Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2007-027-00 - Wildlife Habitat Pre-Acquisition-Colville Tribe Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2007-027-00 - Wildlife Habitat Pre-Acquisition-Colville Tribe
Project Number:
2007-027-00
Title:
Wildlife Habitat Pre-Acquisition-Colville Tribe
Summary:
This project is designed to conduct pre-acquisition activities for the purchase of lands for enrollment into the Tribes Wildlife Mitigation Project.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Colville Confederated Tribes (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2007
Ending FY:
2032
BPA PM:
Stage:
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Intermountain Columbia Upper 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 100.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

Summary of Budgets

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

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2017 (Previous) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Fish Accord - Colville $0 $0 $0 $0
FY2018 (Current) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Post 2018 - Colville $0 $0 $0 $0
FY2019 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

Capital SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2017 (Previous) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2018 (Current) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2019 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Aug-2018

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2017 - FY2019)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2017 Expense $0 From: Fish Accord - Colville Fish Accord Review 05/02/2008
FY2018 Expense $0 From: Post 2018 - Colville FY18 Initial Planning Budgets (CCT) 7/26/2017 07/27/2017

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2018
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
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
32683 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 2007-027-00 EXP CCT PRE-ACQUISITIONS History $96,909 5/1/2007 - 9/30/2007
38643 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 200702700 EXP CCT PRE-ACQUISITIONS History $0 7/1/2008 - 12/31/2008
41714 SOW Colville Confederated Tribes 200702700 EXP CCT PRE-ACQUISITIONS History $129,000 2/15/2009 - 8/12/2011
BPA-005170 Bonneville Power Administration Wildlife Habitat Pre-Acquisition Active $3,965 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
BPA-006233 Bonneville Power Administration Wildlife Habitat pre-acquisition Active $2,165 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):3
Completed:3
On time:3
Status Reports
Completed:14
On time:10
Avg Days Late:8

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
32683 2007-027-00 EXP CCT PRE-ACQUISITIONS Colville Confederated Tribes 05/2007 05/2007 History 2 4 0 0 0 4 100.00% 0
38643 41714 200702700 EXP CCT PRE-ACQUISITIONS Colville Confederated Tribes 07/2008 07/2008 History 12 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
BPA-005170 Wildlife Habitat Pre-Acquisition Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006233 Wildlife Habitat pre-acquisition Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 14 12 0 0 0 12 100.00% 0


Review: Wildlife Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-027-00-ISRP-20090618
Project: 2007-027-00 - Wildlife Habitat Pre-Acquisition-Colville Tribe
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Completed Date: 5/19/2009
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Not Applicable
Final Round ISRP Comment:
[Project ends Sep 2009; no need to review]
First Round ISRP Date: 3/26/2009
First Round ISRP Rating: Not Applicable
First Round ISRP Comment:
The project has good potential for benefiting fish and wildlife but does not adequately describe activities or present a convincing case that objectives can be accomplished. The relationship between O&M and acquisition should be stated. The response should better organize objectives and justify and explain work element and methods. Using livestock grazing and haying to improve fish and wildlife habitat should be explained in more detail. Monitoring efforts are commendable, although some suggestions are offered below. Lessons learned from events such as “failed” seedings should be related, so that others might benefit from your experience. The ISRP requests a response that includes more data summaries and descriptions of activities to evaluate mitigation activities (e.g., weed management). HEP is appropriate for crediting, but the science is outdated for effectiveness monitoring. Metrics for M&E should be provided and justified in a response.

1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships
As noted in a previous review, the logic for the project is that multiple fish and wildlife species could benefit from these restoration activities. The proposal includes cultural justification that complements the biological justification. The project has good potential for benefiting fish and wildlife but does not adequately describe activities or present a convincing case that objectives can be accomplished. A response that better justifies work elements and monitoring and evaluation is needed. More details are provided below.

The proposal states that this is an ongoing project to manage 6385 deeded acres of various habitats along the Malheur River. Later the proposal states that this is an acquisition project. The sponsors should clearly state what type of project is proposed and if both, make that connection obvious.

2. Project History and Results
The proposal provides an interesting chronological history summarizing work activities and cost for the restoration actions that have taken place over the last eight years. The results are explained in qualitative terms. It would be helpful to explain which efforts have been perceived as most successful and why, and which have required the most maintenance or adaptive management. It was useful to see the results of the 2006-2008 wildlife surveys, although there are insufficient results yet to be able to determine whether the restoration actions are having the desired effects. Evaluations of lessons learned from past events such as plantings failing, haying not completed, and no amphibians trapped despite activities such as irrigating to keep wetlands full, should be provided.

Some objectives are repeated in number or in repeated wording. It is not clear that using salt to attract cattle away from riparian areas without fences will be adequate to protect the riparian habitat. Opportunities for off-stream watering should be explored. Using livestock grazing and haying as management tools where the goal is to improve fish and wildlife habitat should be explained in more detail in a response. Establishment of a long-term grazing policy as part of a management plan should be a priority.

It was not clear why only nine photopoints were selected for long-term photo documentation of stream and riparian condition. Justification should be provided in a response. The 5-year aquatic habitat surveys in "critical streams" and 10-year surveys in secondary priority streams are probably too infrequent to document restoration-associated changes. The ISRP recommends at least 3-year survey intervals or more frequent surveys in case a large natural disturbance event (wildfire, flood, or multi-year drought) occurs. The annual temperature monitoring and fish survey plans appear adequate. The wildlife surveys, also conducted yearly, are well described, and project personnel are qualified for the work. We applaud the use of the Weed Information Management System as part of the weed control activity.

The ISRP discourages use of HEP to determine vegetation trends or to evaluate if habitat needs of each target species are improving. HEP is appropriate for crediting, but the science is outdated for effectiveness monitoring. Metrics for M&E should be provided and justified in a response.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-027-00-NPCC-20091217
Project: 2007-027-00 - Wildlife Habitat Pre-Acquisition-Colville Tribe
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Approved Date: 5/31/2009
Recommendation: Do Not Fund
Comments:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2007-027-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2007-027-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: FCRPS wildlife mitigation project.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-027-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2007-027-00
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).

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-027-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2007-027-00 - Wildlife Habitat Pre-Acquisition-Colville Tribe
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:
The Colville Tribes' acquisition project has received high marks in the past, and the adjacent land proposed here for acquisition fits into long-term plans for wildlife mitigation. The proposal demonstrated a good history of acquiring land to meet the stated objectives at reasonable costs. Discussion of the strategy and implementation of land acquisition was thorough and well justified, and specific pieces of land have been earmarked for priority purchase.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-027-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2007-027-00 - Wildlife Habitat Pre-Acquisition-Colville Tribe
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Interim funding pending wildlife o&m review.

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Joe Peone (Inactive) Supervisor Colville Confederated Tribes
Sandra Fife Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Richard Whitney Project Lead Colville Confederated Tribes
Lisa Wright (Inactive) Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Monica Desautel Administrative Contact Colville Confederated Tribes
Katey Grange Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Katie Mcdonald Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Kary Nichols Colville Confederated Tribes
Paul Ashley (Inactive) Technical Contact Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission