SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATION UPPER SNAKE WILDLIFE MITIGATON Project # 199505700 THE SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES PRESENTER: CHAD COLTER.

SOUTHERN IDAHO SOUTHERN IDAHO WILDLIFE MITIGATIONWILDLIFE MITIGATION

UPPER SNAKE WILDLIFE UPPER SNAKE WILDLIFE MITIGATONMITIGATON

Project # 199505700Project # 199505700THE SHOSHONE-BANNOCK THE SHOSHONE-BANNOCK

TRIBESTRIBES

PRESENTER: CHAD COLTERPRESENTER: CHAD COLTER

Southern Idaho Wildlife Southern Idaho Wildlife MitigationMitigation

Agencies InvolvedAgencies Involved– Shoshone-Bannock TribesShoshone-Bannock Tribes– Idaho Dept. of Fish & GameIdaho Dept. of Fish & Game– Shoshone-Paiute TribesShoshone-Paiute Tribes

Includes BLM and others interested in Includes BLM and others interested in mitigation effortsmitigation efforts

Focus efforts in the Middle and Upper Focus efforts in the Middle and Upper Snake River Provinces in order to meet Snake River Provinces in order to meet HU GoalsHU Goals

Southern Idaho Wildlife Southern Idaho Wildlife MitigationMitigation

Upper Snake Wildlife MitigationUpper Snake Wildlife Mitigation

ProgrammaticallyProgrammatically1.1. Protect 22,851 Habitat Protect 22,851 Habitat

Units (3/4 of the total Units (3/4 of the total remaining Habitat remaining Habitat Units)Units)

2.2. Enhance 7,617 Enhance 7,617 Habitat Units (1/4 of Habitat Units (1/4 of the total remaining the total remaining Habitat Units)Habitat Units)

Relationship to the NWPPC Relationship to the NWPPC F&W ProgramF&W Program

““Primary strategy: Complete the current mitigation program for Primary strategy: Complete the current mitigation program for construction and inundation losses and include wildlife mitigation construction and inundation losses and include wildlife mitigation for all operational losses as an integrated part of habitat for all operational losses as an integrated part of habitat protection and restorationprotection and restoration” (page 39, ” (page 39, NWPPC 2000-19NWPPC 2000-19).).

– Project addresses wildlife habitat losses for Minidoka and Palisades Project addresses wildlife habitat losses for Minidoka and Palisades Hydroelectric FacilitiesHydroelectric Facilities

““Project funding priorities: Wildlife mitigation should emphasize Project funding priorities: Wildlife mitigation should emphasize addressing areas of the basin with the highest proportion of addressing areas of the basin with the highest proportion of unmitigated losses” (page 64, NWPPC 2000-19).unmitigated losses” (page 64, NWPPC 2000-19).

– Projects implemented by SIWM through calendar year 2000 provided 17,105 HU’s of mitigation credit to BPA and leaves 30,468 HU’s (64%) remaining unmitigated.

Relationship to the Subbasin PlanRelationship to the Subbasin Plan

“ “In general, habitat-related issues encompass the primary In general, habitat-related issues encompass the primary limiting factors for fish and wildlife. These habitat issues fit limiting factors for fish and wildlife. These habitat issues fit into several non-exclusive categories: loss, degradation, into several non-exclusive categories: loss, degradation, fragmentation, quantity and quality (Gregory et al. 2001).”fragmentation, quantity and quality (Gregory et al. 2001).”

Goals and ObjectivesGoals and Objectives

Limiting Factor:Limiting Factor: Loss of habitat.Loss of habitat.– Goal:Goal: M Mitigate wildlife habitat losses associated with the itigate wildlife habitat losses associated with the

Minidoka and Palisades Hydroelectric Facilities within the Minidoka and Palisades Hydroelectric Facilities within the Upper Snake River Province.Upper Snake River Province.

» Objective 1:Objective 1: Protect 3,000 acres and 1,500 habitat unitsProtect 3,000 acres and 1,500 habitat units

» Objective 2:Objective 2: Enhance and restore 1,000 habitat units Enhance and restore 1,000 habitat units

» Objective 3:Objective 3: Maintain, monitor, and evaluate habitatMaintain, monitor, and evaluate habitat

» Objective 4:Objective 4: Adaptively manage mitigation projectsAdaptively manage mitigation projects

Potential Project PrioritizationPotential Project Prioritization

Plans were initially established by interagency Plans were initially established by interagency teams of biologists (Mueleman et al. 1991, Martin teams of biologists (Mueleman et al. 1991, Martin

et at. 1986, Martin et al. 1991)et at. 1986, Martin et al. 1991)

In addition to these plans, GAP (Scott et al.1993, In addition to these plans, GAP (Scott et al.1993, Caicco et al. 1995) cover types are used in a Caicco et al. 1995) cover types are used in a

coarse-filter/fine-filter approach to identify areas coarse-filter/fine-filter approach to identify areas with potential for mitigation projects.with potential for mitigation projects.

Project Locations and Planned Project Locations and Planned AcquisitionsAcquisitions

RUDEEN ACQUISITIONRUDEEN ACQUISITION

Bald Eagle Winter RoostingBald Eagle Winter RoostingBLM - ACECBLM - ACEC

SODA SPRINGS HILLSSODA SPRINGS HILLS

BLM - PROJECT AREABLM - PROJECT AREA

Deer/Elk Winter RangeDeer/Elk Winter RangeEaglesEaglesHabitat FragmentationHabitat Fragmentation

Blackfoot RiverBlackfoot RiverWild & Scenic Wild & Scenic StudyStudyDeer/Elk Winter Deer/Elk Winter RangeRangeNatural and Natural and Cultural Resource Cultural Resource ValuesValuesFort Hall Irrigation Fort Hall Irrigation ProjectProjectHabitat Habitat FragmentationFragmentationEPA 303(d) Water EPA 303(d) Water Quality LimitedQuality Limited

Fort Hall IRFort Hall IR

StateState

BLMBLM

Monitoring and EvaluationMonitoring and Evaluation

Assess Habitat Unit Gains Using HEPAssess Habitat Unit Gains Using HEP Monitor Vegetation StatusMonitor Vegetation Status

– Technique EvaluationTechnique Evaluation– Goal AchievementGoal Achievement

Monitor Vegetation ChangeMonitor Vegetation Change– Goal AchievementGoal Achievement

Monitor wildlife Abundance and Monitor wildlife Abundance and DiversityDiversity

Ongoing Efforts