Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1992-048-00 - Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1992-048-00 - Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range

Please Note: This project is the product of one or more merges and/or splits from other projects. Historical data automatically included here are limited to the current project and previous generation (the “parent” projects) only. The Project Relationships section details the nature of the relationships between this project and the previous generation. To learn about the complete ancestry of this project, please review the Project Relationships section on the Project Summary page of each parent project.

Project Number:
1992-048-00
Title:
Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range
Summary:
The Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range Wildlife Mitigation Project (Mitigation Project) was proposed by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CTCR) as partial mitigation for wildlife losses resulting from Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams. The Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC) and the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) approved the Colville Tribes' Mitigation Project as partial mitigation for associated impacts from the Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph Dams. The BPA funds the project and it is carried out in cooperation with CTCR, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), (NPPC), and others. The project is consistent with Section 1003(b)(7) of the NPPC's Wildlife Rule and Sub-basin plans which address mitigation for wildlife losses due to the Federal Columbia River Power System. Consistent with the Wildlife Rule, the CTCR have acquired over 62,000 acres of land for the biological requirements of wildlife and to manage for the protection and enhancement of critical winter habitat for big game and shrub-steppe/sharp-tailed grouse habitat. More land will be acquired and managed over time to mitigate for wildlife losses. The USFWS Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) will be used to determine mitigation credits and in part to monitor the results of project management activities over time. To date we have nearly acquired the total amount of baseline inundation losses of 35,819 HU's due to hydropower development.

The focus of the Colville Tribes' Mitigation Project is the protection, restoration, and enhancement of critical winter habitat for big game and shrub-steppe/sharp-tailed grouse habitat on lands purchased and managed for wildlife mitigation on the Colville Indian Reservation. In addition, the CCT have set aside special management areas (Hellsgate Reserve, Tribal lands, and Agency Butte) surrounding certain Mitigation Project land parcels to conserve and protect big game winter range and sharp-tailed grouse habitat. The Mitigation Project began mitigating for wildlife losses in 1992 through the purchase of various ranches (Graves, Berg Brothers, W. and H. Kuehne Ranches, Joy Property, Jacobsen, Wanacut/Moomaw) and several separate parcels (Nespelem Bend, Brim, Rattlesnake Canyon, and Boot Mountain). These lands contain similar habitat types to those that were inundated by the dams. To fully mitigate all the wildlife losses associated with these dams, additional lands need to be acquired and managed under the Tribes' Wildlife Mitigation Program (Hellsgate O & M Project). Each area will have site-specific goals to manage the lands to optimize available habitat for management species (desired future conditions). These managed lands contain a wide diversity of vegetative types and habitats for a variety of wildlife species. In all cases, the biological requirements of wildlife and the protection of critical habitat will take precedence over all other land use consideration in the management of these lands.

Funding for reasonable operation and maintenance, enhancements, restoration, monitoring and evaluation will be provided by the Bonneville Power Administration. The Mitigation Project involves the protection of project lands (i.e. boundary fencing, noxious weed control and property livestock trespass), operation and maintenance of acquired lands, enhancement and/or restoration of wildlife species and habitats on those lands with monitoring and evaluation over the long term to ensure that project objectives are being met. Project lands are located within the San Poil, Upper Columbia and Rufus Woods Sub-Basins and will be evaluated for baseline conditions and species composition. Data will be used to develop and implement site-specific management plans to protect and enhance wildlife habitat for the life of the Mitigation Project.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Colville Confederated Tribes (Tribe)
Starting FY:
1992
Ending FY:
2032
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Intermountain Columbia Upper 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Kokanee
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 100.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

Description: Page: 13 Figure 1: Wildlife Mitigation Management Areas on the Colville Reservation

Project: 1992-048-00

Document: P120895

Dimensions: 625 x 431

Description: Page: 14 Figure 2a: Noxious Weed Control Maps - Kuehne Chemical Control

Project: 1992-048-00

Document: P120895

Dimensions: 457 x 592

Description: Page: 14 Figure 2b: Noxious Weed Control Maps - Silver Ck & Dick Ck Chem. Cont.

