FY07-09 proposal 199800300
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Spokane Tribe Wildlife Mitigation Operations & Maintenance |
| Proposal ID | 199800300 |
| Organization | Spokane Tribe |
| Short description | Proposal will be for continued Wildlife Mitigation O&M and enhancement for lands acquired as partial mitigation for Grand Coulee Dam wildlife losses. Project will focus on the management of existing and/or new lands acquired during the project period. |
| Information transfer | Project data will be available electronically and online in Pisces. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Kelly Singer | Spokane Tribe of Indians | kellys@spokanetribe.com |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Kelly Singer | Spokane Tribe of Indians | kellys@spokanetribe.com |
| Kelly Singer | Spokane Tribe of Indians | kellys@spokanetribe.com |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Intermountain / Spokane
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spokane Indian Reservation | |||
| Spokane Indian Reservation |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: All WildlifeAdditional: Species identified in the loss assessment for Grand Coulee Dam include sharp-tailed grouse, ruffed grouse, mule deer, white-tailed deer, mourning dove, and riparian forest habitat.
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|---|
| 2005 | 12,650' of new fence (People, Parson E.), maintain over 10,000' of fence, installed 1320' of electric fence on People, 1360' of stream channel restoration (Kenworthy, Harris), 5 miles of access mowed, 16,540 trees & shrubs planted, Lantzy W. clean-up, M&E |
| 2004 | Noxious weed control on >80 acres, seeded 36 acres of native grass (Etue, Harris, Smith), 4580 trees & shrubs planted Etue, Harris, Smith), 5280' of new fence (Smith & People), 6600' of People fence removal, and M&E surveys. |
| 2003 | People stream channel restoration (1000'), 100 acres of weed control (summer fallow, farm lease, trimming), 3200 trees & shrubs planted (Harris, Etue), 2760' of new fence, 10,000' of maintenance, began shop construction, and conducted M&E surveys. |
| 2002 | FY02 accomplishments included in FY03, due to contract and reporting period. |
| 2001 | 2350' of new fence (Smith, Kenworthy), 30 acres of weed control, 2925 trees & shrubs planted w/approx. 11% survival (Kenworthy, Etue), 30 acre burn on People, M&E for small mammal, big game, ruffed grouse, & birds, & sharp-tailed grouse habitat surveys. |
| 2000 | 4100 trees and shrubs planted (Kenworthy, A401-A, Kieffer), 2 miles of new fence (Smith, Kenworthy, Etue), and noxious weed control on 20 acres (People, Harris, Etue). |
| 1999 | Seeded 25 acres of native grass, 4.5 miles of new fence (Harris, Kieffer, Etue, A401-A), thistle control on 12 acres (People, Harris, Kenworthy), brushpile construction (A401-A), and Smith debris removal. |
| 1998 | Conducted HEP surveys on 1863.5 acres, HEP Report, and initial Site Specific Management Plan. |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 199106200 | Blue Creek Winter Range | This project is the land acquisition portion of the Spokane Tribes Wildlife Mitigation Program for losses associated with the construction and inundation of Grand Coulee Dam. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A10 | Maintain wildlife values, HUs, for the life of the project on existing and newly acquired mitigation lands through adequate long-term Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funding. | Intermountain | Strategy a. |
| Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A11 | Evaluate effectiveness of mitigation by monitoring and evaluating species and habitat responses to mitigation actions. | Intermountain | Strategy a. |
| Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A2 | Protect, enhance, or restore mourning dove Habitat Units to address riparian and agricultural habitat losses resulting from the construction of the Grand Coulee Project. | Intermountain | Strategy a, strategy b, and strategy c. |
| Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A3 | Protect, enhance, or restore mule deer Habitat Units to address shrub-steppe and river break habitat losses resulting from the construction of the Grand Coulee Project. | Intermountain | Strategy a, strategy b, and strategy c. |
| Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A4 | Protect, enhance, or restore riparian forest Habitat Units to address habitat losses resulting from the construction of the Grand Coulee Project. | Intermountain | Strategy a, strategy b, strategy c, strategy d, and strategy f. |
| Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A6 | Protect, enhance, or restore ruffed grouse Habitat Units to address riparian/hardwood forest habitat losses resulting from the construction of the Grand Coulee Project. | Intermountain | Strategy a, strategy b, and strategy c. |
| Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A8 | Protect, enhance, or restore sharp-tailed grouse Habitat Units to address grassland, shrub-steppe, and riparian draw habitat losses resulting from the construction of the Grand Coulee Project. | Intermountain | Strategy a, strategy b, and strategy c |
| Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A9 | Protect, enhance, or restore white-tailed deer Habitat Units to address seral forest habitat losses resulting from the construction of the Grand Coulee Project. | Intermountain | Strategy a, strategy b, strategy c, and strategy f. |
| Spokane Subbasin Objective 2A1 | Maintain bald eagle at or above present levels (2004) in the Spokane Subbasin. | Intermountain | Strategy a. |
| Spokane Subbasin Objective 2A2 | Increase sharp-tailed grouse populations within the Intermountain Province and associated subbasins to a minimum of 800 grouse by 2010; over the long-term, improve and maintain habitats necessary to support self-sustaining, persistent populations of grouse, estimated to consist of a mimimum of 2000 birds. | Intermountain | Strategy a, strategy b, strategy c, and strategy d. |
| Spokane Subbasin Objective 2A2 | Increase sharp-tailed grouse populations within the Intermountain Province and associated subbasins to a minimum of 800 grouse by 2010; over the long-term, improve and maintain habitats necessary to support self-sustaining, persistent populations of grouse, estimated to consist of a mimimum of 2000 birds. | Intermountain | Strategy a and strategy b. |
| Spokane Subbasin Objective 2A3 | Increase blue grouse populations by 20% within the Spokane Subbasin and adjacent subbasins by year 2010. | Intermountain | Strategy b, and strategy c. |
| Spokane Subbasin Objective 2A4 | Maintain or increase golden eagle populations at or above 2004 levels. | Intermountain | Strategy b. |
| Spokane Subbasin Objective 2A5 | Identify specific projects to protect, restore, and/or enhance populations of game species in the Subbasin reflecting federal, state, and Tribal management objectives (white-tailed deer, elk, moose). | Intermountain | Strategy a. |
| Spokane Subbasin Objective 2A6 | Maintain raptor populations at or above present levels (2004) in the Spokane Subbasin in accordance with federal, state, and Tribal management plans. Protect important raptor sites including active and alternative nest trees, preferred feeding sites, migratory corridors, wintering areas, perch and roost trees. | Intermountain | Strategy c. |
| Spokane Subbasin Objective 2A7 | Maintain or enhance populations of federal, state, local, and Tribal species of special concern, and other native and desirable nonnative wildlife species, within their present and/or historical ranges within the Spokane Subbasin in order to prevent future declines, and restore populations that have suffered declines. | Intermountain | Strategy b. |
| Spokane Subbasin Objective 2A8 | Maintain or enhance neo-tropical migrant bird populations relative to current levels within suitable habitat and identify limiting factors for these populations within the Subbasin. | Intermountain | Strategy c, and strategy d. |
| Spokane Subbasin Objective 2B1 | Complete mitigation requirements consistent with approved agreements in applicable federal licenses. | Intermountain | No specifice stategies identified. |
| Spokane Subbasin Objective 2B2 | Identify, protect, maintain, restore, and enhance priority habitats (wetlands, riparian areas, upland forests, steppe and shrub-steppe, cliffs and rock outcrops (including caves and mines), in accordance with applicable agency, federal, state, local, and Tribal priority habitat designations), including their structural attributes, ecological functions, and distribution and connectivity across the landscape to optimize conditions required to increase overall wildlife productivity of desired species assemblages. Strategies may include land acquisition, conservation easements, management contracts, and/or partnerships with other landowners. | Intermountain | Strategy a, strategy b, and strategy c. |
| Spokane Subbasin Objective 2B3 | Increase the quantity and quality of mule deer habitats, particularly winter and spring habitats. | Intermountain | Strategy a, strategy b, and strategy c. |
| Support Work Element | No specific biological objective is being addressed, but the work element is require to support all project activities. | Intermountain | No specific strategy. |
| Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A2 | Protect, enhance, or restore mourning dove Habitat Units to address riparian and agricultural habitat losses resulting from the construction of the Grand Coulee Project. | Intermountain | Strategy a, strategy b, and strategy c. |
| Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A3 | Protect, enhance, or restore mule deer Habitat Units to address shrub-steppe and river break habitat losses resulting from the construction of the Grand Coulee Project. | Intermountain | Strategy a, strategy b, and strategy c. |
| Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A4 | Protect, enhance, or restore riparian forest Habitat Units to address habitat losses resulting from the construction of the Grand Coulee Project. | Intermountain | Strategy a, strategy b, and strategy c. |
| Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A6 | Protect, enhance, or restore ruffed grouse Habitat Units to address riparian/hardwood forest habitat losses resulting from the construction of the Grand Coulee Project. | Intermountain | Strategy a, strategy b, and strategy c. |
| Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A8 | Protect, enhance, or restore sharp-tailed grouse Habitat Units to address grassland, shrub-steppe, and riparian draw habitat losses resulting from the construction of the Grand Coulee Project. | Intermountain | Strategy a, strategy b, and strategy c. |
| Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A9 | Protect, enhance, or restore white-tailed deer Habitat Units to address seral forest habitat losses resulting from the construction of the Grand Coulee Project. | Intermountain | Strategy a, strategy b, and strategy c. |
| Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 2A1 | Maintain bald eagle at or above present levels (2004) in the Upper Columbia Subbasin. | Intermountain | Strategy a. |
| Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 2A3 | Increase blue grouse populations by 20% within the Upper Columbia Subbasin and adjacent subbasins by year 2010. | Intermountain | Strategy b and strategy c. |
| Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 2A4 | Maintain or increase golden eagle populations at or above 2004 levels. | Intermountain | Strategy b. |
| Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 2B1 | Identify, protect, maintain, restore, and enhance priority habitats (wetlands, riparian areas, upland forests, steppe and shrub-steppe, cliffs and rock outcrops (including caves and mines), in accordance with applicable agency, federal, state, local, and Tribal priority habitat designations), including their structural attributes, ecological functions, and distribution and connectivity across the landscape to optimize conditions required to increase overall wildlife productivity of desired species assemblages. Strategies may include land acquisition, conservation easements, management contracts, and/or partnerships with other landowners. | Intermountain | Strategy a, strategy b, strategy c, strategy e, strategy f, and strategy h. |
| Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 2B2 | Increase the quantity and quality of mule deer habitats, particularly winter and spring habitats. | Intermountain | Strategy a, strategy b, strategy c, strategy d, strategy e, and strategy f. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Verify that all Environmental Compliance (NEPA) is up to date for the O&M project. | Make sure that all NEPA requirements of the Project are being fulfilled and up to date. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $17,736 |
|
Biological objectives Support Work Element |
Metrics |
||||
| Conduct Controlled Burn | Burn wildlife lands to meet management objectives. | Conduct burns to maintain or enhance wildlife habitat (approximately 200 acres per year). Maybe conducted in either the spring or fall to best meet management objectives. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $22,171 |
|
Biological objectives Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A10 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A2 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A3 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A8 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A9 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A2 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A3 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A8 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A9 |
Metrics |
||||
| Improve/Relocate Road | Maintain access roads on WMA's. | Maintain access roads on WMA's to prevent the spread of noxious weeds and to reduce the potential of wildfires. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $44,341 |
|
Biological objectives Support Work Element |
Metrics * # of road miles improved, upgraded, or restored: 15 miles per year |
||||
| Install Fence | New fence installation. | Install 4 miles of new fence on WMA's (specifications are 4-strands of 12 1/2 ga. wire, 6' metal t-post @ 12' spacing, 48" wire stays @ 12' spacing, and 5-6" treated wood brace posts with 9 ga. wire diagonal support and duckbill anchors. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $221,705 |
|
Biological objectives Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A10 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A2 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A3 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A4 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A6 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A8 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A9 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A2 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A3 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A4 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A6 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A8 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A9 |
Metrics * # of miles of fence: 4 miles per year |
||||
| Plant Vegetation | Seed Abandoned Agricultural Land | Seed abandoned agricultural land on WMA's to improve species composition and to reduce weed infestations. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $8,868 |
|
Biological objectives Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A10 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A2 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A3 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A8 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A9 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A2 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A3 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A8 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A9 |
Metrics * # of acres of planted: 10 per year |
||||
| Remove vegetation | Remove and control vegetation from WMA's. | Remove undesirable plant species through mechanical (hand-pulling, mowing, tillage), chemical (herbicides such as Roundup and 2,4-D), and/or biological (insect release) methods. A list of all herbicides can be found in the narrative section. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $177,364 |
|
Biological objectives Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A10 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A2 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A3 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A4 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A6 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A8 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A9 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A2 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A3 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A4 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A6 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A8 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A9 |
Metrics * # of acres treated: 500 acres |
||||
| Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage | Maintain existing WMA boundary fences. | Check and repair 15 miles of WMA boundary fences. Boundary fences are needed to control livestock that are on open-range units that border mitigation lands. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $88,682 |
|
Biological objectives Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A10 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A2 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A3 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A4 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A6 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A8 Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A9 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A2 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A3 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A4 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A6 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A8 Upper Columbia Subbasin Objective 1A9 |
Metrics |
||||
| Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage | Operate, maintain, and improve McCoy Lake Watershed Field Shop | Improve and maintain field shop and office. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $31,039 |
|
Biological objectives Support Work Element |
Metrics |
||||
| Remove Debris | Remove debris from newly acquired wildlife lands. | Debris will be removed from wildlife lands (removal of 2 miles of interior fence per year) | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $53,208 |
|
Biological objectives Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A10 |
Metrics |
||||
| Coordination | General Project Coordination | Activities include meetings, phone calls, and other communication tasks with funding agency, partners and cooperators. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $35,473 |
|
Biological objectives Support Work Element |
Metrics |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | General Administration of Project | Project management includes preparing FY07-09 Statements of Works, June and September Accrual estimates, managing budgets and providing information to BPA as requested | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $106,419 |
|
Biological objectives Support Work Element |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Plan | Update Site Specific Management Plan | Update Site Specific Management Plan to include any new lands that are purchased through the Spokane Tribe Wildlife Mitigation Project (1991-06-200) | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $35,473 |
|
Biological objectives Support Work Element |
Metrics |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Analyze Wildlife Survey Data | Analysis of Wildlife Survey Data for all FY07-09 surveys. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $8,868 |
|
Biological objectives Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A11 |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Ruffed grouse counts, Bird Counts, Big game counts |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Wildlife Monitoring and Evaluation | Collect and validate field data for the following wildlife surveys: Ruffed Grouse Drum Counts, Bird Point Counts, Small Mammal Trapping, and Big Game Counts. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $26,605 |
|
Biological objectives Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A11 |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Action Effectiveness Research |
||||
| Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results | Wildlife Monitoring Report | Use Wildlife Monitoring and Evaluation data from wildlife surveys to complete yearly report. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $8,868 |
|
Biological objectives Spokane Subbasin Objective 1A11 |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Project Manager 3/4 FTE; Wildlife Biologist 3/4 FTE; Wildlife Field Biologist 9/10 FTE; Wildlife Tech II 4/5 FTE; Wildlife Tech II (seasonal) 2/3 FTE; Wildlife Tech I (temporary) 1/4 FTE. FY08 & FY09 will have 3% increase. | $141,156 | $145,390 | $149,752 |
| Fringe Benefits | Rate is 16% of Salaries; Medical & Dental is $325/employee month; 3% increase for FY08 and FY09 | $37,074 | $38,186 | $39,332 |
| Supplies | Includes fencing supplies, cattle guards, herbicide, general field materials, office and shop supplies. | $25,818 | $26,593 | $27,373 |
| Travel | [blank] | $1,500 | $1,550 | $1,600 |
| Other | Vehicle/Equipment Maintenance | $12,500 | $12,875 | $13,250 |
| Other | Building Improvement | $1,000 | $1,000 | $1,000 |
| Other | Utilities | $3,000 | $3,100 | $3,250 |
| Other | Insurance | $3,250 | $3,350 | $3,450 |
| Other | Vehicle Lease | $17,250 | $17,250 | $17,250 |
| Other | Equipment Rental | $1,000 | $1,000 | $1,000 |
| Other | Non-capital Equipment | $1,000 | $1,000 | $1,000 |
| Overhead | Indirect rate is 17.6% on all items, except for Capital Equipment (>$5,000) | $43,040 | $44,228 | $45,453 |
| Totals | $287,588 | $295,522 | $303,710 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $886,820 |
| Total work element budget: | $886,820 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Totals | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $305,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $305,000 |
Comments: Project funding will begin to level off. |
Future O&M costs: Outyear O&M costs will be fairly high with the recent acquisition of wildlife lands, but the funding will begin to be less with the completion of land acquisition through the Spokane Tribe Wildlife Mitigation Project. As major O&M activities are completed such as large fencing and weed control projects. Less funding will be needed to maintain boundary fences and weed control.
Termination date: N/A
Comments:
Final deliverables:
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
| ISRP COMMENT RESPONSE - 1998-003-00 | Jul 2006 |
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $287,588 | $295,522 | $303,710 | $886,820 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $287,588 | $295,522 | $303,710 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: This proposal provides the needed information to justify most sections, with procedures for wildlife monitoring (i.e., what is done and when) described well. The description of past monitoring and data collection activities is thorough. However, with five years of data collection completed, the proposal should report the results: summary of analyses, evaluation of results, and the management implications stemming from the data analysis. To justify continued funding, these results of monitoring and evaluation and their applications should be provided in a response.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: The response demonstrates movement toward improved reporting of results. It makes clear that relevant data are available and provides some tables of data. However, it does little to summarize, synthesize, and interpret information relative to project objectives. The response notes that M&E activities only began in 2001, that major enhancement activities have only begun in the last few years, that not enough information is available yet, and that more time may be necessary to see a quantifiable responses for some species. Nevertheless, the baseline data should be reported in a synthesized form that is relevant to project objectives, management techniques, and restoration design, describing its anticipated use and the current state of biological resources that the data describe. The response also raised some concerns that the ISRP wants to highlight for consideration by the project proponents: Reviewers were concerned that the response suggested the project might cease to collect relevant data on big game and upland game birds, which are target species for the project. This would seem to be a poor decision, perhaps leaving point counts of birds as the only source of data for evaluation of the project. Also, reviewers were not convinced that Varmitgetter was a good choice for reducing mortality of plantings. The video on the website that was referenced in the response suggests that the blowing up of burrows by Varmitgetter entails significant disturbance above and around the burrows of the gophers it is intended to kill. In addition, Varmitgetter is listed on the website as costing $1295. Gopher kill-traps are far cheaper, and they kill gophers without disturbing the overlying or surrounding ground (in which the plants intended to be benefited are rooted). Plus, don't other gophers continue to immigrate into planted areas and build new burrows and graze on plants, even when Varmitgetter is used?