Utah Reclamation Mitigation & Conservation Commission COMMISSIONERS 230 South 500 East Suite 230 Salt Lake City, UT 84102-2045 Brad T. Barber, Chair Phone: (801) 524-3146 – Fax: (801) 524-3148 Robert L. Morgan Gene Shawcroft
MEETING AGENDA Monday, September 13, 2021
TIME: 9:30 a.m. LOCATION: Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, 230 S. 500 East Suite 230, Salt Lake City, UT, 84102
Also available online through Microsoft Teams Click here to join the meeting or type the following into your internet browser: https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup- join/19%3ameeting_MzAwN2ZmNzEtYzFmMS00Y2EwLTg5ODEtNjk5NTgzNjk1ZDI1%40th read.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%220693b5ba-4b18-4d7b-9341- f32f400a5494%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%2209fd8a27-76fc-460d-af33-294b0a20928f%22%7d
ITEMS ON THE AGENDA FOR ‘ACTION’ AND FOR ‘CONSIDERATION’ MAY BE ACCESSED ON THE COMMISSION’S WEBSITE by navigating through mitigationcommission.gov/news Or at https://mitigationcommission.gov/news/pdf/AgreementsProposedForAction- Consideration.pdf
1. WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS
2. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES
3. ITEMS FOR COMMISSION RATIFICATION
A. A Resolution concurring in the issuance of the Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for ‘Block Notice 7A-2 Temporary Use in North Utah County’
4. ITEMS FOR COMMISSION ACTION
A. Proposed Modification of Agreement with Provo City for Cooperative Planning, Design, Construction and Funding of the Provo Lakeview Parkway and Trail PRDRP
B. Proposed Agreement with USDA-Wildlife Services for Funding Wildlife Hazard Mitigation at Provo Airport and Provo River Delta Restoration Project
5. ITEMS FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION
None 6. PRESENTATIONS BY STAFF
A. Diamond Fork System Update Draft Environmental Assessment
B. Utah Lake Wetlands Preserve Draft Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental Assessment
7. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
8. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
9. OTHER BUSINESS
10. DATE OF NEXT COMMISSION MEETING: TBD PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT FOR COMMISSION ACTION May 20, 2021
AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3A TITLE: Cooperative Planning, Design, and Funding of the Provo River Delta Restoration Project and Provo Lakeview Parkway and Trail Interactions COOPERATORS: Provo City, Department of the Interior-CUPCA Office, Central Utah Water Conservancy District EFFECTIVE DATES: April 1, 2017 through December 31, 2022 CUPCA AUTHORITY: Titles II, III FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS: Current Agreement $ 12,975,000 Proposed Modification $ 0 Total: $ 12,975,000 SCOPE OF WORK: This modification extends the performance period through by one DRAFTyear. PLAN REFERENCE: 2-11 through 2-16 STAFF CONTACT: Melissa Stamp, Project Coordinator SUMMARY: The PRDRP is a required and essential step toward recovery of the June sucker through restoration of the lower Provo River and its interface with Utah Lake. The environmental effects of the PRDRP were analyzed and disclosed in the 2015 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Records of Decision were issued by the Mitigation Commission and the Department, on May 26, 2015.
Provo, a Utah municipal corporation, has adopted a Transportation Master Plan (as amended) and prepared construction-ready designs for the Provo Lakeview Parkway and Trail (PLPT) in April 2013. The PRDRP and the PLPT share common areas of impact and plans and designs for the PRDRP require alterations to the design of the PLPT, which will affect Provo’s costs for design and construction. The agreement established and defined a cooperative relationship among the Parties so that implementation of the PRDRP and the PLPT is conducted in a manner that assures adequate and appropriate compensation of the Parties for any added or reduced costs as the Parties may incur as a result of implementing both projects, and to identify the required coordination steps, cooperation needed, and approvals required.
Provo City initiated construction of the PLPT in 2019 and is approximately half-complete. The project is expected to be complete by the end of 2022. This modification extends the performance period thorough December 31, 2022 for Provo City to complete the Provo Lakeview Parkway and Trail portion affected by the PRDRP.
RECOMMENDATION: The Executive Director recommends approval of this modification. AGREEMENT NO. 17FCUT-2190, MODIFICATION NO. 005 AGREEMENT AMONG PROVO CITY, a UTAH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR – CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACT OFFICE CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
1. AGREEMENT TITLE: Cooperative Planning, Design, Construction, and Funding of the Provo Lakeview Parkway and Trail and the Provo River Delta Restoration Project, Central Utah Project
2. PURPOSE: To extend the performance period for completion of the project.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE CHANGES: A. Modify ArticleDRAFTIV. TERM OF AGREEMENT as follows: “This Agreement shall be effective from April 1, 2017 and shall remain in force and in effect until December 31, 2021 December 31, 2022, unless sooner terminated.”
4. AGREEMENT PRICE: The AGREEMENT price is unchanged. FUNDING HISTORY TO DATE Instrument Value Reservation Original $ 368,000.00 $ 368,000.00 Modification No. 001 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 Modification No. 002 $ 82,000.00 $ 82,000.00 Modification No. 003 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Modification No. 004 $ 12,500,000.00 $ 12,500,000.00 Modification No. 005 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 TOTAL: $ 12,975,000.00 $ 12,975,000.00
Agreement 17FCUT-2190, Mod. 005 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year set forth opposite their signature below.
UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION
By ______Date______Date______Brad Barber Office of the Regional Solicitor Chair
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
By ______Date______Reed R. Murray Program DirectorDRAFT
CENTRAL UTAH WATER ATTEST CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
By ______Date______Date______Gene Shawcroft Lisa Anderson General Manger/CEO Assistant to the General Manager
PROVO CITY ATTEST
By ______Date______Date______Michelle Kaufusi, Mayor Provo City Recorder
Agreement 17FCUT-2190, Mod. 005 2 PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT FOR COMMISSION ACTION May 20, 2021
AGENDA ITEM NO: 3B TITLE: Study of Sage Grouse in Strawberry Valley COOPERATORS: Brigham Young University EFFECTIVE DATES: July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2024 CUPCA AUTHORITY: Section 315 FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS: Existing Agreement $130,000 Proposed Modification $ 65,000 Total $ 195,000
SCOPE OF ACTION: Study and monitoring to guide management strategies to recover the sage grouse population in and around Strawberry Valley. PLAN REFERENCE: Pages 2-41 to 2-43 DRAFT Richard Mingo, Project Coordinator STAFF CONTACT:
SUMMARY: The Strawberry Valley Area Assessment identified Sage grouse in Strawberry Valley as functioning outside of a “properly functioning condition” and a high priority for restoration. There is a clear nexus between the decline of Sage grouse and federal reclamation projects. Approximately seventeen thousand acres of high-quality Sage grouse habitat and four of five display/breeding sites were inundated by the enlargement of Strawberry Reservoir as part of the CUP.
Funds will be used to continue to monitor lek attendance, estimate population and map habitat utilization and movement patterns.
This effort will include monitoring sage grouse on federal, state, private, and acquired land east of the Wildcat area throughout the year. To successfully monitor grouse, BYU will need the assistance of research technicians and project oversight. BYU continues to provide significant financial support for both graduate and undergraduate students in support of this long-term monitoring effort.
RECOMMENDATION: The Executive Director recommends approval of this modification.
MODIFICATION NO. 002 AGREEMENT No. 19FC-UT-2330 UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
1. AGREEMENT TITLE: The Study of Sage grouse in Strawberry Valley
2. PURPOSE: Provide additional funding to complete studies for next year to facilitate recovery and protection of sage grouse in Strawberry Valley.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE CHANGES:
A. Modify Article V. SCOPE OF WORK - SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES as follows:
“A. UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION WILL:
1. Reimburse BYU for all allowable and allocable costs to complete the terms of the Scope ofDRAFT Work required in this Agreement up to $65,000.00 $130,000.00 $195,000 (as per Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C). No legal liability on the part of the COMMISSION for any payment may arise from performance under this AGREEMENT until funds are made available for performance.”
4. ADJUSTMENT IN AGREEMENT PRICE: The Agreement price is increased by $65,000.00. FUNDING HISTORY TO DATE: Instrument Value Reservation Original $ 65,000 $ 65,000 Modification No. 001 $ 65,000 $ 65,000 Modification No. 002 $ 65,000 $ 65,000 Total $ 195,000 $ 195,000
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party hereto has caused this AGREEMENT to be executed by an authorized official on the day and year set forth opposite their signature below.
UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION
By: ______Date:______Title: Brad T. Barber, Chair
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
By: ______Date:______Title:
Agreement No. 19FC-UT-2330, Modification No. 002 [Type here] ATTACHMENT C: FUNDING PROPOSAL
2021 STRAWBERRY VALLEY SAGE GROUSE PROJECT FUNDING PROPOSAL
COLLABORATIVE WORK BETWEEN:
THE UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION
AND DRAFT BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
CONTEXT AND HISTORY OF THE PROJECT
The impetus behind the effort to recover greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter sage-grouse or grouse) in Strawberry Valley was to 1) identify factors limiting population growth and recovery, 2) mitigate those factors, and 3) recover the population to where it was self-sustaining and no longer threatened with extirpation (Bunnell 2000). Note that all bold citations represent published data from theses, a dissertation, or scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles produced as part of the recovery effort. This document will highlight the accomplishments and successes of the past 20+ years and their immediate application to this population in an adaptive management framework.
In March 1998, we began collecting sage grouse seasonal habitat use and life history information (movements, reproduction, survival) in Strawberry Valley. Bunnell (2000) immediately documented high adult mortality and suggested that red fox (Vulpes vulpes) predation on adult sage grouse may be limiting population growth. In response to his findings, predator control was initiated in December of 1999 to determine if removal of mammalian predators could increase survival rates of adults and cause a subsequent population increase.
During this same period and throughout the rest of the project, we collected seasonal habitat data to assess habitat condition in relation to standards set forth in the sage-grouse management guidelines (Connelly et al. 2000, Bunnell 2000, Bambrough 2002, Baxter 2003, Bunnell et al. 2004). Bunnell (2000) and Bunnell et al. (2004) suggested that summer habitat was adequate and either met or exceeded guidelines. However, he also stated that he expected understory composition to change as sagebrush (Artemisia sp.) matured. These findings were accurate in light of the sample size and quantity of summer habitat needed for an estimated 150 grouse in the population. Bambrough (2002), on the other hand, found that winter habitat barely met the
Agreement No. 19FC-UT-2330, Modification No. 002 [Type here] minimum standard from the published sage-grouse guidelines (Connelly et al. 2000). He stated that it was crucial to the conservation of this population to maintain winter habitat both in Strawberry Valley and in the migratory areas to the east, especially in light of herbicide treatments (2000-2001) on private lands that reduced the quality and quantity of sagebrush wintering habitat (Bambrough 2002). Baxter (2003) showed that brood-use sites were productive, exceeded the management guidelines for percent forb cover, and had high insect diversity and abundance. He also demonstrated through a population viability analysis (given the vital rates from 1998-2003) that there was a 77% probability that within 11 years (2014) the population would be extirpated.
In addition, after three years of predator control, Baxter et al. (published in 2009 – using data from 1998-2002) demonstrated that survival rates of adults in the summer increased during years of predator control. These increased survival rates, however, did not translate into increased lek counts. As a result, in cooperation with UDWR and the USFS, we began a translocation program. From 2003 to 2008, we translocated 395 female sage grouse (Baxter et al. 2008) to Strawberry Valley to augment the population and increase genetic diversity which was shown to be low and consistentDRAFT with a classic bottleneck (Oyler McCance et al. 2005). Baxter (2007) and Baxter et al. (2008) documented translocated grouse site fidelity, movements, reproductive output, nest-site selection, and overall translocation success. Hennefer (2007) found our translocation method to be the most successful translocation documented in the literature and estimated that grouse numbers had increased to around 400 by 2007. Later, we assessed chick survival and documented (Baxter et al. 2013) similar survival rates in Strawberry Valley to that of other areas. Dunken (2014) assessed the influence of translocations on genetic diversity and found haplotype diversity increased following this successful effort.