Project: 1992-048-00

Document: P120895

Dimensions: 459 x 594

Description: Page: 14 Figure 2c: Noxious Weed Control Maps - S. Omak Lake Chem Control

Project: 1992-048-00

Document: P120895

Dimensions: 449 x 579

Description: Page: 14 Figure 2d: Noxious Weed Control Maps - Williams Flat Chemical Control

Project: 1992-048-00

Document: P120895

Dimensions: 457 x 594

Description: Page: 15 Figure 2e: Noxious Weed Control Maps - Rattlesnake Bio-agent Releases

Project: 1992-048-00

Document: P120895

Dimensions: 436 x 562

Description: Page: 15 Figure 2f: Noxious Weed Control Maps - Berg Ranch Bio-agent Release

Project: 1992-048-00

Document: P120895

Dimensions: 441 x 572

Description: Page: 15 Figure 2g: Noxious Weed Control Maps - Sand Hills Bio-agent Releases

Project: 1992-048-00

Document: P120895

Dimensions: 473 x 612

Description: Page: 15 Figure 2h: Noxious Weed Control Maps - Rattlesnake Bio-agent Releases

Project: 1992-048-00

Document: P120895

Dimensions: 484 x 619

Description: Page: 16 Figure 2i: Noxious Weed Control Maps - Williams Flat Mechanical Control

Project: 1992-048-00

Document: P120895

Dimensions: 459 x 594

Description: Page: 16 Figure 2j: Noxious Weed Control Maps - Rattlesnake Canyon Prescribed Burn

Project: 1992-048-00

Document: P120895

Dimensions: 477 x 617

Description: Page: 16 Figure 2k: Noxious Weed Control Maps - Redthunder Cultural Control

Project: 1992-048-00

Document: P120895

Dimensions: 461 x 596

Description: Page: 2 Figure 1: Wildlife Mitigation Management Areas on the Colville Reservation

Project: 1992-048-00

Document: P126180

Dimensions: 1021 x 752

Description: Page: 11 Figure 2: Silver Creek MA Fencing

Project: 1992-048-00

Document: P126180

Dimensions: 708 x 547

Description: Page: 11 Figure 3: Bridge Creek MA Fencing

Project: 1992-048-00

Document: P126180

Dimensions: 708 x 547

Description: Page: 12 Figure 4: North Omak Lake MA Fencing

Project: 1992-048-00

Document: P126180

Dimensions: 713 x 551

Description: Page: 12 Figure 5: Redthunder MA Fencing

Project: 1992-048-00

Document: P126180

Dimensions: 713 x 551


Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2022 - FY2024)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2022 Expense $1,594,730 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Extensions (Colville Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2022 Expense $95,678 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Budget Transfer (CCT) 4/1/2019 04/01/2019
FY2022 Expense $21,657 From: Fish Accord - Colville Fish Accord Transfers - Colville 1/8/20 01/08/2020
FY2022 Expense $21,156 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 3/14/2022 03/14/2022
FY2022 Expense $234,823 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 3/14/2022 03/14/2022
FY2022 Expense $111,000 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 5/12/2022 05/12/2022
FY2022 Expense $111,000 To: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT) 5/12/2022 05/12/2022
FY2023 Expense $1,629,730 From: Fish Accord - Colville Colville Tribe (CCT) 2023-2025 Accord Extension 09/30/2022
FY2023 Expense $430,183 From: Fish Accord - Colville Accord Transfers (CCT, MT) 12/23/2022 12/23/2022
FY2024 Expense $1,670,473 From: Fish Accord - Colville Colville Tribe (CCT) 2023-2025 Accord Extension 09/30/2022

