subbasin plans involved. There may be some threatened and endangered and State agency programs that complement this proposal as well. The proposal identifies that the Tribes have a key leadership role and strong collaborations with many other stakeholders. Objectives are clear, measurable, and realistic. The tribes’ approach to locating suitable property was sound and yielded several prospects. Until the tribes reach the management planning phase, most of the described work is administrative and plans for this are appropriate. History to date is primarily administrative and development of collaborative links. Pre-acquisition work was technically and scientifically well grounded.

Focal species include riparian species, sage grouse and mule deer. Potential links to other efforts are not fully explained, but proximity of USFS and Reservation lands implies opportunities. The isolation of these sites and location within watersheds will provide some protection from other, possibly deleterious activities in the basin. Fire management goals will be needed and fire protection and off-road vehicle use are threats that are not addressed. Elimination of livestock grazing (presumed?) may cause some invader and weed plants to become more problematic, but if properly managed these impacts should be minor. The need for monitoring is recognized and a preliminary plan is in place. Plans for storing and sharing data are included. Riparian PFC is not a monitoring tool so cause-effect relationships cannot be detected using this tool. Facilities and equipment are adequate and it appears they have well-trained staff.

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.