As reproductive effort and survival are the two most important aspects of population growth, we assessed nest-site selection and nest success for translocated grouse (Baxter et al. 2009). We documented that successful nest sites were characterized by greater total shrub canopy cover, medium-sized crown area for the nesting shrub, and steeper slopes. In turn we looked at nest- area fidelity. Peck et al. (2012) found that the distance between first and second year nests was approximately 882 meters, with no evidence that successful females showed greater nest-site fidelity than unsuccessful females. Most important, however, was the finding that if a standard 2 mile (3.2 km) buffer was placed around each lek to protect nesting habitat, it would only capture 57% of nesting females in this population. However, if a 6.2 mile (~10 km) buffer was used, 95% of nesting habitat would be conserved.
In an effort to compile all survival data for resident males and females and translocated females from 1998 to 2010, we documented (Baxter et al. 2013) that survival was influenced by year effects, status of grouse (resident or translocated), sex, and whether females initiated a nest. Point estimates of survival for translocated females were slightly lower than resident males and females, but there was no statistical difference in rates. Many external researchers expected a very high rate of mortality for translocated females; however, we observed very little immediate mortality, with annual survival within the range of variability for resident grouse in large extant populations across the species range.
Agreement No. 19FC-UT-2330, Modification No. 002 [Type here] Initial data collection (1998-1999) showed that sage-grouse used sites where vegetation was productive and diverse, especially for a small declining population; however, as predicted, coarser more decadent sagebrush stands have resulted in a decrease in habitat quality and quantity over time. In 2006, project partners outlined areas where habitat could be improved by setting late seral sagebrush stands back to an earlier seral stage, wherein brood-rearing habitat would be created. Plans called for mechanical treatments (harrow and/or mowing) of seven areas (one every other year starting in 2007 in Trout Creek) in Strawberry Valley with subsequent monitoring of habitat use by radio-marked grouse. In 2009, 2011, and 2013 the UDWR treated areas near Road Hollow, Badger Hollow, and Chipman Creek, respectively. Preliminary observations suggested that radio-marked grouse were using newly treated areas more than expected. From 1998 to 2008 (pre-treatment), we documented 108 locations (10.8 locations/year) in the area yet to be treated in 2009 (Road Hollow). In 2010, one year post-treatment, we observed 37 locations in the same area.
Following habitat restoration efforts, we continued to monitor and collect data on the use of restoration areas by grouse. We documented changes in vegetative composition through on-the- ground collectionDRAFT of vegetative data. In our analysis, we used a Resource Selection Function (RSF) to provide evidence that female sage-grouse with chicks disproportionately used recently treated areas versus non-treated areas in Strawberry Valley. Baxter et al. (2017) demonstrated that sage-grouse selected areas that were 1) distant from trees, paved roads, and powerlines; 2) high in elevation; 3) near treatment edges; and 4) consisting of gentle slopes. Sage-grouse showed stronger selection for treatments and treatment edges following treatment than they did for those same areas prior to habitat treatment efforts. Maps predicting probability of selection by brood-rearing sage-grouse showed increased use in and around mechanically treated areas. This altered pattern of selection by sage-grouse with broods suggests mechanical treatments may be a suitable way to increase use of mountain big sagebrush habitats during the brooding period.
Beginning in 2018, we began purchasing solar-powered GPS transmitters for the first time on this project and deployed them on sage-grouse. This improved technology allows for collection of multiple locations per day (without disturbing marked sage-grouse) that are subsequently sent through the satellite network. Within just a few short months following deployment of GPS transmitters in spring of 2018, we collected more locations than the previous 19 years combined. Most importantly, our understanding of seasonal habitat use has greatly expanded as we’ve watched marked grouse move farther east than ever previously noted during the winter of 2018/2019. Howell 2020 conducted a formal analysis of all existing location data (from birds with both VHF and GPS transmitters) to provide information on seasonal habitat selection for this population. In addition, Howell et al. 2020 evaluated a new method (using unmanned aerial systems) to quantify shrub height which showed promise to save time and money over traditional measurement.
Importantly, we have loaded the spatial locations and modeled habitat layers onto an online map that is updated regularly and made available to partners for conservation planning and management. The map is available at the following url:
https://byu.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9fef41cbf9cc4b8a92f17facc785 879a.
Agreement No. 19FC-UT-2330, Modification No. 002 [Type here] This map and these data have been particularly valuable to biologists from state and federal agencies as they work to recover this population in an adaptive management framework. The map is used as a focal point of discussions with the Strawberry Valley Adaptive Resources Management Group that meets regularly to discuss issues affecting this population. The data collected on this long-term recovery project has been and will continue to be used by the United States Forest Service, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Local Working Group (SVARM), Wasatch County officials, and even private landowners to make decisions helpful to the long- term conservation and recovery of sage grouse in Strawberry Valley.
To date, this project has been a resounding success. Very few sage-grouse projects across the West have delivered as much information over a continuous period of time. In addition, possibly no other project can document at least a two-fold increase in estimated population size associated with habitat treatment, translocation and predator control. For this reason, the Strawberry Valley sage-grouse population is now considered one of the core populations in the state of Utah. Maintaining this population at the enlarged level continues to be a major accomplishment. We have started DRAFTa new MS student (Janae Radke) who will be continuing where Ryan Howell left off. The proposal that follows, if funded, will build on these findings. It is similar to past year’s proposals. We propose to continue our monitoring efforts and to purchase additional GPS and VHF transmitters to bolster samples sizes and collect important information on habitat use including migratory corridors and stopover areas, reproductive success, and survival.
FUNDING PROPOSAL
Our funding partners continue to support the project with all support considered invaluable to success of this project. Partners include: the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, United States Forest Service, Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife, and Brigham Young University. In addition, we have and will continue to work with the Strawberry Valley Adaptive Resource Management (SVARM) Local Working Group, private landowners, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK/PROJECT OBJECTIVES
We will continue to monitor marked grouse to provide information on seasonal habitat use, reproduction (breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, recruitment), survival (rates and causes of mortality), and movements of sage grouse in the Strawberry Valley (SV) study area. After completion of seasonal habitat maps (Howell 2020), one of our key objectives over the next couple of years will be to use GPS data to identify migratory routes and stopover areas for grouse that migrate between Strawberry Valley and the Fruitland area. Grouse in the Strawberry Valley population are considered semi-migratory with some individuals classified as resident and others migratory. With collection of a robust set of GPS locations from satellite transmitters, we will be able to identify the proportion of grouse that are migratory and under what conditions (e.g., winter snow depths) they move. We will also be able to identify likely migratory routes and stopover areas. This effort aligns well with a current focus by the Utah Division of Wildlife
Agreement No. 19FC-UT-2330, Modification No. 002 [Type here] Resources on a new ‘Migration Initiative’ to map corridors, routes, and stopover areas for multiple species.
We will also continue to monitor lek attendance to estimate population size consistent with methodology used by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Ongoing monitoring is crucial over the next couple of years given observed declines in males counted on leks during the last few springs (putatively associated with severe drought in summer of 2018 and cyclic decline typical of grouse populations).
In addition, there is investigative work to do regarding observed clutch sizes for sage-grouse in Strawberry Valley. We suspect that average clutch sizes are low relative to other populations and over the next couple of years will conduct a formal analysis to determine if this suspicion is accurate. Low clutch sizes may partially be related to genetic diversity which was identified as low prior to translocation. Thus, formal analysis will also identify whether or not clutch sizes have increased following translocation and how they compare to historical (museum specimen) clutch sizes from Strawberry Valley and estimated number of haplotypes (e.g., genetic diversity). Moreover, deploymentDRAFT of additional GPS transmitters will allow us to evaluate use of newly planned habitat treatment projects implemented by the United States Forest Service and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources through the Watershed Restoration Initiative. We will also be able to monitor sage-grouse use of habitats impacted by the Dollar Ridge Fire. This effort will include monitoring sage grouse on federal, state, private, and acquired land east of the Wildcat area throughout the year. To successfully monitor grouse, we will need the assistance of research technicians and project oversight. It will also require the purchase of additional transmitters. BYU will provide significant support for both graduate and undergraduate students this year which will allow purchase of additional GPS transmitters.
Estimated cost - $30,000 labor and travel + $35,000 transmitters, data fees for GPS upload, and materials = $65,000 total cost; to be completed in 12 months
If funded, the work will require ample oversight and supervision by faculty, as well as a large amount of time by on-the-ground research assistants. If fewer funds are needed for labor and travel, those funds would be used to acquire additional transmitters and equipment that would permit additional monitoring and collection of scientific data. BYU’s long-term commitment to the project and to the URMCC is such that we would accept lesser amounts of funding, if monies are not available. In such an event, we will attempt to complete the maximum amount of work possible. In addition, we continue to seek additional funding for continued support from additional partners. Thank you for your consideration of this proposal.
Agreement No. 19FC-UT-2330, Modification No. 002 [Type here] PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT FOR COMMISSION ACTION May 20, 2021
AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3C PROJECT: Provo River Delta Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Restoration and Research Study COOPERATORS: Utah State University EFFECTIVE DATES: August 15, 2020 through June 30, 2024 CUPCA AUTHORITY: Titles II, III FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS: Original Agreement $ 79,100 Proposed Modification $ 75,000 Total $ 154,100 SCOPE OF ACTIONS: Add funding for year two of the planned there-year study program PLAN REFERENCE: Pages 2-11 to 2-16 STAFF CONTACT:DRAFT Melissa Stamp, Project Coordinator
SUMMARY: The Provo River Delta Restoration Project (PRDRP) is partial mitigation for impacts of Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project on June sucker and related resources. The PRDRP is a required and essential step toward recovery of this endangered species through restoration of the lower Provo River and its interface with Utah Lake. Thousands of June sucker spawn each year in the lower Provo River, but successful recruitment of wild June sucker from Provo River has not been documented. One of the key elements of larval nursery and rearing habitat currently lacking in the existing lower Provo River channel is an abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). SAV is needed to provide cover from predators and support a healthy food base for larval and juvenile June sucker. The purpose of this agreement is to fund USU to conduct Provo River Delta submerged aquatic vegetation restoration efforts and research studies. Integral components of the proposed research studies and restoration efforts include increasing knowledge of species identification, collection, and propagation methods; testing and developing planting techniques; monitoring planted materials as well as SAV that establishes passively; and evaluating the relative success of various techniques for different target species.
RECOMMENDATION: The Executive Director recommends approval of this modification.
MODIFICATION NO. 001 AGREEMENT NO. 20FCUT-2420 UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY – UTAH CONSERVATION CORPS 1. AGREEMENT TITLE: Provo River Delta Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Restoration and Research Study
2. PURPOSE: To obligate additional funds to the agreement to continue the submerged aquatic vegetation study.
3. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES: A. Modify Article V SCOPE OF WORK - SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES as follows: “A. The Commission Will: 1. Reimburse USU for all allowable and allocable costs incurred to complete the termsDRAFT of the Scope of Work required in this Agreement as per Attachment A. The work is scheduled to be completed over a 3-year period, with total cost of $230,000. This Agreement obligates $79,100.00 for year one. Modification No. 001 to this Agreement obligates an additional $75,000.00 for year two of the program. This Agreement is intended to be modified at the mutual consent of the Parties, for adding or deleting work items or funding from this Agreement. If USU expends less than the entire amount allotted by this Agreement, the balance will be carried forward for use during the next fiscal year(s), unless formally deobligated by the Commission. Indirect or “overhead” charges by USU will be applied at the rate of 15% of direct costs. No legal liability on the part of the Commission for any payment may arise from performance under this Agreement until funds are made available for performance”.
4. FINANCIAL HISTORY TO DATE: Instrument Value Reservation Original $ 79,100 $ 79,100 Modification 001 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 Total $154,100 $154,000
20FCUT-2420, Modification 001 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each PARTY hereto has caused this MODIFICATION to be executed by an authorized official on the day and year set forth opposite their signature below. UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION
By: ______Date: ______Brad Barber, Chair
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
By: ______Date:______Title: Logan Hager,DRAFT Grants and Contracts Administrator
20FCUT-2420, Modification 001 PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT FOR COMMISSION ACTION May 20, 2021
AGENDA ITEM NO: 3D PROJECT: Provo River Delta Restoration Project TITLE: Study of Bird Abundance and Movement Near Provo Airport COOPERATOR: Brigham Young University EFFECTIVE DATES: February 1, 2017 through January 31, 2022 CUPCA AUTHORITY: Section 304 FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS: Current Agreement: $ 90,000 Proposed Modification: $ 30,000 Total $ 120,000 STAFF CONTACT: Richard Mingo, Project Coordinator SCOPE OF ACTION: Additional funds for work in 2021. DRAFT SUMMARY: This Agreement was approved by the Mitigation Commission on January 18, 2017. Students at BYU assist in conducting bird monitoring associated with the Provo River Delta Restoration Project. This modification adds funding for the 2021 field season.
RECOMMENDATION: The Executive Director recommends approval of this modification. MODIFICATION NO. 003 AGREEMENT NO. 17FCUT-2170 UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
1. AGREEMENT TITLE: Avian Abundance and Movement Near Provo Airport
2. PURPOSE: Provide additional funding to continue monitoring work.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE CHANGES:
A. Modify Article V. SCOPE OF WORK - SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES as follows:
“A. UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION WILL:
1. Reimburse BYU for all allowable and allocable costs to complete the terms of the Scope of Work required in this Agreement up to $30,000 $60,000 $90,000 $120,000 (as per Attachment A). No legalDRAFT liability on the part of the COMMISSION for any payment may arise from performance under this AGREEMENT until funds are made available for performance. The amount first obligated above under this Agreement may be increased or decreased via modification to this AGREEMENT as per Article VIII herein.”
4. ADJUSTMENT IN AGREEMENT PRICE FUNDING HISTORY TO DATE: Instrument Value Reservation Original $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Modification No. 001 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Modification No. 002 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Modification No. 003 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Total $ 120,000 $ 129,000
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party hereto has caused this AGREEMENT to be executed by an authorized official on the day and year set forth opposite their signature below.
UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION
By: ______Date:______Title: Brad Barber, Chair
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
By: ______Date:______Title: Gary R. Reynolds Office of Research and Creative Activities
Agreement No. 17FCUT-2170; Mod. No. 003
PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION
May 20, 2021
AGENDA ITEM NO.: 4A PROJECT: Final Design and Construction of Restoration and Mitigation Projects COOPERATORS: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation EFFECTIVE DATES: January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2025 CUPCA AUTHORITY: Fulfillment of the 1988 and 2004 Definite Plan Reports (DPR) for the Bonneville Unit. FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS: Existing Agreement $ 150,000 Proposed Modification $ 35,000 Total $ 185,000 SCOPE OF ACTIONS: Provide additional funding for final design and construction DRAFTof Bonneville Unit restoration projects PLAN REFERENCE: Page 2-39 (2007 Plan) STAFF CONTACT: Mark Holden, Executive Director
SUMMARY: The 1965 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, the 1964, 1988 and 2004 Supplements to the Definite Plan Report and the Central Utah Project Completion Act for the Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project include commitments for mitigation and restoration of upland, riparian and wetland habitats. This Agreement provides funding for Reclamation to assist the Commission by designing and constructing restoration projects.
This additional funding is needed to support Reclamation’s Force Account Crew rebuilding a berm on side of river side channel that is adapted to supply a pre-existing irrigation diversion on west side of Provo River. MODIFICATION NO. 002 INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT NO. 21AA-UT-2550 UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
1. AGREEMENT TITLE: Final Design and Construction of Restoration and Mitigation Projects, Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project
2. PURPOSE: This modification obligates additional funds.
3. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES:
“V. SCOPE OF WORK - SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The COMMISSION will:
2. Reimburse RECLAMATION up to $100,000.00 $150,000.00 $185,000.00 for all services, approved equipment, materials and supplies to complete the work items for implementation of this AGREEMENT.” DRAFT 4. ADJUSTMENT IN AGREEMENT PRICE: The obligation is increased by $35,000. FUNDING HISTORY TO DATE: Instrument Value Reservation Original $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Modification No. 001 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Modification No. 002 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 Total $ 185,000 $ 185,000
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party hereto has caused this MODIFICATION to be executed by an authorized official on the day and year set forth opposite their signature below.
UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION
By: Date:______Brad T. Barber, Chair
U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
By: Date:______Title: Kent Kofford, Area Manager
OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL SOLICITOR
By: ______Date:______Approved
Modification No. 002, Interagency Agreement 21AA-UT-2550
PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION May 20, 2021
AGENDA ITEM NO.: 4B TITLE: Diamond Fork and Sixth Water Creek Water Quality Monitoring COOPERATORS: Central Utah Water Conservancy District EFFECTIVE DATES: January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2024 CUPCA AUTHORITY: Title II, 201 FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS: Existing Agreement $ 23,000 Proposed Modification $ 23,000 Total $ 46,000 SCOPE OF WORK: This agreement would provide funding for the Commission’s portion of the water quality and flow monitoring to continue in 202020 in fulfillment of the 1988 Definite Plan Report (DPR) and 2004 Supplement to the DPR. DRAFT2-26 through 2-29 PLAN REFERENCE: STAFF CONTACT: Melissa Stamp, Project Coordinator SUMMARY: The 1988 DPR and the 1991 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report for the Diamond Fork System for the Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project, included requirements for water quality and flow monitoring in Diamond Fork Creek and Sixth Water Creek. This agreement continues a coordinated effort with the Central Utah Water Conservancy District’s ongoing water quality monitoring for planning purposes to meet the Commission’s environmental commitment and avoid duplication of effort. Under this agreement, the Commission will pay for maintenance costs of gauging and recording stations, and cost-share with the District on water quality sample collection and laboratory analysis costs. This modification provides funds for monitoring and maintenance costs for 2021.
MODIFICATION NO. 001 MITIGATION AGREEMENT NO. 20FC-UT-2400 UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
1. AGREEMENT TITLE: Diamond Fork and Sixth Water Creek Water Quality Monitoring
2. PURPOSE: The purpose of this modification is to add sufficient funding to cover water quality and flow monitoring.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE CHANGE:
Article V. SCOPE OF WORK is modified as follows:
“B. THE COMMISSION WILL:
1.DRAFT Reimburse the DISTRICT for all allowable and allocable costs to complete the terms of the purpose and objective of this AGREEMENT up to a maximum amount of $23,000 $ 46,000 as described in Attachment AB.”
4. ADJUSTMENT IN AGREEMENT PRICE: Instrument Value Reservation Original $ 23,000 $ 23,000 Modification 001 $ 23,000 $ 23,000 Total $ 46,000 $ 46,000
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each PARTY hereto has caused this MODIFICATION to be executed by an authorized official on the day and year set forth opposite their signature below.
UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION
By: Date: Brad T. Barber, Chair
CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
By: Date: Gene Shawcroft, General Manager
1 Agreement No. 20FC-UT-2400; Mod. 001
ATTACHMENT B
Diamond Fork and Sixth Water Creek Water Quality and Flow Monitoring, 2021
A. WORK ELEMENTS Obtain water samples in the field for water quality analysis. Take field measurements for flow, pH, DO, Conductivity, and Temperature. Properly fill out analysis sheet for laboratory and deliver to lab for analysis.
B. COSTS
Tasks Costs Commission Sixth Water Flow station operation and maintenance 2021 $9,240 Water DRAFTQuality monitoring Labor and travel 2021 $6,760 Sample Analysis 2021 $7,000 Total $23,000
C. RESPONSIBILITIES
DISTRICT will collect all samples, obtain field data, and deliver samples to lab for analysis. DISTRICT will coordinate with the USGS for the flow monitoring station on Sixth Water Creek. The Mitigation Commission will provide funding to DISTRICT for one-half of all sampling costs, all non-USGS operation and maintenance cost share of the Sixth Water Creek flow gauge.
DISTRICT will provide all field data, temperature data, and water quality data to the Mitigation Commission in electronic format as soon as possible after collection and analysis.
2 Agreement No. 20FC-UT-2400; Mod. 001
ISSUANCE OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR COMMISSION CHAIR CONCURRENCE September 13, 2021
AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3A PROJECT: A Resolution concurring in the release of the Final Environmental Assessment for Block Notice 7A-2 Temporary Use in North Utah County, and signing of the Finding Of No Significant Impact COOPERATORS: U.S. Department of the Interior – Central Utah Project Completion Act Office, Central Utah Water Conservancy District EFFECTIVE DATES: September 3, 2021 CUPCA AUTHORITY: Titles II, III, and IV FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS: N/A
STAFF CONTACT: Mark Holden, Executive Director SUMMARY:DRAFT Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission (Mitigation Commission), the U.S. Department of the Interior - Central Utah Project Completion Act Office (CUPCA Office) and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD), as Joint-Lead Agencies (JLAs), filed the Utah Lake Drainage Basin Water Delivery System Final Environmental Impact Statement (INT FES 04- 41; the “ULS EIS”) with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on September 30, 2004; and on January 27, 2005 the Mitigation Commission issued its Record of Decision selecting the Proposed Action as described in the ULS EIS for implementation. As part of the Proposed Action delivery of 30,000 acre-feet of Municipal and Industrial (M&I) water to Salt Lake County was authorized. The CUPCA Office issued Block Notice 7A-1, under which 8,000 AF was returned to the United States for use in the Provo River for instream flows in support of the June sucker; and the remaining 22,000 AF has been issued to CUWCD under Block Notice 7A-2 on October 1, 2020.
The CUWCD accepted Block Notice 7A-2 and has fully prepaid the costs associated with the Block Notice 7A-2 water. Of the 22,000 AF, 16,400 AF has been permanently allotted to the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District (JVWCD) and 5,600 AF to Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy (MWDSLS). Under provisions of their respective ULS water sales contracts, JVWCD has formally requested from CUWCD up to a 10-year deferment on their use and associated payment of all of their interest in Block Notice 7A-2 water and MWDSLS has requested delivery of 3,100 AF of their portion of Block Notice 7A-2 water and requested up to a 10-year deferment on the remaining portion of their contracted amount of ULS water. Thereby, these deferment decisions by JVWCD and MWDSLS have resulted in up to 18,900 AF of water allocated under Block Notice 7A-2 being available for temporary use for up to 10 years.
The Mitigation Commission, the CUPCA Office, and the CUWCD identified three potential uses of the temporary water supply including: providing water for temporary municipal and industrial needs in north Utah County; providing water for a potential temporary managed aquifer recharge pilot study in north Utah County; and providing water for temporary instream flows in the lower Provo River in support of the recovery of the threatened June sucker. The Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) on Friday, June 11, 2021 for public and agency review, and the Final EA on August 18, 2021, together with a FONSI signed by CUWCD and the CUPCA Office.
In accordance with the Mitigation Commission’s regulations for implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (43 CFR Part 10010.57), the Executive Director of the Mitigation Commission has approved the Final EA and has prepared and executed a FONSI for the project, approving implementation of the Proposed Action. The regulations also state that the Chair of the Mitigation Commission shall concur with EA/FONSIs, and the Chair of the Mitigation Commission has elected to make such concurrence by Resolution of all the Commissioners.
RECOMMENDATION: The Executive Director recommends approval of this Resolution. DRAFT UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 21-09-13-1
A RESOLUTION CONCURRING IN THE RELEASE OF THE FINAL ENVIRONEMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR BLOCK NOTICE 7A-2 TEMPORARY USE IN NORTH UTAH COUNTY, AND SIGNING OF THE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)
WHEREAS, the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission (Mitigation Commission), the U.S. Department of the Interior - Central Utah Project Completion Act Office (CUPCA Office) and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD), as Joint-Lead Agencies (JLAs), on September 30, 2004 filed the Utah Lake Drainage Basin Water Delivery System Final Environmental Impact Statement (INT FES 04-41; the “ULS EIS”) with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and on January 27, 2005 the Mitigation Commission issued its Record of DecisionDRAFT selecting the Proposed Action as described in the ULS EIS for implementation; and
WHEREAS, the ULS EIS and RODs approved the use of the 101,900 acre-feet (AF) diverted from Strawberry Reservoir in the Unita Basin to the Bonneville Basin, which included delivery of 30,000 acre-feet of Municipal and Industrial (M&I) water to Salt Lake County water treatment plants; and
WHEREAS, the CUPCA Office issued Block Notice 7A-1, under which 8,000 AF was returned to the United States for use in the Provo River for instream flows in support of the June sucker; and the remaining 22,000 AF has been issued to CUWCD under Block Notice 7A-2 on October 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, of that amount, 16,400 AF has been permanently allotted to the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District (JVWCD) and 5,600 AF to Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy (MWDSLS); and
WHEREAS, the CUWCD accepted Block Notice 7A-2, has not sought a deferment under the Water Supply Act of 1958, and has fully prepaid the costs associated with the Block Notice 7A-2 water; and
WHEREAS, under provisions of their respective ULS water sales contracts, JVWCD has formally requested from CUWCD up to a 10-year deferment on their use and associated payment of all of their interest in Block Notice 7A-2 water and MWDSLS has requested delivery of 3,100 AF of their portion of Block Notice 7A-2 water and requested up to a 10-year deferment on the remaining portion of their contracted amount of ULS water; and
WHEREAS, these deferment decisions by JVWCD and MWDSLS have resulted in up to 18,900 AF of water allocated under Block Notice 7A-2 being available for temporary use for up to 10 years; and
1 Resolution No. 21-09-13-1 WHEREAS, the Mitigation Commission, the CUPCA Office, and the CUWCD, as JLAs, identified three potential uses of the temporary water supply including: providing water for temporary municipal and industrial needs in north Utah County; providing water for a potential temporary managed aquifer recharge pilot study in north Utah County; and providing water for temporary instream flows in the lower Provo River in support of the recovery of the threatened June sucker; and
WHEREAS, with public involvement, the JLAs released the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) on Friday, June 11, 2021 for public and agency review, and the Final EA on August 18, 2021, together with a FONSI signed by CUWCD and the CUPCA Office; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Mitigation Commission’s regulations for implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (43 CFR Part 10010.57), the Executive Director of the Mitigation DRAFTCommission has approved the Final EA and has prepared and executed a FONSI for the project, approving implementation of the Proposed Action as described therein; and
WHEREAS, also in accordance with 43 CFR Part 10010.57, the Chair of the Mitigation Commission shall concur with EA/FONSIs; and
WHEREAS, the Chair of the Mitigation Commission has elected to make such concurrence by Resolution of all the Commissioners.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved as follows:
1. That the Chair of the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission hereby concurs with the Final EA and the FONSI issued by the Executive Director on September 3, 2021 selecting the Proposed Action for implementation for the BLOCK NOTICE 7A-2 TEMPORARY USE IN NORTH UTAH COUNTY project.
Passed and approved this Day of , 2021.
______Brad T. Barber, Chair
2 Resolution No. 21-09-13-1 PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT FOR COMMISSION ACTION September 13, 2021
AGENDA ITEM NO.: 4A TITLE: Cooperative Planning, Design, and Funding of the Provo River Delta Restoration Project and Provo Lakeview Parkway and Trail Interactions COOPERATORS: Provo City, Department of the Interior-CUPCA Office, Central Utah Water Conservancy District EFFECTIVE DATES: April 1, 2017 through December 31, 2022 CUPCA AUTHORITY: Titles II, III FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS: Agreement $12,975,000 Proposed Modification $ 565,000 Total: $13,540,000 SCOPE OFDRAFT WORK: This modification facilitates the conveyance of required deeds and documents between Provo and the United States so as to achieve the desired resulting ownerships of fee title and/or easements; and obligates funds for performance. PLAN REFERENCE: 2-10 through 2-12 STAFF CONTACT: Melissa Stamp, Project Coordinator SUMMARY: The Parties entered into Agreement No. 17FCUT-2190 in March 2017 through which a cooperative relationship was established among the Parties so that implementation of the Provo River Delta Restoration Project (PRDRP) by the Mitigation Commission, and the Provo Lakeview Parkway and Trail (PLPT) by Provo would be conducted in a manner that assures adequate and appropriate compensation of the Parties for any added or reduced costs as the Parties may incur as a result of implementing both projects in accordance with Federal, state and local laws. As envisioned by Agreement No. 17FCUT-2190, especially Article V.2.f, in the course of implementing the PLPT Provo incurred additional costs of acquiring property needed for the PLPT as a result of the changes required to accommodate the PRDRP, which include the relocation of Boat Harbor Drive. Provo acquired fee title to some lands identified within the PRDRP acquisition boundary in order to commence construction of the PLPT, and consequently, now owns land required by the United States for the PRDRP. The United States acquired fee title to some lands identified within the PRDRP acquisition boundary that Provo needs to obtain to construct the relocation of Boat Harbor Drive, and consequently, the United States now owns land required by Provo for the relocation of Boat Harbor Drive as part of the PLPT.
This Modification establishes the process by which Provo and the Mitigation Commission will work together to accomplish transactions needed to obtain ownership of parcels (or interests therein) required by each Party. Provo and the Mitigation Commission agree a fair market value of the properties to be transferred from Provo to the United States is reflected by the actual cost of Provo in obtaining such property initially and concur $560,786.35 is Provo’s actual cost of acquiring the real property needed because of the PRDRP. This modification also increases the obligation of funds under Agreement No. 17FCUT-2190 by $565,000.00 to cover the costs of reimbursing Provo as per Article VII. of Agreement No. 17FCUT-2190.
RECOMMENDATION: The Executive Director recommends the approval of this modification in its essential form, subject to minor adjustments that do not fundamentally alter the terms. AGREEMENT NO. 17FCUT-2190, MODIFICATION NO. 006
AGREEMENT AMONG PROVO CITY, a UTAH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR – CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACT OFFICE CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
1. AGREEMENT TITLE: Cooperative Planning, Design, Construction, and Funding of the Provo Lakeview Parkway and Trail and the Provo River Delta Restoration Project, Central Utah Project
2. PURPOSEDRAFT: To obligate funds and execute documents attached hereto to convey lands and interests therein from Provo City to the United States.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE CHANGES:
A. Modify Article V.1(a) Scope of Work-Specific Obligations of the Parties as follows: “1. Financial Obligation: (a) The Mitigation Commission hereby makes an initial obligation of $368,000.00 $383,000.00 $465,000.00 $475,000.00 $12,975,000.00 13,540,000.00 under this Agreement as per Attachment A.”
B. The attached Land Transfer Agreement and Deeds (Attachment A) are hereby incorporated under this Modification in accordance with Agreement No. 17FCUT-2190 as originally provided for under Articles V.2.d, e, and f thereof.
4. AGREEMENT PRICE: The Agreement price is increased by $565,000.00.
FUNDING HISTORY TO DATE Instrument Value Reservation Original $ 368,000.00 $ 368,000.00 Modification No. 001 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 Modification No. 002 $ 82,000.00 $ 82,000.00 Modification No. 003 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Modification No. 004 $ 12,500,000.00 $ 12,500,000.00 Modification No. 005 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Modification No. 006 $ 565,0000.00 $ 565,000.00 TOTAL: $ 13,540,000.00 $ 13,540,000.00
Modification No. 006, Agreement No. 17FCUT-2190
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year set forth opposite their signature below.
UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION
By ______Date______Date______Brad T. Barber Office of the Regional Solicitor Chair
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
By ______Date______Reed R.DRAFT Murray Program Director
CENTRAL UTAH WATER ATTEST CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
By ______Date______Date______Gene Shawcroft Lisa Anderson General Manger/CEO Assistant to the General Manager
PROVO CITY ATTEST
By ______Date______Date______Michelle Kaufusi, Mayor Provo City Recorder
2 ATTACHMENT A AGREEMENT NO. 17FCUT-2190, MODIFICATION NO. 006
LAND TRANSFER AGREEMENT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION PROVO RIVER DELTA RESTORATION PROJECT BONNEVILLE UNIT CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT
PROVO LAKEVIEW PARKWAY AND TRAIL PROVO RIVER DELTA RESTORATION PROJECT
WITNESSETH, THAT: DRAFT WHEREAS, effective June 1, 2017, the UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION (Mitigation Commission); the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACT OFFICE (the Department); the Mitigation Commission and the Department may hereinafter be referred to collectively or individually as the "United States"; the CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT (the District), a non-Federal water conservancy district organized and existing as a political subdivision under the laws of the State of Utah; and PROVO CITY, a Utah municipal corporation (Provo), each a “Party” and collectively “the Parties”, entered into Agreement No. 17FCUT-2190 (the Agreement), through which a cooperative relationship was established among the Parties so that implementation of the Provo River Delta Restoration Project (PRDRP) by the Mitigation Commission, and the Provo Lakeview Parkway and Trail (PLPT) by Provo is conducted in a manner that assures adequate and appropriate compensation of the Parties for any added or reduced costs as the Parties may incur as a result of implementing both projects in accordance with Federal, state and local laws; and
WHEREAS, as described in Agreement No. 17FCUT-2190, especially Article V.2.f, in the course of implementing the PLPT Provo incurred additional costs of acquiring property needed for the PLPT as a result of the changes required to accommodate the PRDRP, which include the relocation of Boat Harbor Drive; and
WHEREAS, Provo acquired fee title to some lands identified within the PRDRP acquisition boundary in order to commence construction of the PLPT, and consequently, now owns land required by the United States for the PRDRP; and
WHEREAS, the United States acquired fee title to some lands identified within the PRDRP acquisition boundary that Provo needs to obtain to construct the relocation of Boat Harbor Drive, which relocation is necessitated due to the PRDRP, and consequently, the United States now owns land required by Provo for the relocation of Boat Harbor Drive as part of the PLPT; and Attachment A, Modification No. 006, Agreement No. 17FCUT-2190
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to work together to accomplish transactions needed to obtain ownership of parcels (or interests therein) required by each Party; and
WHEREAS, Sections 301(h)(4) and 301(h)(7) of P.L. 102-575 authorize the Mitigation Commission to acquire and dispose of personal and real property and water rights, and interests therein through donation, purchase on a willing seller basis, sale or lease in order to carry out the purposes of CUPCA; and
WHEREAS, Provo and the United States agree a fair market value of the properties to be transferred from Provo to the United States as provided herein is reflected by the actual cost of Provo in obtaining such property initially; and
WHEREAS, Provo has determined that $560,786.35 is Provo’s actual cost of acquiring the real property needed because of the PRDRP; and
WHEREAS,DRAFT the United States has examined records provided by Provo and concurs in the amount of Provo’s costs to acquire the properties; and
WHEREAS, Modification No. 006 of Agreement No. 17FCUT-2190, of which this document is part, increases the obligation of funds under Agreement No. 17FCUT-2190 by $565,000.00, which amount is sufficient to cover the costs of reimbursing Provo as per Article VII. of Agreement No. 17FCUT-2190; and
WHEREAS, the actions described above will require execution of documents by the parties hereto, as described herein; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Agreement is to facilitate the conveyance of required deeds and documents between Provo and the United States so as to achieve the desired resulting ownerships of fee title and/or easements or interests therein, as shown in Exhibit 1 incorporated herein;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the Parties hereto do covenant and agree as follows:
1. Provo shall submit a request for payment of Five Hundred Sixty Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-Six and 35/100 Dollars ($560,786.35) to the United States in accordance with the procedures identified in Article VII. of Agreement No. 17FCUT-2190.
2. The United States shall promptly issue payment of Five Hundred Sixty Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-Six and 35/100 Dollars ($560,786.35) to Provo in accordance with the procedures identified in Article VII. of Agreement No. 17FCUT-2190.
3a. Upon receipt of payment required as per Articles 1 and 2 herein, Provo shall by good and sufficient deed, with covenants of warranty, by separate Warranty Deed, in the exact form as
4 Exhibit 2 of Attachment A of Modification No. 006 of Agreement No. 17FCUT-2190 (attached), convey and warrant to the United States of America and its assigns, free of lien or encumbrance, except as otherwise provided herein, the following parcels of land or interests therein:
PARCEL NO. PRDR-(MIT)-8 (Fee Title) Containing X.yz Acres, more or less, consisting of: all of Provo’s right, title and interest in portions of land, situated in the County of Utah, State of Utah, more particularly described as follows:
Parcel PRO-1 Legal description follows, less any portion that Provo retains. Containing ______acres, more or less, TOGETHER WITH minerals, sand and gravel, and improvements, if any.
Parcel PRO-2 (21:028:0042) Legal description follows, less any portion that Provo retains. Containing ______acres, more or less, TOGETHER WITH minerals, sand and gravel, and improvements, if any.
ParcelDRAFT PRO-3 (21:028:0051) Legal description follows, less any portion that Provo retains (entire parcel?). Containing ______acres, more or less, TOGETHER WITH minerals, sand and gravel, and improvements, if any.
PARCEL NO. PRDR-(MIT)-8-P (Perpetual Easement) Containing X.yz Acres, more or less, consisting of: A Perpetual Easement for any and all purposes necessary and incident to the data collection, surveys, investigations, plans, construction, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the Provo River Delta Restoration Project, Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project. The Temporary Easement will be in effect through December 31, 2024. The Temporary Construction Easement and Perpetual Easement shall be effective from the date of execution of this Agreement by the United States, over a portion of land, situated in the County of Utah, State of Utah, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, totaling X.yz acres, more or less, more particularly described as follows:
Legal description follows. [insert legal description]
PARCEL PRO-8-T (Temporary Easement) Containing X.yz Acres, more or less consisting of: A Temporary Construction Easement for any and all purposes necessary and incident to the data collection, surveys, investigations, plans, construction, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the Provo River Delta Restoration Project, Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project. The Temporary Easement will be in effect through December 31, 2024. The Temporary Construction Easement and Perpetual Easement shall be effective from the date of execution of this Agreement by the United States, over a portion of land, situated in the County of Utah, State of Utah, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, totaling X.yz acres, more or less, more particularly described as follows:
5 Legal description follows. [insert legal description]
3b. It is understood and agreed that the real property or interests therein to be conveyed to the United States described in Articles 1a. and 1b. (the Property) shall be free of lien or encumbrance except: (i) coal, oil, gas, and other mineral rights reserved to or outstanding in third parties if not administratively objectionable; (ii) rights-of-way for roads, railroads, telephone lines, transmission lines, ditches, conduits, or pipelines on, over, or across said lands if not administratively objectionable.
4. The Mitigation Commission shall, by donation and without any express or implied warranties, special, general or otherwise, as authorized by Section 301(h) of P.L. 102-575, by separate Quitclaim deed, in the exact form as Exhibit 3 of Attachment A of Modification No. 006 of Agreement No. 17FCUT-2190 (attached), grant, transfer, quitclaim, and convey to Provo, its heirs, successors, and assigns, a 0.07? acre +/- parcel of land located in Utah County, Utah, more particularly described as follows:
Parcel USADRAFT-2-Disp (Fee) (Utah County Parcel ID No. 21:028:0003) [Portion needed for new BHD, from the 0.3 acre ‘White’ purchase]
Legal description follows, less any portion that USA decides to retain. Containing ______acres, more or less.
5a. It is understood and agreed that:
(1) On the date of execution of this agreement by the United States, the proper officers and agents of the United States shall at all times have unrestricted access to the real property or interests therein to be conveyed from Provo to the United States, to conduct any and all activities allowed related to the PRDRP, free of any claim for damage or compensation on the part of Provo.
(2) On the date of execution of this agreement by the United States, the proper officers and agents of Provo shall at all times have unrestricted access to the property to be conveyed from the United States to Provo in fee title, to conduct any and all activities related to the allowed uses, free of any claim for damage or compensation on the part of the United States.
6. This agreement is not intended nor shall it be construed or interpreted to abandon or relinquish rights by the United States to exercise a reserved easement in the future under provisions of the Act of August 30, 1890.
7. Title and Associated Costs.
A. Provo agrees to satisfy of record, at or before closing, all taxes, assessments and encumbrances that will be a lien against the property at closing, including all deferred taxes, whether or not a lien, and any other charges that could be imposed on the property in the future by recapture or otherwise as a result of any classification of the property for assessment purposes
6 existing prior to closing, including without limitation any compensating tax, additional tax, deferred timber tax, agricultural use tax, rollback tax, open space tax, interest, and penalties, whether or not those charges would constitute a lien against the property at settlement.
B. Abstracts or certificates of title or title insurance will be procured by the United States at its expense unless otherwise provided in this Agreement. The expense of recording the deeds required by Article 3 shall be borne by the United States. The expense of recording the deeds required by Article 4 shall be borne by Provo. Nothing herein shall be deemed to increase the liability of the United States beyond the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act, Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 989 (28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), 2671 et seq.) or other applicable law.
The United States shall reimburse Provo in an amount deemed by the United States to be fair and reasonable for the following expenses incurred by the Vendor:
(a) recording fees, transfer taxes, and similar expenses incidental to conveying the real property to the United States; and DRAFT (b) penalty costs for prepayment of any preexisting recorded mortgage entered into in good faith encumbering such real property; and
(c) the pro rata portion of real property taxes paid which are allocable to a period subsequent to the date of vesting title in the United States, or the effective date of possession of such real property by the United States, whichever is earlier.
Provo agrees to furnish the United States evidence that these items of expenses have been billed to and paid by him and further agrees that the United States alone shall determine the fairness and reasonableness of the expenses to be paid.
C. The United States may, at its option, in the event that liens or encumbrances other than those expressly provided herein, do exist, remove at Provo’s expense, any and all such outstanding liens and encumbrances. This provision shall not be construed to authorize the incurrence of any lien or encumbrance as against this agreement, nor as an assumption of any lien or encumbrance by the United States.
8. Provo hereby acknowledges that it has been fully informed by the United States of its right under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 as amended (84 Stat. 1904, 101 Stat 255, 42 U.S.C. § 4651) to receive just compensation for the property to be granted to the United States. Provo hereby releases the United States and its assigns, of all obligations to have an appraisal prepared to determine the amount of just compensation for the rights herein granted and, except for the compensation provided for herein, hereby waives all right to any additional just compensation to which Provo may be entitled.
9. This Attachment A of Modification No. 006 of Agreement No. 17FCUT-2190 shall become effective to bind the United States to accept said property immediately on its execution by the officer acting under the authority of the United States and shall inure to the benefit of and
7 be binding on the heirs, executors, administrators and assigns of Provo, and the assigns of the United States.
10. If the Secretary of the Interior determines that the title should be acquired by the United States by judicial procedures, either to procure a safe title or to obtain title more quickly or for any other reason, then the award to be made for the interest acquired in said lands in said proceedings shall be the same amount as the price herein provided.
11. No Member of or Delegate to Congress or Resident Commissioner shall be admitted to any share or part of this Attachment A of Modification No. 006 of Agreement No. 17FCUT- 2190, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom, but this restriction shall not be construed to extend to this Attachment A of Modification No. 006 of Agreement No. 17FCUT-2190 if made with a corporation or company for its general benefit.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed their names the day and year first above-written. DRAFT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year set forth above.
UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION APPROVED AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION
By ______Brad Barber Office of the Regional Solicitor Chair
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
By ______Reed R. Murray Program Director
CENTRAL UTAH WATER ATTEST CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
By ______Gene Shawcroft Joanne DuBois General Manger/CEO Assistant to the General Manager
8
PROVO CITY
______Michelle Kaufusi Date Mayor
______Amanda Ercanbrack Date Provo CityDRAFT Recorder
9
EXHIBIT 1 to Attachment A [FINAL MAP TO BE PREPARED]
DRAFT
Attachment A, Modification No. 006, Agreement No. 17FCUT-2190
DRAFT
11
EXHIBIT 2 to Attachment A Record in Utah County
Grantee Address: Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission 230 S. 500 East #230 Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Agreement No. ______
Utah County Parcel Tax ID #s 21:028:00xx, 21:028:00xy, 21:028:00xz
WARRANTY DEED
CITY OF PROVO, County of Utah, State of Utah, GRANTOR, hereby conveys and warrants to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and its assigns, acting pursuant to the Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902DRAFT (32 Stat. 388), and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, including the Act of April 11, 1956 (43 U.S.C. 620, et seq.), and all acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, particularly the Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992 (Titles II through VI of P.L. 102-575), as amended, all of which are commonly known and referred to as Reclamation Law, for the sum of Ten and no/100 dollars ($10.00), and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the following-described tracts of land or interests therein located in the County of Utah, State of Utah, to-wit:
PARCEL NO. PRDR-(MIT)-9 (Fee Title) Containing X.yz Acres, more or less, consisting of: all of Provo’s right, title and interest in portions of land, situated in the County of Utah, State of Utah, more particularly described as follows:
Parcel PRO-1 (21:028:00xx) Legal description follows, less any portion that Provo retains. Containing ______acres, more or less, TOGETHER WITH minerals, sand and gravel, and improvements, if any.
Parcel PRO-2 (21:028:00xy) Legal description follows, less any portion that Provo retains. Containing ______acres, more or less, TOGETHER WITH minerals, sand and gravel, and improvements, if any.
Parcel PRO-3 (21:028:00xz) Legal description follows, less any portion that Provo retains (entire parcel?). Containing ______acres, more or less, TOGETHER WITH minerals, sand and gravel, and improvements, if any.
Attachment A, Modification No. 006, Agreement No. 17FCUT-2190
PARCEL NO. PRDR-(MIT)-9-P (Perpetual Easement) Containing X.yz Acres, more or less, consisting of:
A Perpetual Easement for any and all purposes necessary and incident to the data collection, surveys, investigations, plans, construction, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the Provo River Delta Restoration Project, Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project. The Temporary Easement will be in effect through December 31, 2024. The Temporary Construction Easement and Perpetual Easement shall be effective from the date of execution of this Agreement by the United States, over a portion of land, situated in the County of Utah, State of Utah, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, totaling X.yz acres, more or less, more particularly described as follows:
Legal description follows.
PARCEL PRDR-(Mit)-9-T (Temporary Easement) Containing X.yz Acres, more or less consisting of: A TemporaryDRAFT Construction Easement for any and all purposes necessary and incident to the data collection, surveys, investigations, plans, construction, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the Provo River Delta Restoration Project, Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project. The Temporary Easement will be in effect through December 31, 2024. The Temporary Construction Easement and Perpetual Easement shall be effective from the date of execution of this Agreement by the United States, over a portion of land, situated in the County of Utah, State of Utah, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, totaling X.yz acres, more or less, more particularly described as follows: Legal description follows.
The acquiring federal agency is the UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION.
WITNESS the hand of said GRANTOR this day of A.D., 20__.
PROVO CITY
By:______Date:______Michelle Kaufusi, Mayor
By:______Date:______Amanda Ercanbrack, Provo City Recorder
13
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of Utah ) ) County of Utah )
On the ______day of ______, 20__, personally appeared before me Michelle Kaufusi, the signer of the foregoing Warranty Deed, who duly acknowledged to me that she is the Mayor of Provo City, and that she executed the same for and on behalf of Provo City, and acknowledged the same to be the act and deed of Provo City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed by official seal the day and yearDRAFT first above written.
______(SEAL) Notary Public in and for the State of Residing at My commission expires: ______
14 EXHIBIT 3 to Attachment A Record in Utah County
Grantor Address: Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission 230 South 500 East, Suite 230 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102-2045 Agreement No. ______
Utah County Parcel Tax ID #s ___
QUITCLAIM DEED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GRANTOR, acting pursuant to the Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902 (32DRAFT Stat. 388), and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, including the Act of April 11, 1956 (43 U.S.C. 620, et seq.), and all acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, particularly the Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992 (Titles II through VI of P.L. 102-575), as amended, especially Section 301(h), all of which are commonly known and referred to as Reclamation Laws, does hereby grant, transfer, quitclaim, and convey unto the CITY OF PROVO, a municipal corporation, County of Utah, State of Utah, its successors, and assigns, GRANTEE, without any express or implied warranties, special, general, or otherwise, all the right, title, and interest of the GRANTOR in and to the following described lands in Utah County, State of Utah, to wit:
Parcel PRDR-(MIT)-8-Disp (Fee) (Utah County Parcel ID No. 21:028:0003) [Portion needed for new BHD, from the 0.3 acre ‘White’ purchase]
Legal description follows, less any portion that USA decides to retain.
Parcel No. PRDR-(Mit.)-8-Disp (Fee) contains a total of and Hundredths acres, more or less.
This deed is not intended nor shall it be construed or interpreted to abandon or relinquish rights by the United States to exercise a reserved easement in the future under provisions of the Act of August 30, 1890.
The disposing federal agency is the UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION.
WITNESS the hand of said GRANTOR this day of A.D., 20__.
15
Approved for legal sufficiency THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
______U.S. Department of the Interior Executive Director Office of the Solicitor Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
DRAFT State of Utah ) ) County of Salt Lake )
On the ______day of ______, 20__, personally appeared before me Mark A. Holden, the signer of the foregoing Quitclaim Deed, who duly acknowledged to me that he is the Executive Director, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, and that he executed the same for and on behalf of the United States of America and acknowledged the same to be the act and deed of the United States of America.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed by official seal the day and year first above written.
______(SEAL) Notary Public in and for the State of Residing at My commission expires: ______
16 PROPOSED AGREEMENT FOR COMMISSION ACTION September 13, 2021
AGENDA ITEM NO.: 4C PROJECT: Funding Wildlife Hazard Mitigation at Provo Airport and Provo River Delta Restoration Project COOPERATORS: Provo City, U.S. Department of the Interior – Central Utah Project Completion Act Office, U.S. Department of Agriculture – Wildlife Services EFFECTIVE DATES: October 1, 2021 – September 30, 2026 CUPCA AUTHORITY: Titles II, III, and IV FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS: $ 62,000 through September 30, 2022 SCOPE OF WORK: This agreement would establish procedures and provide funding for reimbursement of costs incurred by USDA-Wildlife Services relating DRAFTto Mitigating Wildlife Hazards that may be caused by the Provo River Delta Restoration Project; PLAN REFERENCE: Pages 2-8 through 2-12, 2021 Plan STAFF CONTACT: Mark Holden, Executive Director SUMMARY: This Agreement is the instrument by which the Mitigation Commission will obligate funds for reimbursement of by United States Department of Agriculture – Plant and Animal Health Inspection Service – Division of Wildlife Services for airport/wildlife hazard mitigation at PRDRP and Provo City Municipal Airport located nearby. The Agreement is summarized below.
1. The Mitigation Commission and Provo City have agreed as per Agreement MC-21-0154 to cooperate regarding mitigation of wildlife hazards caused by the PRDRP. Provo City and Mitigation Commission each will pay 50% of Wildlife Services’. Estimated cost in 2021 dollars is $60,000 annually for 50% to cover the costs of and airport wildlife control specialist to be assigned to Provo Airport and carry out mitigation measures at both sites, professional services, administrative support and overhead, and secretarial support and related expenses incurred by USDA-Wildlife Services. 2. Percentage and costs may be adjusted.
RECOMMENDATION: The Executive Director recommends approval of this Agreement.
Interagency Agreement No. 21AAUT-2580
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
AMONG
UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION and the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE – WILDLIFE SERVICES
for
Funding DRAFTWildlife Hazard Mitigation at Provo Airport and Provo River Delta Restoration Project
I. Authority
This Interagency Agreement for Funding Wildlife Hazard Mitigation at Provo Airport and Provo River Delta Restoration Project (“Funding Agreement”),between and among the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission (“Mitigation Commission”); and the U.S. Department of Agriculture – Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service - Division of Wildlife Services (“Wildlife Services”), in each case including its successors or permitted assigns (each, a “Party” and all collectively, the “Parties”) is made and entered into pursuant to the Economy Act of 1932 (31 U.S.C. 1535), the Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 388) and its amendments and antecedents, including but not limited to the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575 as amended), the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. § 40101, et seq.), and the Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 as amended (7 U.S.C. § 426, et seq.).
II. Background
A. The Central Utah Project Completion Act (“Act”) is contained within Titles II through VI of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575). Its purpose is to provide for the orderly completion of the Central Utah Project (“CUP”), which is the largest participating project of the 1956 Colorado River Storage Project (“CRSP”). The ACT does this by authorizing an increase in the appropriations ceiling for CUP, for which Titles III and IV specifically address fish, wildlife, and outdoor recreation mitigation and enhancement.
B. Title III of the ACT also establishes the Mitigation Commission to expend Federal funds appropriated under Titles II, III and IV. The Mitigation Commission is a federal entity and is Interagency Agreement for Funding Wildlife Hazard Mitigation, 21AAUT-2580 1
required to comply with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et. seq.), the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.), the Clean Water Act (86 Stat. 816) and other environmental laws. The Mitigation Commission, Central Utah Water Conservancy District (“CUWCD”), and the U.S. Department of the Interior – Central Utah Project Completion Act Office (“Interior”) are Joint Lead Agencies implementing the Provo River Delta Restoration Project.
C. The Mitigation Commission, Interior and CUWCD have determined that the Provo River Delta Restoration Project (“PRDRP” or “Project”) is needed to facilitate recovery of June sucker in Utah Lake by restoring habitat conditions essential for spawning, hatching, larval transport, survival, rearing, and recruitment of June sucker on a self-sustaining basis. The June sucker (Chasmistes liorus) is a threatened fish species that exists naturally only in Utah Lake and spawns naturally in the lower Provo River, a Utah Lake tributary. June sucker was listed as an endangered species on April 30, 1986 (51 FR 10857) and down listed as threatened on February 3, 2021 (86 FR 192). The lower 4.9 miles of the Provo River, from Utah Lake upstream to the Tanner RaceDRAFT Diversion Dam, is designated as critical habitat for the June sucker. Under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), critical habitat is an area essential to the species’ conservation that requires special management and protection. The objective of the PRDRP is to provide habitat conditions necessary for survival and recruitment of June sucker.
D. The Provo Airport is positioned less than 0.25 mile south of Provo River on the eastern shore of Utah Lake. The Provo Airport is currently surrounded to the northwest, west, southwest, south, and southeast by a combination of emergent marsh and open water; to the north, northeast, and east it is surrounded by intermittently flooded agricultural land and the Provo River. The mouth of the Provo River is approximately 1,000 feet northwest of the runway that was expanded in 2019. Utah Lake is immediately west of the Provo Airport and Provo Bay is immediately to the south. The airport is surrounded by a levee and drain system to keep it from being flooded by Utah Lake. Utah Lake elevations vary seasonally and annually depending on climatic conditions. A variety of deep water, emergent marsh, wet meadow, and upland habitats currently occur within the airport property.
E. The PRDRP will establish or alter wetland habitat, thus changing the conditions of the wildlife attractants, some of which will be located within less than 0.75 miles from the Airport, which is less than the recommended separation guidelines contained in Section 1 of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) Advisory Circular (“AC”) 150.5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports. Section 2-4c.(1) of the AC allows the FAA to consider exceptions to its siting criteria for wetlands that provide “unique ecological functions, such as critical habitat for threatened or endangered species,” which the Mitigation Commission, Interior and the CUWCD have determined applies to the PRDRP and the June sucker.
F. The Mitigation Commission, Interior and the CUWCD determined in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (April 2015 (FEIS) and Records of Decision (RODs) that the PRDRP will likely cause shifts in abundance and distribution of wildlife, particularly birds,
Interagency Agreement for Funding Wildlife Hazard Mitigation, 21AAUT-2580 2
including both anticipated increased and decreased seasonal use by different species, thus potentially changing the wildlife hazards near the Airport.
G. The Parties and several other entities have recognized and acknowledged this potential for new or additional Wildlife Hazards at the Provo Airport and have entered into an Agreement [Mitigation Commission Agreement No. MC-21-0154 for Authorizing Wildlife Hazard Mitigation at Provo Airport and Provo River Delta Restoration Project (the “Mitigation Agreement”) to cooperatively address wildlife hazards caused by the PRDRP. The initial term of the Mitigation Agreement is through September 30, 2040, subject to extension in successive 10-year increments as long as necessary to mitigate Wildlife Hazards of greater number, type or severity than the Wildlife Hazards caused by the Property on which the PRDRP is located prior to construction of the PRDRP.
H. The Mitigation Agreement calls for the appointment of a Mitigation Entity, and the hiring of a Mitigation Expert, to complete Wildlife Hazard Mitigation activities. Wildlife Services has agreed to beDRAFT the Mitigation Entity and to hire a Mitigation Expert as specified in the Mitigation Agreement and this Funding Agreement.
I. The Mitigation Agreement and this Funding Agreement contemplate cooperative efforts and provide funding commitments to Wildlife Services from the Mitigation Commission to cover certain costs of professional services, administrative support and overhead, and secretarial support and related expenses incurred by Wildlife Services in the accomplishment of the responsibilities of the Mitigation Entity and the Mitigation Expert under the Mitigation Agreement and this Funding Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual agreements herein contained and in accordance with the laws identified in Article I herein, and other laws as may apply, the Parties hereby promise, covenant, and agree as follows:
III. Definitions
Terms used herein with initial capitalization and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Mitigation Agreement.
IV. Purpose and Objectives
This Funding Agreement is for the purpose of providing funding for Wildlife Services as the Mitigation Entity on a reimbursable basis for professional services, administrative support and overhead, secretarial support and related expenses incurred in the accomplishment of the responsibilities of the Mitigation Entity and the Mitigation Expert as specified in the Mitigation Agreement and this Funding Agreement. This Funding Agreement provides 50% of the annual cost
Interagency Agreement for Funding Wildlife Hazard Mitigation, 21AAUT-2580 3
of Wildlife Services in performing its responsibilities as defined herein which are consistent with the responsibilities identified in the Mitigation Agreement. The other 50% of the annual cost is to be provided by Provo City, through a separate funding agreement.
V. Term of Funding Agreement
This Funding Agreement shall become effective upon execution and delivery of this Agreement by all Parties and shall remain in force and effect until September 30, 2026 (the “Initial Term”), at which time this Funding Agreement shall be extended, subject to available appropriations, for successive 5-year renewal terms until the earlier of its termination by mutual agreement of the Parties or termination of the Mitigation Agreement. Notwithstanding the above, Wildlife Services may resign as Mitigation Entity at any time upon at least 12 months’ advance written notice to the other Parties. DRAFT VI. Scope of Work - Specific Obligations of the Parties
A. General Obligations of the Parties:
(1) Wildlife Services hereby accepts appointment as, and agrees to perform all of the functions and services of, the Mitigation Entity under and as specified in the Mitigation Agreement, including all of the obligations of the Mitigation Entity and the Mitigation Expert under the PRDRP Hazard Mitigation Plan (“Mitigation Plan”) and the Airport Plan.
(2) The Parties agree to participate with the Agreement Respresentatives pursuant to the Mitigation Agreement to develop Wildlife Hazard Mitigation work plans, activities, work statements, cost estimates and budgets for Mitigation Expert, and to recommend potential changes to the PRDRP Hazard Mitigation Plan or the Airport Plan.
(3) Reimbursement commitments of the Mitigation Commission under this Funding Agreement shall be on a federal fiscal year basis, beginning October 1 of each year. Absent advance written agreement of the Parties, the total reimbursement by the Mitigation Commission to Wildlife Services shall not exceed $62,000.00 for the first full fiscal year ending on September 30, 2022. This maximum reimbursement shall be for all services, approved equipment, materials, and supplies to complete the work items specified for the Mitigation Expert in the Mitigation Agreement, including start-up costs. Thereafter, the maximum amount to be reimbursed to Wildlife Services under this Funding Agreement shall not exceed $62,000.00 for each subsequent fiscal year, as the same may be adjusted as appropriate for inflation and other relevant factors, or otherwise as may be agreed to by the Parties.
(4) The Mitigation Commission agrees to provide program oversight and administration pertinent to this Funding Agreement, as more fully specified in the Mitigation Agreement, and the Mitigation Plan.
Interagency Agreement for Funding Wildlife Hazard Mitigation, 21AAUT-2580 4
(5) The Parties agree, in coordination with the Agreement Respresentatives and others as may be requested to participate, to review progress of work done under the Mitigation Agreement and this Funding Agreement and to notify Wildlife Services in advance of substantive changes proposed in work to be done or expected to be completed, and any associated budget impacts.
B. Further Obligations of the Mitigation Commission:
(1) The Mitigation Commission agrees to reimburse Wildlife Services on a monthly or quarterly basis up to a cumulative total of $62,000.00 for the first full fiscal year ending on September 30, 2022 for one-half of the cost for providing all services, approved equipment, materials, and supplies to complete the work items specified in the Mitigation Agreement and this Funding Agreement. If Wildlife Services expends less than such amount by the end of fiscal year 2022, the balance will be carried forward for use during the next fiscal year(s), unless the Mitigation Commission notifies Wildlife Service to the contrary. No legal liability on the part of the MitigationDRAFT Commission for any payment may arise from performance under this Funding Agreement until funds are made available for such performance.
(2) The Mitigation Commission appoints the person specified in Section VI as its Project Officer to represent the Mitigation Commission at all times in carrying out the Mitigation Commission’s obligations under this Funding Agreement and to monitor and assist with implementation of this Funding Agreement.
(3) The Mitigation Commission agrees to provide program oversight and administration pertinent to the Project and to provide technical advice at the request of Wildlife Services.
(4) The Mitigation Commission, in coordination with the other Parties and others as may be requested by any Party, will review progress of work done under the Mitigation Agreement and this Funding Agreement and will notify Wildlife Services in advance of substantive changes in work to be done or expected accomplishment. All such changes shall be subject to negotiations among the Parties and modification pursuant to Article VIII.
(5) The Mitigation Commission agrees at all times that this Funding Agreement remains in effect to issue a license or special use permit to Wildlife Services authorizing it to employ approved hazard mitigation measures on the PRDRP. Approved measures may vary from time to time as provided in the Mitigation Agreement but will be identified in the license or special use permit.
(6) The Mitigation Commission will, with the assistance of the Mitigation Expert, obtain all necessary permits for approved Wildlife Hazard Mitigation efforts on the PRDRP
B. Further Obligations of Wildlife Services:
Interagency Agreement for Funding Wildlife Hazard Mitigation, 21AAUT-2580 5
(1) Wildlife Services agrees to perform the services and obligations of the Mitigation Entity under the Mitigation Agreement, including the following specific obligations:
(a) Assign staff to carry out the Mitigation Entity’s responsibilities and duties as specified in the Mitigation Agreement and this Funding Agreement, including:
i) Take and assist in appropriate wildlife and habitat management actions to Mitigate Wildlife Hazards consistent with any applicable special use permit and the Mitigation Plan on the PRDRP Property and the Airport Plan on and around the Airport.
ii) Assign one Wildlife Services employee to be stationed at the Airport to coordinate and implement Wildlife Hazard Mitigation activities.
iii) Assist with organizing and participating with the Agency Representatives DRAFTto address monitoring results, the need for Wildlife Hazard Mitigation measures, the types of Wildlife Hazard Mitigation measures to implement, and similar topics, with the goal being to Mitigate the risk to aircraft operations at the Airport posed by populations of hazardous wildlife caused by the Project.
iv) Provide notification to the Mitigation Commission prior to taking actions if practicable, or otherwise within a reasonable time period following the actions. This provision does not relieve Wildlife Services from the responsibility of obtaining approvals or permits that may be required by law to implement any Mitigation measures.
v) Perform other Wildlife Hazard Mitigation services as may be mutually determined by the Mitigation Commission, the Property Owner and Provo.
(b) Provide all equipment, facilities and nonexpendable supplies necessary to support Wildlife Services staff assigned to implement the Wildlife Services’ responsibilities hereunder.
(c) Provide at least 12 months’ advance written notice of Wildlife Services’ intent to resign as Mitigation Entity under the Mitigation Agreement.
(2) Wildlife Services will cause the Mitigation Expert to assist the Mitigation Commission in the procurement of any necessary permits for Wildlife Hazard Mitigation efforts on the PRDRP Property and will supply data for the submission of permit related year-end reports to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, the FAA, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and others as necessary.
Interagency Agreement for Funding Wildlife Hazard Mitigation, 21AAUT-2580 6
(3) Wildlife Services appoints the person specified in the Section VI as its Project Officer to represent Wildlife Services at all times in carrying out Wildlife Services’ obligations under this Funding Agreement and to monitor and assist with implementation of this Funding Agreement.
(4) Any and all employees employed by Wildlife Services to perform services under this Funding Agreement, including the Mitigation Expert, will be employees of Wildlife Services for all purposes and will remain covered at all times with insurance provided by Wildlife Services and will not be considered to be employees or agents of any other Party for any purpose.
(5) Wildlife Services agrees to meet with the parties to the Mitigation Agreement and the Agency Representatives as needed to discuss work plans and activities focusing primarily on the following months’ and years’ programs and to develop specific work statements, cost estimates and budgets for Wildlife Services, and to recommend potential changes to the Mitigation Plan or the Airport Plan. Wildlife Services will provide technical advice at the request of any Party.
(6) WildlifeDRAFT Services agrees to perform the functions and obligations of the Mitigation Expert under the Mitigation Plan, including the following specific obligations:
1. Assign one USDA-WS–approved airport biologist [meeting FAA requirements as a Qualified Airport Biologist (QAB)] on-site for 2080 hours per year to this project (time will include mandatory trainings, meetings, sick and annual leave including federal holidays).
2. Provide the vehicle, necessary field supplies, and equipment needs for the USDA- WS–approved airport biologist.
The USDA-WS–approved airport biologist will assist PVU and PRDRP operations personnel by: • Participating as a member of the Agency Representatives and provide advice on various wildlife hazard and monitoring and mitigation issues to the other participants. • Conducting an updated WHA for Provo Municipal Airport (PVU) if necessary, and assisting in updating, maintaining, and implementing the WHMP for PVU. • Assisting the PRDRP Joint Lead Agencies in preparing, updating, maintaining, and implementing the PRDRP Hazard Mitigation Plan for the PRDRP as requested and authorized by the PRDRP Joint Lead Agencies. • Collecting and/or analyzing wildlife survey data as project needs dictate and as authorized therefore by the PRDRP Joint Lead Agencies regarding surveys requested to take place within the PRDRP boundary. • Gathering and reporting wildlife strike information.
Interagency Agreement for Funding Wildlife Hazard Mitigation, 21AAUT-2580 7
• Sampling and monitoring prey-base populations as needed and as authorized therefore by the PRDRP Joint Lead Agencies regarding surveys requested to take place within the PRDRP boundary. • Monitoring PRDRP construction projects for potential wildlife hazards, trends, etc., and providing mitigation recommendations, technical assistance, non-lethal control, and direct control measures at PRDRP as able and authorized. • Providing mitigation recommendations, technical assistance, non-lethal control, and direct control assistance to PVU when needed (within 2080 project hours). • Assisting PRDRP Joint Lead Agencies and PVU in applying for, operating under, and providing detailed reports of actions as may be required under State or Federal permits, for the PRDRP and the PVU, respectively. • Participating in related or requested meetings. • ProvidingDRAFT WHA report and project reports upon request. • Conducting recurrent FAA mandated wildlife training for PVU personnel. • Coordinating with PVU, PRDRP Airport Biologist and Brigham Young University personnel to assist with monitoring efforts related to the PRDRP and nearby PVU.
The roles and responsibilities for the USDA-WS–approved airport biologist as a participating organization in the Mitigation Agreement are to: • Assist the PRDRP Joint Lead Agencies in developing and updating the PRDRP HMP. • Assist PVU in developing and updating the PVU WHMP. • Coordinate with PRDRP Airport Biologist regarding the bird monitoring and movement study. • Analyze monitoring and movement data in conjunction with the PRDRP Airport Biologist and other Agency Representatives. • Provide regular communication and coordination with PRDRP Airport Biologist, PVU, and the Agency Representatives. • Coordinate with PRDRP Airport Biologist regarding posting signs to inform visitors that PRDRP lands may be closed temporarily and on short notice to public access to allow wildlife control efforts for airport safety purposes and that wildlife hazing may occur at any time without public access closure. • Request to re-convene the Agency Representatives within 1 year of construction completion to o review monitoring protocols and Step-Down Mitigation Plan; and
Interagency Agreement for Funding Wildlife Hazard Mitigation, 21AAUT-2580 8
o establish roles and responsibilities for notification with the PVU and other proper airport contacts if the wildlife hazard level increases to an unacceptable level, as determined by the Step-Down Mitigation Plan. • Provide recommendations to PRDRP Airport Biologist and the Agency Representatives regarding management of the PRDRP in a manner that mitigates wildlife hazards to aviation to the extent feasible while still meeting the underlying needs of the PRDRP. • Assist PRDRP Airport Biologist with updating this PRDRP HMP within 2 years of the PRDRP being fully operational and periodically as needed thereafter, to be determined in coordination with representatives of the Agency Representatives.
The USDA-WS–approved airport biologist is under contract by the PRDRP Joint Lead Agencies and by PVU and is responsible to: • assist in monitoring wildlife abundance and use patterns, • identifyDRAFT aircraft hazards on the airport and wildlife hazards on the PRDRP, • provide hazing or coordinated population reduction, • advise on future airport expansion concerning wildlife, and • assist in removal of deer and other wildlife from airport property.
The USDA-WS–approved airport biologist will coordinate with the Agency Representatives to review results of mitigation procedures and effectiveness of hazing and wildlife population control techniques and address wildlife concerns. These updates may occur at each meeting of the Working Group but is required at least annually as part of the effectiveness determination.]
VI. Project Officers and Notice Addresses
Each Party hereby appoints the following person as its initial Project Officer hereunder and the following address for purposes of notice hereunder. All notices shall be made to the mail, telefacsimile and/or email address(es) set forth below. Notices may be delivered by letter, facsimile, email or other tangible documentary form. Notice by overnight mail or courier shall be deemed to have been given on the date and time evidenced by the delivery receipt. Notice by hand delivery shall be deemed to have been given when received or hand delivered. Notice by facsimile or email is effective as of transmission to each and all of the telefacsimile numbers or email addresses provided below for a Party, but, unless receipt is acknowledged by the recipient, must be followed up by notice by registered mail or overnight carrier to be effective. Notice by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, shall be deemed to have been given upon receipt. A Party may change its Project Officer or notice address by providing notice of the same to all of the other Parties hereunder.
For the MITIGATION COMMISSION:
Interagency Agreement for Funding Wildlife Hazard Mitigation, 21AAUT-2580 9
Mr. Richard Mingo, Project Coordinator Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission 230 South 500 East, Suite 230 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 801/524-3168; FAX 801/524-3148 [email protected]
For WILDLIFE SERVICES:
Mr. Chad Heuser State Director for Utah U.S.D.A.-APHIS-Wildlife Services PO Box 26976 2369 West Orton Circle #50 Salt Lake City, Utah 84126 801/975-DRAFT3318; FAX 801/975-3320
VII. Payment of Funds to Wildlife Services
Mitigation Commission Payments
(1) Wildlife Services shall submit to the Mitigation Commission a completed reimbursement request on a quarterly basis for one-half of the expenditures incurred by Wildlife Services hereunder, up to any applicable annual maximum. Each reimbursement request shall be submitted with supporting documentation for actual expenditures incurred under this Funding Agreement and must include the following forms:
(a) Federal Request for Reimbursement Form (SF-270). (b) Mitigation Mitigation Commission Reimbursement Form (MCC-100). (c) Mitigation Commission Task Form (MCC-200) for the following tasks: Project Management; Monitoring/Movement Study. (d) Narrative Report - A description of activities and accomplishments under each approved task. The narrative must also identify activities planned for the next quarter. (e) Property and Capital Equipment Inventory (MCC-300) - To be prepared only if property or capital equipment is purchased. (f) Financial Status Report Form (SF-269A) - To be prepared only with a final request for reimbursement. See Below.
(2) Wildlife Services shall retain all original receipts, invoices, vouchers, etc. substantiating all expenditures requested for reimbursement. These documents shall be made available to the Mitigation Commission upon request. All completed reimbursement requests shall be mailed to:
Interagency Agreement for Funding Wildlife Hazard Mitigation, 21AAUT-2580 10
Utah Reclamation Mitigation & Conservation Commission Attn: Financial Officer, Channa Vyfvinkel 230 South 500 East, Suite 230 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
(3) The Mitigation Commission’s Project Officer will provide a timely verification and approval of the reimbursement request. Upon approval, the Mitigation Commission will authorize Wildlife Services to receive payment through Internet Payment and Collection System [IPAC]. Wildlife Services is required to submit, independently, a completed Standard Form 269A, Financial Status Report, along with the final request for reimbursement.
VIII. Modifications
Modifications to this Funding Agreement may be proposed by any Party and shall become effective onlyDRAFT upon being reduced to a written instrument executed by signature of all Parties affected by the modification or amendment.
Wildlife Services will assume all risks, liabilities, and consequences of performing additional work outside of the scope of work for the Mitigation Entity as specified in the Mitigation Agreement, the Mitigation Plan and this Funding Agreement, unless prior written approval is secured from the Project Officer of the Mitigation Commission.
IX. Termination of Wildlife Services’ Responsibilities
The responsibilities of Wildlife Services under this Funding Agreement may be terminated with the mutual consent of the Mitigation Commission. Wildlife Services will be promptly notified of any such termination. The Mitigation Commission shall pay Wildlife Services for all work performed or which, in the exercise of due diligence, Wildlife Services is unable to cancel prior to the effective date of termination. Payments made under this Funding Agreement, including payments under this article, shall not exceed any approved maximum annual budget amounts.
X. Resolving Disagreements
The Parties agree to work harmoniously to achieve the objectives of this Funding Agreement and the Project. When disagreements arise between/among the Parties, they will be resolved according to the procedures provided below:
(1) The affected Parties shall attempt first to resolve disagreements through informal discussion among the subordinate staff responsible for implementation of the Project and this Funding Agreement.
Interagency Agreement for Funding Wildlife Hazard Mitigation, 21AAUT-2580 11
(2) If the disagreement cannot be resolved through informal discussion, each shall document the nature of the disagreement and bring it to the attention of its Project Officer.
(3) After reviewing the facts of the disagreement, the appropriate Project Officers will arrange a formal meeting. The Parties will collectively decide on any varied approaches which might be used to resolve the disagreement. The Parties shall be responsible for their individual expenses related to any approach utilized to resolve the disagreement.
(4) If the Project Officers are unable to resolve a material disagreement relating to this Funding Agreement, a Party may request a meeting of the persons designated by each Party to the Executive Dispute Resolution Committee under the Mitigation Agreement to attempt to address and resolve such material disagreement.
(5) If the Parties are unable to resolve any dispute using all of the above procedures or if any Party declines to participate promptly in such dispute resolution procedures, any Party may pursue anyDRAFT remedies available to it under this Funding Agreement or by law.
XI. Contingent Upon Appropriation
The liability of the Mitigation Commission under this Funding Agreement are contingent upon appropriation and availability of funds therefore. In the event necessary funds are not appropriated and made available by the Mitigation Commission, Wildlife Services may terminate its obligations under this Funding Agreement by providing at least 30 days’ advance written notice to the Mitigation Commission.
XII. Data Files.
All data files developed in fulfillment of the terms of the Mitigation Agreement and this Funding Agreement shall become the property of the Mitigation Commission and Provo (including but not limited to GIS coverages, databases, reports, inventories, drawings, maps, etc.). Prior to final payment being made, the Project Officers for the Mitigation Commission and Provo shall be contacted to determine the disposition of data.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party hereto has caused this Funding Agreement to be executed by an authorized official on the day and year set forth opposite their signature below.
UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION
By: ______Date:______Title: Brad T. Barber, Chair
Interagency Agreement for Funding Wildlife Hazard Mitigation, 21AAUT-2580 12
Approved as to Legal Sufficiency
______Intermountain Region Date Office of the Solicitor
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE—DIVISION OF WILDLIFE SERVICES
______State Director, Utah WS Date
DRAFT ______USDA WS Regional Director, Western Region Date
Interagency Agreement for Funding Wildlife Hazard Mitigation, 21AAUT-2580 13
Exhibit A
DRAFT
ANNUAL WORK PLAN/FINANCIAL PLAN for Wildlife Hazard Mitigation at the Provo City Airport and Provo River Delta Restoration Project
Cooperators: Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission; Provo City Airport
Contact: Richard Mingo; Wyatt Carter; Mark Holden
CooperativeDRAFT Service Agreement No.: Pending
Accounting Code: Pending
Location: Provo, UT
Dates: October 1, 2021 – December 31, 2025
In accordance with the MOU (under development) among the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission (URMCC), Provo City/Department of Airports (PVU), U.S. Department of the Interior, Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Federal Aviation Administration, and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) - Wildlife Services (WS), this Work Plan sets forth the objectives, activities and budget of the wildlife control activities for the fiscal period of October 1, 2021 - September 30, 2022.
Program Objective/Goals:
To provide wildlife hazard management assistance to the Provo City Airport (PVU) and the nearby Provo River Delta Restoration Project (PRDRP) when they experience aircraft-wildlife conflicts caused by various species of wildlife. This assistance may be in the form of educational information, non-lethal techniques, or direct control. If direct control is necessary, the most effective and safe tools and techniques available will be utilized.
The specific goal is to protect human health and safety at PVU by identifying and reducing existing or pre-existing wildlife hazards to aircraft at and around PVU and new hazards due to the PRDRP as the environment changes in response to the PRDRP.
Interagency Agreement for Funding Wildlife Hazard Mitigation, 21AAUT-2580 14
Work Plan:
WS will assign one Wildlife Biologist on site for 2080 hours per year to this project (time will include mandatory trainings, meetings, sick and annual leave including federal holidays).
1. WS will provide the vehicle, necessary field supplies, and equipment needs for the biologist. The Wildlife Biologist will assist PVU/PRDRP operations personnel by:
• Conducting an updated Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) for PVU if necessary. WS will assist in updating, maintaining and implementing the Wildlife Hazard Mitigation Plan (WHMP) for PVU • Prepare and update, maintain and implement the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) for DRAFTthe PRDRP • Collecting and/or analyzing wildlife survey data as project needs dictate • Sampling and monitoring prey-base populations as needed • Monitoring PRDRP construction projects for potential wildlife hazards, trends etc. and providing mitigation recommendations, technical assistance, non-lethal control and direct control measures at PRDRP as able and necessary. • Providing mitigation recommendations, technical assistance, non-lethal control and direct control assistance to PVU when needed (within 2080 project hours). • Participating in related or requested meetings • Providing WHA report and project reports upon request • Conducting recurrent FAA mandated wildlife training for airport personnel
2. WS staff will work with Brigham Young University (BYU) and Bureau of Reclamation personnel to assist with monitoring efforts related to the PRDRP and nearby PVU Airport.
3. PVU/PRDRP will be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits to control birds and mammals. WS will fully assist PVU/PRDRP in the procurement of permits, and supply data for the submission of permit related year-end reports to the USFWS.
4. PVU will be responsible for providing appropriate WS personnel with the necessary security access and training for accessing the ramp and aircraft movement areas as authorized. Work conducted will be from the more critical space (IE; airport) out.
5. PVU will provide a small office space with telephone and Internet access for the appropriate WS personnel assigned to this project.
6. URMCC will issue a permit to allow WS to conduct monitoring and hazard mitigation on the PRDRP.
Interagency Agreement for Funding Wildlife Hazard Mitigation, 21AAUT-2580 15
7. Chad Heuser, WS State Director for Utah, (801-975-3318), will supervise and monitor this project.
8. Richard Mingo, Project Coordinator, (801-524-3168) is the contact for URMCC: 230 South 500 East, Suite 230, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 801/524-3146; [email protected]
9. Steve Gleason, Airport Manager, [email protected], is the contact for PVU.
10. WS will cooperate with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, county and local city governments, and other entities to ensure compliance with Federal, State and local laws and regulations.
11. PVU and the URMCC will each be billed equally on a quarterly basis by WS only for theDRAFT services rendered, total not to exceed $124,000 annually. Salaries and benefits are defined as compensation for all hours worked, benefits, differentials, hazardous duty allowances, annual leave, sick leave and awards. You will only be billed for expenses incurred. The financial point of contact for this Work Plan/Financial Plan is Diana Dilsaver, Budget Analyst, who can be reached at (801) 975-3317.
Interagency Agreement for Funding Wildlife Hazard Mitigation, 21AAUT-2580 16
FINANCIAL PLAN For the disbursement of funds from Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to USDA APHIS Wildlife Services for the period from 10/1/2021 to 9/30/2022
Cost Element Full Cost Personnel Compensation $ 41,347.44 Travel $ 1,110.00 Vehicles DRAFT $ 4,548.00 Other Services $ - Supplies and Materials $ 1,750.00 Equipment $ - Subtotal (Direct Charges) $ 48,755.44
Pooled Job Costs $ 5,363.10 @ 11.00% Indirect Costs $ 7,874.00 @ 16.15% Aviation Flat Rate Collection $ - Agreement Total $ 61,992.54
The distribution of the budget from this $ 61,992.54 Financial Plan may vary as necessary to accomplish the purpose of this agreement, but may not exceed:
Interagency Agreement for Funding Wildlife Hazard Mitigation, 21AAUT-2580 17