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2023   DRAFT
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2022 (Draft)
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016 $0 0%
2015
2014 $0 0%
2013
2012 $0 0%
2011 $0 0%
2010
2009
2008 $0 0%
2007 $0 0%

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Closed, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
CR-352482 SOW 1992-048-00 EXP HELLSGATE WINTER RANGE Pending $0
BPA-011273 Bonneville Power Administration FY93 Land Acquisition Active $2,278,982 10/1/1992 - 9/30/1993
4365 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1992-048-00 HELLSGATE WINTER RANGE WILDLIFE MITIGATION Closed $1,496,656 2/1/2001 - 12/31/2004
20947 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1992-048-00 HELLSGATE BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Closed $460,000 1/1/2005 - 12/31/2005
25778 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1992-048-00 EXP HELLSGATE BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Closed $720,000 1/1/2006 - 12/31/2006
30842 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1992-048-00 EXP HELLSGATE BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Closed $899,027 1/1/2007 - 12/31/2007
36485 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 199204800 HELLSGATE BIG GAME WINTER RANGE Closed $862,243 1/1/2008 - 2/28/2009
42593 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1992-048-00 EXP HELLSGATE WINTER RANGE Closed $936,828 3/1/2009 - 2/28/2010
48072 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1992-048-00 EXP HELLSGATE WINTER RANGE Closed $1,028,628 3/1/2010 - 2/28/2011
52074 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1992-048-00 EXP HELLSGATE WINTER RANGE Closed $1,372,921 3/1/2011 - 2/29/2012
56507 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1992-048-00 EXP HELLSGATE WINTER RANGE Closed $1,250,288 3/1/2012 - 2/28/2013
60431 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1992-048-00 EXP HELLSGATE WINTER RANGE Closed $1,214,013 3/1/2013 - 2/28/2014
64370 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1992-048-00 EXP HELLSGATE WINTER RANGE Closed $1,317,635 3/1/2014 - 2/28/2015
68222 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1992-048-00 EXP HELLSGATE WINTER RANGE Closed $1,499,948 3/1/2015 - 2/29/2016
72085 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1992-048-00 EXP HELLSGATE WINTER RANGE Closed $2,993,270 3/1/2016 - 2/28/2018
73548 REL 24 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1992-048-00 EXP HELLSGATE WINTER RANGE Closed $1,636,976 3/1/2018 - 2/28/2019
73548 REL 48 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1992-048-00 EXP HELLSGATE WINTER RANGE PROPERTY O&M Closed $1,390,119 3/1/2019 - 2/28/2020
73548 REL 81 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1992-048-00 EXP HELLSGATE WINTER RANGE Closed $1,305,451 3/1/2020 - 2/28/2021
73548 REL 108 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1992-048-00 EXP HELLSGATE WINTER RANGE Issued $2,043,376 3/1/2021 - 2/28/2022
73548 REL 135 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1992-048-00 EXP HELLSGATE WINTER RANGE Issued $1,712,065 3/1/2022 - 2/28/2023
CR-360792 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 1992-048-00 EXP HELLSGATE WINTER RANGE Approved $2,142,182 3/1/2023 - 2/29/2024



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):18
Completed:17
On time:17
Status Reports
Completed:68
On time:34
Avg Days Late:3

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
BPA-011273 FY93 Land Acquisition Bonneville Power Administration 10/1992 10/1992 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4365 20947, 25778, 30842, 36485, 42593, 48072, 52074, 56507, 60431, 64370, 68222, 72085, 73548 REL 24, 73548 REL 48, 73548 REL 81, 73548 REL 108, 73548 REL 135 1992-048-00 HELLSGATE WINTER RANGE WILDLIFE MITIGATION Colville Confederated Tribes 02/2001 02/2001 Approved 68 208 13 0 22 243 90.95% 0
Project Totals 68 208 13 0 22 243 90.95% 0


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2017 Wildlife Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1992-048-00-NPCC-20210312
Project: 1992-048-00 - Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range
Review: 2017 Wildlife Category Review
Approved Date: 10/13/2017
Recommendation: Implement
Comments: Recommendation: Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications 1-4 in 2018 annual reports and updated management plan (per programmatic issue recommendations in this Decision Document Part 1).

[Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/fish-and-wildlife/project-reviews-and-recommendations/2017-wildlife-project-review]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1992-048-00-ISRP-20201118
Project: 1992-048-00 - Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range
Review: 2017 Wildlife Category Review
Completed Date: 11/18/2020
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/28/2017
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

It is clear that a good deal of work and effort is occurring. Management is challenging given the relatively large number of isolated parcels for management. However, given that the project started in 1992, there is little information provided on actual results or outcomes for habitat or for wildlife trends associated with protection and management activities. Additional information is needed in order to evaluate this project. 

Effectiveness of weed treatments has been hampered by environmental conditions including wildfire and wet roads in the spring. It seems that these conditions could very well occur in the future. Staff turnover is listed as another cause for weed treatment limitations. Hopefully, plans to add new field crews with a weed control focus will increase the likelihood of successful weed treatments.

Some public outreach efforts are being made. These efforts should be evaluated and if found successful they should be expanded. Public support could be beneficial in controlling impacts of livestock, weed seed spread, and fence maintenance. 

1. Objectives and outcomes 

Objectives and outcomes are not clearly stated in quantitative terms. Quantitative objectives would help prioritize activities and allow all parties to track progress and outcomes. Some quantitative goals are given for desired results such as miles of fence to be constructed and acres of weeds to be controlled. Results indicate that the type of fencing used in the past is no longer desirable, so a new type will be tried in the future. There is little evidence that weed control efforts to date have been effective, so new methods are being tried. There is some quantitative evidence provided on 1- and 2-year survival rates for native vegetation plantings, but it is not clear what this means for long-term success. 

In the case of land acquisition the project may have reached its objective as no new properties have been added since 2010. The proponents developed a debris removal plan in 2015 for their properties which includes the removal of old farming equipment, fences, etc. In Appendix 3, it is indicated that 20.8 miles of old fencing should be removed, but no schedule for when this and other debris will be removed is indicated. Similarly, Appendix 5 lists the number of native plant species transplanted by the proponents for the years 2009 and 2013. No annual goal for such work is presented. Most of the project’s objectives are activities that will be ongoing so no time lines were established for when they might be completed. 

The importance of the work is generally discussed. How the project’s actions might benefit wildlife was not quantitatively expressed. In general the project’s activities support the biological and physical habitat objectives of the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program 

2. Scientific principles and methods 

There is little information in the Summary Report to determine the extent to which sound scientific principles are utilized. Annual reports indicate that the project does use such principles in planning and management. It is noted that there are management plans for each of the 18 management areas, but a discussion of their contents, direction, and management priorities is needed. 

The actions taken by the proponents for property acquisition, fencing, weed control, native vegetation planting, debris removal, public outreach, and management plan update objectives were described. Activities implemented and methods used are summarized and evaluated for success in a qualitative manner in most cases. An assessment of the effectiveness of these efforts toward achieving overall objectives is not provided. 

In several instances, the project could potentially be more efficient in how it determines its best practices. Results of past efforts to control invasive weeds and to re-establish native plants by seeding or planting of nursery stock would have benefited from using standard agricultural statistical designs. The Summary Report, for example, describes how two methods used to control invasive weeds were evaluated. Each method was tried on a single three-acre site. The two sites were not adjacent to one another. A random block design or on-farm trial approach would have allowed the proponents to more effectively evaluate weed treatments. Such designs could be carried out in different habitat types. Results from these types of experiments would help the proponents identify effective treatment options. 

3. Monitoring and evaluation 

Although past ISRP reviews have noted the lack of monitoring, analysis and reporting of results, there is little discussion of these activities in the Summary Report. Some results are presented on survival of native vegetation after one and two years. Expanding this effort over more years in more locations would be desirable. 

Monitoring and evaluation of project actions is being done by another project, the Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT) Wildlife Monitoring and Evaluation Project (UWMEP). The UWMEP uses the same protocols to maintain data compatibility across the region. The monitoring plan is designed to compare conditions at reference sites with those present on mitigation areas. This approach was implemented in 2012 on the project’s eastside lands and in 2015 on its west-side properties. Photo points installed by UWMEP are scheduled for revisiting in 2017 and 2020, but evaluation of weed treatments may only be effective on the most degraded sites. 

4. Results: benefits to fish and wildlife and adaptive management 

There is little information provided on actual benefits to wildlife. However, the project is performing actions designed to support, protect, and enhance wildlife species. Benefits to big game are anticipated based on fencing to exclude competition from cattle and weed control to improve grazing, browse, and cover for wildlife. It would be valuable to quantify trends in big game and sharp-tail grouse abundance in response to ownership and management activities. 

The project continues to change as a result of lessons learned from actions taken. The project does not have a formal adaptive management strategy. Instead, changes appear to be made based on field observations. The proponents state that all management plans are being updated to address changes in adaptive management that need to occur. The updates of management plans provide a good opportunity to develop a formal adaptive management approach with quantitative objectives and timelines for each management area. 

Eradication of invasive weeds has been a long-standing challenge for the project. Based on past efforts, the proponents now believe that multi-year treatments, utilizing an array of methods, will be required to suppress invasive plant species. We urge the proponents to confer with others about efficient ways to simultaneously evaluate and compare multiple eradication methods on their properties. It is likely that other Tribal groups, state agencies, county governments, and federal agencies are also attempting to eradicate noxious weeds from their lands. Discussions with these entities may lead to some additional procedures that could be tried or lead to some combined quantitative studies that would provide benefits to all the parties.

Modified by Sharon Grant on 11/18/2020 8:09:49 AM.
Qualification #1 - Additional information needed in Annual Report and Management Plans
The ISRP requests that planning documents and progress summaries include: 1. Quantitative objectives, time lines, and plans for a formal adaptive management approach for the project. 2. Presentation of UWMEP results to date and a schedule for evaluation of future monitoring results. 3. Presentation of a general approach to management planning for the project’s 18 management areas. 4. Brief synopses of monitoring and evaluation, invasive weed management, and debris removal plans should be provided along with links to more information.
Documentation Links:
Review: Wildlife Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1992-048-00-NPCC-20091217
Project: 1992-048-00 - Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Approved Date: 5/31/2009
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Accord Project. Staff recommended budget is an estimate. Out-year budgets were not provided in proposal beyond FY 2010. Programmatic issues #2-3 and # 10.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) - interaction between wildlife crediting and monitoring
Council Condition #2 Programmatic Issue: Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) participation funding
Council Condition #3 Programmatic Issue: Regional Coordination funding

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1992-048-00-ISRP-20090618
Project: 1992-048-00 - Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Completed Date: 5/19/2009
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The ISRP agrees that invasive species are difficult to control. This fact makes it all the more important that an effective monitoring plan be in place to inform adaptive management. Re-treatment using the same methods, e.g., continuous heavy spraying, may not be the most effective strategy. The ISRP acknowledges and supports the sponsor's determination to increase monitoring of treated and non-treated areas in an effort to better understand the effects of various weed control practices. Basically, the response indicated that limited data has been collected in the past to evaluate weed management activities on the property (under-staffed, turnover of staff, land-base doubled in last four years). Now, the sponsor notes that the budget increase permits increased staffing beginning April 20, 2009 to conduct this important work. It was noted that the sponsor has been working with several weed control organizations plus Monsanto and UAP Timberland to test weed control chemicals (hopefully including integrated pest management) on plots and will use funds in 2010 to monitor invasive species and vegetation treatments. Complete elimination of invasive weed species may not be reasonable, but establishing desired vegetative cover that can be maintained with less effort should be attainable. Seems like the sponsor has the correct concept, but hope they have personnel to make it happen? The ISRP offers its support for the new efforts to monitor and evaluate weed control efforts. Results from monitoring and evaluation of weed control efforts need to be included in future reports.
First Round ISRP Date: 3/26/2009
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:

This winter range project has been active for many years with acquisitions listed by year, HU cost and acres. Management has included the installation and maintenance of fencing, removal of trespass livestock, and weed management. Weed management acreages have increased dramatically in recent years with expenses estimated at $500,000 in 2009. In the past, the ISRP noted that future funding of the active management part of the budget should be contingent upon a meaningful analysis of data, i.e., a summary is needed of weed/native vegetation response data to management activities with graphs, tables, etc…. Further, the sponsors were requested to show how results are incorporated into future management with interpretative dialogue. It is noteworthy that the management area has been divided into 160 acre grids to prioritize weed treatment on 10 grids per year. However, photopoints and hopefully other data were collected in past years. Are the weed control projects successful, and what weed management approaches work best in the area? Data is needed to answer this question, and hopefully such data is available from over the years. It is noted that M&E will be provided by UCUT UWMEP in 2009, but that in 2010 M&E will be reinitiated by the project. The ISRP is not sure what this means. It is doubtful that UWMEP can evaluate of the weed control program on the short term basis, a successful adaptive management plan is urgently needed for this large and expensive program. We are also interested in population data on sharp-tailed grouse in the area because the species was only briefly mentioned.

Documentation Links:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1992-048-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1992-048-00 - Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: ISRP fund in part (qualified): sponsors should address ISRP concerns during contracting. Interim funding pending o&m review. Intermountain Province Oversight Committee reduced budget (withdrew enhancement activities) by $226,667 in FY07, 08, and 09 associated with Wildlife Objective 4 (Manage project lands to maintain current and enhanced habitats for the life of the Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph hydroelectric projects on behalf of wildlife).

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1992-048-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1992-048-00 - Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Fundable in part for FY07 to complete an assessment of past work. Future funding of the active management part of the budget should be contingent upon a meaningful analysis of the data, which should be a relatively easy task for this project. What is needed is one or more graphs (or some other form of data summary) that clearly address project objectives, along with some text stating how the project proponents interpret the provided results and how they apply the results to their management.

The response indicates that some relevant data are being collected, but there is not evidence that the project proponents are using (analyzing and evaluating) the data. The guidelines for proposal submission clearly stated the need to provide reporting of results with interpretive dialogue. It is not adequate to refer the ISRP to annual reports to BPA, which may or may not provide information that reviewers would find to constitute adequate M&E. This mitigation project describes a nice piece of land with likely benefits to wildlife, but the project must determine whether its O&M, especially active management, is actually beneficial and is not counterproductive or destructive. This proposal is not scientifically justified until some evaluation has been reported.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1992-048-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1992-048-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: O&M and enhancement on wildlife habitat mitigating for FCRPS; assume requested funds consistent with terms of MOA.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1992-048-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1992-048-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: This project Merged From 2008-119-00 effective on 12/12/2008
Relationship Description: Move all budgets ($500k/year, FY09-17) from 2008-119-00 into 1992-048-00. Work/location is same, therefore only 1 contract is needed for implementation.


Name Role Organization
Peter Lofy Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Richard Whitney Supervisor Colville Confederated Tribes
Kelly Singer Project Lead Colville Confederated Tribes
Billy Gunn Administrative Contact Colville Confederated Tribes
Thomas Delorenzo Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Vanessa Sanchez Administrative Contact Colville Confederated Tribes
Virgil Watts III Project SME Bonneville Power Administration
Virgil Watts III Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
David Kaplowe Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration