Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1995-057-03 - Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation--Shoshone-Paiute Tribes Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1995-057-03 - Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation--Shoshone-Paiute Tribes
Project Number:
1995-057-03
Title:
Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation--Shoshone-Paiute Tribes
Summary:
Project Goal:

The objective of this project is to facilitate wildlife mitigation activities under the Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation Project in order to protect, enhance/restore and maintain riparian, shrub-steppe, and scrub-shrub wetland habitat at suitable sites in the Middle and Upper Snake Provinces as mitigation for wildlife losses associated with the construction hydroelectric projects. Target species include mule deer, elk, mallard, mink, black-capped chickadee, yellow warbler, yellow-rumped warbler, ruffed grouse, blue grouse, spruce grouse, sage grouse, redband trout, and bull trout. This contract has been developed to cover personnel, administrative, and operating costs. Many of the objectives and tasks listed throughout this document are conducted on an ongoing basis throughout the contract period.

Background:
In southern Idaho, a BPA debt of wildlife habitat losses identified in the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program remain to be mitigated in the area covered by the Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation (SIWM) project. The SIWM group includes the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and the Idaho Fish and Game Department.

Tools that will be utilized to identify acquisition, protection, and enhancement sites include the GAP analysis program, BPA impact assessments, regional fish and wildlife data, input from regional professionals and working groups, and maps of available properties.

Location:
The Duck Valley Indian Reservation encompasses approximately 289,820 tribally-owned acres equally straddling the Idaho and Nevada border, and there are approximately 1,800 enrolled Tribal members. The Reservation is in the Middle Snake Province and both the Bruneau and Owyhee subbasins. The Reservation is both remote and isolated; the closest town centers are Elko, Nevada and Mountain Home, Idaho, both approximately 100 miles from the Reservation's small town of Owyhee. These are also the closest areas to buy supplies for projects.

The Tribes will concentrate their mitigation efforts in the Middle Snake Province, per terms of the Memorandum of Agreement signed with BPA in August, 2009 (copy located in Attachments of Project)
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes (Tribe)
Starting FY:
1995
Ending FY:
2022
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Middle Snake Owyhee 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Cutthroat Trout, Lahontan
Trout, Interior Redband
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 100.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

Description: Page: 3 Figure 1: Map Indicating Middle Snake Province

Project: 1995-057-03

Document: 00009591-2

Dimensions: 608 x 295

Description: Page: 6 Figure 3: Map Indicating Location of Perkins Property and Allotment within Bruneau Subbasin

Project: 1995-057-03

Document: 00009591-2

Dimensions: 576 x 424

Description: Page: 11 Map 1: Wildhorse Ranch, 20 Miles South of Mountain City, NV

Project: 1995-057-03

Document: P123235

Dimensions: 2536 x 3289

Description: Page: 12 Map 2: Mason Mountain Ranch, Charleston, NV

Project: 1995-057-03

Document: P123235

Dimensions: 2536 x 3289

Description: Page: 13 Map 3: Baker and Byington/Mason Ranch, Mountain City, NV

Project: 1995-057-03

Document: P123235

Dimensions: 2536 x 3289

Description: Page: 14 Map 4: Stowell Ranch, Rowland, NV

Project: 1995-057-03

Document: P123235

Dimensions: 2544 x 3296


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  (FY2021 - FY2023)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2021 Expense $288,987 From: General FY21 SOY 06/09/2020
FY2022 Expense $288,987 From: General FY22 SOY 1st Batch 05/06/2021

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2022
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
2021 (Draft)
2020
2019
2018 $5,000 2%
2017 $0 0%
2016 $0 0%
2015 $5,000 2%
2014 $9,562 1%
2013 $6,824 2%
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007

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.
Capital Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-004572 Bonneville Power Administration Land Acquisition Active $0 4/1/2009 - 9/30/2009
BPA-004879 Bonneville Power Administration FY10 ShoPai Land Acquisitions Active $2,259,937 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
BPA-006956 Bonneville Power Administration FY12 Acquisitions Active $3,156,008 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-006771 Bonneville Power Administration BlackCanyon potential Active $0 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-011650 Bonneville Power Administration FY98 Expenditures Active $1,279,480 10/1/1997 - 9/30/1998
9591 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATION Closed $60,916 3/1/2002 - 3/31/2005
BPA-010901 Bonneville Power Administration FY04 internal costs Active $478 10/1/2003 - 9/30/2004
23639 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATION Closed $20,400 4/1/2005 - 12/31/2006
30687 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATION Closed $32,304 1/1/2007 - 3/31/2008
37565 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP S IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATION Closed $36,375 4/1/2008 - 3/31/2009
BPA-004413 Bonneville Power Administration SIWM - TBL-Reality Support for Wildlife Purchases Active $16,493 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
41651 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SO. IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATION - SHOPAI History $71,967 4/1/2009 - 3/31/2010
BPA-005055 Bonneville Power Administration FY10 Sho Pai/So. Idaho Wildlife Mitig. Pre-Acquisition Action Active $18,269 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
47582 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATION - SHOPAI Closed $47,934 4/1/2010 - 3/31/2011
51091 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP WILSON RANCH O&M AND MANAGEMENT PLAN History $110,244 9/1/2010 - 8/31/2011
BPA-005439 Bonneville Power Administration FY11 TBL task order pre acquisition activities Active $10,723 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
52498 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SHOPAI PREAC SIWM History $36,684 4/1/2011 - 3/31/2012
54250 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP FY11 O&M - SHOPAI History $155,665 9/1/2011 - 8/31/2012
BPA-006202 Bonneville Power Administration ShoPai/So. Idaho Wildlife Mitig. Pre-Acquisition Actions Active $8,829 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
56863 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SHOPAI PREAC SIWM History $37,620 4/1/2012 - 3/31/2013
59892 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATION - SHOPAI History $145,666 9/1/2012 - 8/31/2013
BPA-006769 Bonneville Power Administration FY13 Preacquisition activities Active $4,762 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
61664 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SHOPAI PREAC SIWM History $23,034 4/1/2013 - 3/31/2014
63665 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATION - SHOPAI History $156,673 9/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
BPA-007581 Bonneville Power Administration ShoPai/So. Idaho Wildlife Mitigation Active $1,234 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
65988 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATION - SHOPAI History $17,509 7/1/2014 - 6/30/2015
66560 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATION - SHOPAI History $174,449 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
BPA-008230 Bonneville Power Administration TBL Work - ShoPai/So Idaho Wildlife Mitigation Active $556 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
71375 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATION - SHOPAI Closed $19,825 9/1/2015 - 7/31/2016
BPA-008567 Bonneville Power Administration FY16 TBL Realty Services Active $0 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
70742 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATION - SHOPAI Closed $155,602 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
74844 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATION - SHOPAI Closed $40,951 8/1/2016 - 7/31/2017
74845 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MIT. Closed $163,722 10/1/2016 - 11/30/2017
BPA-009458 Bonneville Power Administration FY17 Land Acquisitions & TBL Task Orders Active $0 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
76882 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATION - SHOPAI Closed $92,360 8/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
77929 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATION - SHOPAI Closed $149,630 12/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
80518 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SOUTHERN ID WILDLIFE MITIGATION - WILSON/101 MGT Closed $168,371 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
80451 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MIT - POLE CK & PREACQ Closed $100,508 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
83542 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SHOPAI SO ID WILDLIFE MITI - WILSON/101 MGT Closed $166,177 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
83422 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MIT - POLE CK Closed $88,187 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
86280 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATION - WILSON 101 Issued $183,987 10/16/2020 - 9/30/2021
86281 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATION - POLE CREEK Issued $105,000 10/16/2020 - 9/30/2021
88938 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATION - WILSON 101 Signature $183,987 10/1/2021 - 9/30/2022
88937 SOW Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 1995-057-03 EXP SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATION - POLE CREEK Signature $105,000 10/1/2021 - 9/30/2022



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):28
Completed:20
On time:20
Status Reports
Completed:107
On time:62
Avg Days Late:4

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-011650 FY98 Expenditures Bonneville Power Administration 10/1997 10/1997 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9591 23639, 30687, 37565, 41651, 47582, 52498, 56863, 61664, 65988, 71375, 74844, 76882, 80451, 83422, 86281, 88937 1995-057-03 SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATION Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 03/2002 03/2002 Signature 63 106 12 0 21 139 84.89% 0
BPA-010901 FY04 internal costs Bonneville Power Administration 10/2003 10/2003 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004413 SIWM - TBL-Reality Support for Wildlife Purchases Bonneville Power Administration 10/2008 10/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004572 Land Acquisition Bonneville Power Administration 04/2009 04/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004879 FY10 ShoPai Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005055 FY10 Sho Pai/So. Idaho Wildlife Mitig. Pre-Acquisition Action Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
51091 54250, 59892, 63665, 66560, 70742, 74845, 77929, 80518, 83542, 86280, 88938 1995-057-03 EXP WILSON RANCH O&M AND MANAGEMENT PLAN Shoshone-Paiute Tribes 09/2010 09/2010 Signature 42 195 16 0 37 248 85.08% 0
BPA-005439 FY11 TBL task order pre acquisition activities Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006202 ShoPai/So. Idaho Wildlife Mitig. Pre-Acquisition Actions Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006956 FY12 Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006769 FY13 Preacquisition activities Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007581 ShoPai/So. Idaho Wildlife Mitigation Bonneville Power Administration 10/2013 10/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008230 TBL Work - ShoPai/So Idaho Wildlife Mitigation Bonneville Power Administration 10/2014 10/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008567 FY16 TBL Realty Services Bonneville Power Administration 10/2015 10/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009458 FY17 Land Acquisitions & TBL Task Orders Bonneville Power Administration 10/2016 10/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 105 301 28 0 58 387 85.01% 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: 1995-057-03-NPCC-20210312
Project: 1995-057-03 - Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation--Shoshone-Paiute Tribes
Review: 2017 Wildlife Category Review
Approved Date: 10/13/2017
Recommendation: Implement
Comments: Recommendation: No issues. Implement as proposed.

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

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1995-057-03-ISRP-20201105
Project: 1995-057-03 - Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation--Shoshone-Paiute Tribes
Review: 2017 Wildlife Category Review
Completed Date: 11/5/2020
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/28/2017
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:

1. Objectives and outcomes 

The Summary Report was well written and informative. It was organized and follows the instructions provided to project proponents. This assisted the ISRP in the review of the project. 

The importance of the project is summarized “as mitigation for wildlife losses associated with construction of Anderson Ranch, Black Canyon and Deadwood hydroelectric projects.” The project’s overarching goal of protecting, restoring, and maintaining shrub-steppe, wet meadow, and scrub-shrub wetland habitat is clearly stated. Objectives with varying extents of quantification and timelines were developed to achieve the goal. The project would benefit from more detailed quantitative objectives with timelines for all elements of the project. 

For habitat restoration and enhancement, objectives for (1) implementing weed treatment, (2) increasing deciduous scrub-shrub wetlands, (3) revegetating riparian habitat, and (4) improving sagebrush steppe habitat were established. Among the four habitat objectives, only two are quantitative (i.e., Increase the extent of deciduous scrub-shrub wetland habitat by 10% [15 acres] by next HEP survey [2020] and revegetate a 0.15 mile section of California Creek). 

Specific objectives to improve nesting habitat for bobolink and sandhill cranes were also produced. Additionally, three objectives designed to benefit greater sage grouse were developed and will be initiated in 2017. An objective to conduct surveys and identify habitat utilization of Columbia spotted frog on project lands is ongoing. The Summary Report indicates management actions are being taken to benefit the seven focal wildlife species (e.g., adjusting haying operations to benefit sandhill cranes). However, desired future conditions (DFCs) or outcomes associated with specific focal species are not presented.

Weed management is an especially important, time consuming, and costly component of the project. The project would benefit from a weed management plan that includes quantifiable objectives and timeline for each, description of weed management techniques being used, M&E protocols to assess if objectives are being achieved by means of current weed management techniques, and a decision protocol for modification of weed management techniques if needed. 

Wild fire management and responses to wildfire damages are likely to be a major component of this mitigation project into the future. This was demonstrated by the Brown Gulch Fire which burned about 13,000 acres and 90% of one of the managed parcels that had native plant species. It would be wise to acknowledge the threat of fire within management plans with protocols for addressing budget issues and catastrophic effects on infrastructure. Similarly, there is need to monitor recovery of vegetation following wild fire even if native species seem to respond favorably to the fire without a need for reseeding. 

2. Scientific principles and methods 

A variety of management activities have been carried out at the Wilson/101 Ranch that are considered to be reasonable wildlife habitat management actions. However, the activities are not linked to specific quantitative objectives or M&E activities to enable assessment of outcomes into the future. Work has focused on completing baseline weed and focal species surveys. The proponents are also collaborating with Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) biologists to develop conservation plans and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to locate endangered Columbia spotted frogs. 

3. Monitoring and evaluation

A HEP analysis was conducted at the initiation of the project, and a second one is scheduled to occur in 2020. Although not stated, it appears that the proponents are anticipating that the results of HEP assessments can be used to estimate how project actions have benefited focal wildlife species. The proponents state that objectives focus on seven focal species: mule deer, greater sage grouse, sandhill crane, bobolink, yellow warbler, Columbia spotted frog, and redband trout. It is not clear if these are focal species because they were used in baseline HEP surveys. Regular surveys of vegetation and focal wildlife species would likely provide more accurate and precise assessments. 

Monitoring of invasive weeds and riparian vegetation appears to be comprehensive. The proponents identify monitoring activities for breeding birds and bats, Columbia spotted frogs, water temperatures in a river and two creeks, vegetation using fixed photo points, and riparian planting and bank stabilization projects. The proponents are also collecting monitoring data on such things as weed treatments and plantings by the means of photo points. They are also monitoring water temperatures as a measure of success of riparian restoration. However, details of the sampling designs and methods are generally lacking and not tied to assessment of quantified biological or physical objectives. The project could be strengthened by more frequent assessments of the wildlife species that it is designed to benefit. Breeding bird surveys, for example, are scheduled to occur once every 7 years. Annual point counts of birds would allow the project to track abundance trends in some of its focal species (i.e., bobolinks, sandhill cranes, yellow warblers, and greater sage grouse) and possibly account for causes of variation among years. The Summary Report does not mention how the effects of project actions on the abundance of mule deer and redband trout, two other focal species, will be assessed. 

The Summary Report contained no measures of variability among samples or sample sizes, nor any specific data or evaluation indicating benefits to fish or wildlife. The Summary Report mentioned monitoring methods have been modified based on experience, but no detail was provided. The summary states that management plans were also modified because of drought, fire, or lack of water. The proponents do not indicate if or how monitoring and evaluation led to alteration in their management techniques, monitoring methods, or data evaluation. 

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

There is a section of the Summary Report that addresses adaptive management and lessons learned. Several factors that have altered the timing or ability to carry out management activities were described, but the Summary Report does not describe how management objectives or activities may have been modified based on monitoring data. 

The creation of a formal adaptive management plan would benefit the project. It is evident that active management has occurred on the Wilson/101 Ranch since it was acquired in 2012. However, the lack of a management plan with quantitative objectives, timelines, descriptions of management actions to achieve objectives, and M&E protocols to assess if management actions are leading to achievement of objectives makes it very difficult to determine the benefits of the management actions that are taking place. The management plan completed in 2012 should be revised to include an adaptive management framework. A similar management plan is needed for the Pole Creek property upon its acquisition. 

The Project summary describes the status of each of its objectives. A number of changes to the project’s protocols have occurred. Changes were made to overcome encountered challenges or new conditions. Lessons learned were also described. However, none of this is described within the context of a formal adaptive management protocol. 

The Project proponents have recently created a weed management plan, a Wilson/101 Ranch Management Plan, and in collaboration with the NRCS a Conservation Management Plan. Each of these documents provides an opportunity to initiate a formal adaptive management protocol. Opportunity exists to include quantitative objectives, timelines, description of management actions to achieve objectives, and M&E protocols to assess if management actions are leading to achievement of objectives. 

 

Documentation Links:
Review: Wildlife Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1995-057-03-NPCC-20091217
Project: 1995-057-03 - Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation--Shoshone-Paiute Tribes
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Approved Date: 5/31/2009
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Programmatic issue #7. Sponsor to complete a mangement plan within one year (that also addresses ISRP concern about potential grazing) of acquiring mitigation properties. See ISRP recommendations.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: Management Plans - Multiple uses of wildlife conservation lands

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1995-057-03-ISRP-20090618
Project: 1995-057-03 - Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation--Shoshone-Paiute Tribes
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Completed Date: 5/19/2009
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This project is worthwhile; the purchase would link a considerable stretch of riparian area in shrub-steppe habitat. The qualification – the question of future grazing on the lands, and on the Wilson Ranch needs to be addressed. Proper management of grazing (if permitted) is important to the ability to restore the ecosystem. How and when will decisions on this be addressed? If the acquisition goal is fish and wildlife benefits, the land-use plan needs to be consistent with this.

1. Technical justification, program significance and consistency, and project relationships:
These sections are reasonable and appropriate given that no program lands are currently managed. This project attempts to provide out-of-place and out-of-kind mitigation for hydro impacts from dams in the Boise and Payette River drainages. The project proposes to acquire the Wilson Ranch property that includes about 75% of the Owyhee River riparian and floodplain corridor below Wild Horse Dam in Nevada.

The Owyhee River is home to native redband trout, and the riparian corridor is likely an important wildlife habitat, particularly for migrating and breeding birds. Having the opportunity to aggregate these lands into a conservation-directed management scheme would likely yield significant local and regional benefits.

2. Project History and Results
The sponsors are commended for their persistence in pursuing this project in spite of external obstacles. Some mention of the issue of potential pollution from upstream sources is needed in the proposal, as these effects could compromise expected biological benefits from habitat and management improvements (copper may be a problem from mining).

3. Objectives, work elements, and methods
This section is organizationally confusing, skipping from acquisition to management and back again. Until lands are acquired and management planning is complete, how can it be known if, or what fencing or other restoration activities will be needed? This section of the proposal focuses on aspects of acquisition and has yet to define more specific biological and conservation work elements and objectives, much less specific methods. However, all the acquisition pieces are in here somewhere and are presented credibly. The parcel identification and prioritization work element is particularly well thought out and presented.

4. M&E
This section is not well-developed and will require additional details from the sponsor to provide more specific biological objectives (and work elements) in order to specify appropriate M&E metrics and methods. We recognize that it is difficult for the sponsors to plan M&E for future parcels; however, there is concern that HEP may be being confused with biological monitoring. As the project moves forward with acquisitions and management planning, this should be clarified.

Beyond the need to mitigate and the Tribes' approach to identifying parcels, this project is not yet at a point where scientific criteria are key. As acquisition and management planning proceeds, there will be more need for evaluation of scientific merit. The general information presented here suggests that the sponsors will be able to provide all the necessary information and expertise as it is needed.
First Round ISRP Date: 3/26/2009
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:
This project is worthwhile; the purchase would link a considerable stretch of riparian area in shrub-steppe habitat. The qualification – the question of future grazing on the lands, and on the Wilson Ranch needs to be addressed. Proper management of grazing (if permitted) is important to the ability to restore the ecosystem. How and when will decisions on this be addressed? If the acquisition goal is fish and wildlife benefits, the land-use plan needs to be consistent with this.

1. Technical justification, program significance and consistency, and project relationships:
These sections are reasonable and appropriate given that no program lands are currently managed. This project attempts to provide out-of-place and out-of-kind mitigation for hydro impacts from dams in the Boise and Payette River drainages. The project proposes to acquire the Wilson Ranch property that includes about 75% of the Owyhee River riparian and floodplain corridor below Wild Horse Dam in Nevada.

The Owyhee River is home to native redband trout, and the riparian corridor is likely an important wildlife habitat, particularly for migrating and breeding birds. Having the opportunity to aggregate these lands into a conservation-directed management scheme would likely yield significant local and regional benefits.

2. Project History and Results
The sponsors are commended for their persistence in pursuing this project in spite of external obstacles. Some mention of the issue of potential pollution from upstream sources is needed in the proposal, as these effects could compromise expected biological benefits from habitat and management improvements (copper may be a problem from mining).

3. Objectives, work elements, and methods
This section is organizationally confusing, skipping from acquisition to management and back again. Until lands are acquired and management planning is complete, how can it be known if, or what fencing or other restoration activities will be needed? This section of the proposal focuses on aspects of acquisition and has yet to define more specific biological and conservation work elements and objectives, much less specific methods. However, all the acquisition pieces are in here somewhere and are presented credibly. The parcel identification and prioritization work element is particularly well thought out and presented.


4. M&E
This section is not well-developed and will require additional details from the sponsor to provide more specific biological objectives (and work elements) in order to specify appropriate M&E metrics and methods. We recognize that it is difficult for the sponsors to plan M&E for future parcels; however, there is concern that HEP may be being confused with biological monitoring. As the project moves forward with acquisitions and management planning, this should be clarified.

Beyond the need to mitigate and the Tribes' approach to identifying parcels, this project is not yet at a point where scientific criteria are key. As acquisition and management planning proceeds, there will be more need for evaluation of scientific merit. The general information presented here suggests that the sponsors will be able to provide all the necessary information and expertise as it is needed.
Documentation Links:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1995-057-03-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1995-057-03 - Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation--Shoshone-Paiute Tribes
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Pre-acquisition costs.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1995-057-03-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1995-057-03 - Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation--Shoshone-Paiute Tribes
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
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.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1995-057-03-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1995-057-03
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: Wildlife habitat mitigation for Anderson Ranch, Black Canyon, and Deadwood credited with Hus.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1995-057-03-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1995-057-03
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 9/14/2007
Capital Rating: Qualifies for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: Land
Comment: Capital funding approval submitted by BPA COTR. The COTR, COTR's Manager and BPA Accountant certified that the request meets the BPA F&W capital policy and is approved for capital funding (if capital funds are available).

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Jenna Peterson Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Jinwon Seo Supervisor Shoshone-Paiute Tribes
Carol Perugini Project Lead Shoshone-Paiute Tribes
Buster Gibson Interested Party Shoshone-Paiute Tribes
Robert Shull Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Virginia Preiss Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration