FY 2003 Middle Snake proposal 200302900
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 32016 Narrative | Narrative |
| 32016 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 32016 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Middle Snake: Malheur Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Middle Snake: Malheur Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Letter from S. McNary (BPA) to S. Lawrence (Burns Paiute Tribe) Re: Final Funding Decision for project proposal 32016 | BPA Decision Letter |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Assess the feasibility of the Upper Malheur Watershed to support the reintroduction of anadromous populations above the Beulah & Warmsprings Reservoir |
| Proposal ID | 200302900 |
| Organization | Burns Paiute Tribe (BPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Lawrence Schwabe |
| Mailing address | HC 71 100 Pasigo St Burns, OR 97720 |
| Phone / email | 5415731375 / lschwabe@centurytel.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | Daniel Gonzalez, Program Manager |
| Review cycle | Middle Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Middle Snake / Malheur |
| Short description | The project is broke into two phases, the first being a feasibility study on the reintroduction of anadromous fish in the Malheur Subbasin. The second phase is the development of a reintroduction plan for the Subbasin. |
| Target species | bull trout (Salvilines confluentus), steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 43.88 | -118.58 | Malheur Basin above Beulah and Warmsprings Reservoirs. |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| NA |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| NA |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 0 |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective1. Determine the feasibility of reintroducing anadromous fish into the Malheur subbasin. | Task 1.1 Collect all existing data on pathogens present in the Malheur River Subbasin. | 1 | $168,896 | Yes |
| Task 1.2 Collect all existing data on water quality parameters in the Malheur River Subbasin and correlate with the salmonid life history to determine if suitable water conditions are available. | 1 | $0 | Yes | |
| Task 1.3 Collect all existing data on habitat parameters in the Malheur River Subbasin and correlate with the salmonid life history to determine if suitable habitat conditions are available. Use collected information to map potential reintroduction sites | 1 | $0 | Yes | |
| Task 1.4 Analyze existing genetic data to determine appropriate stock selection and collection facilities. | 1 | $0 | Yes | |
| Task 1.5 Assess social and economic impacts to the subbasin by reintroduction of anadromous fish. | 1 | $0 | Yes | |
| Task 1.6 Cost analysis of the reintroduction of anadromous fish. | 1 | $0 | Yes | |
| Task 1.7 Conduct risk analysis of reintroduction on existing native fish populations within the Malheur River (ESA species). | 1 | $0 | Yes | |
| Task 1.8 Compile all existing data in final report including recommendations on tasks needed to facilitate the reintroduction of anadromous fish with in the Malheur Subbasin to develop a plan. | 1 | $0 | Yes | |
| Objective 2. Develop a comprehensive plan and design that outlines the process in which anadromous fish are to be reintroduced. | Task 2.1 Generate reintroduction plan A plan will be developed through the intensive coordination of regulatory state and federal agencies, Idaho Power Company, Idaho Fish and Game, and local county governments in Malheur, Grant and Harney Counties. | 1 | $0 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective1. Determine the feasibility of reintroducing anadromous fish into the Malheur subbasin. | 2003 | 2003 | $168,896 |
| Objective 2. Develop a comprehensive plan and design that outlines the process in which anadromous fish are to be reintroduced. | 2004 | 2004 | $130,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2004 |
|---|
| $130,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1 | $10,000 |
| Fringe | 28% | $2,800 |
| Supplies | $2,000 | |
| Travel | 15,000 miles (1) Vehicle @ .345/mile | $5,175 |
| Indirect | $6,321 | |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | Feasibility study | $140,000 |
| Other | Veihle lease .04 time | $2,600 |
| $168,896 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $168,896 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $168,896 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
NA
Reason for change in scope
NA
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| NA | $0 | cash |
Other budget explanation
NA
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A similar proposal (for FY 00) was previously reviewed by the ISRP. That proposal was justified by its sponsors in part by a window of opportunity provided by the FERC relicensing of the Hells Canyon Dam complex. The current proposal does not refer to such a window of opportunity. Does it still exist?A response is needed to better describe the project's proposed methods for assessing the salmonid habitat in the Malheur Subbasin (Task 1.3) and for assessing the risks that anadromous fish reintroduction might pose for native fishes (Task 1.7). Nearly all the requested funding is for a subcontractor. The subcontractor should be identified. Additionally, please specifically address how the project is appropriate for BPA funding.
Comment:
The proposed budget has been reduced to $49,000 to allow for a literature search and subsequent report. Following the completion of this effort, the product should be sent back the CBFWA for review prior to the initiation of the next phase.Comment:
Fundable as a planning and prioritization exercise. The CBFWA technical review notes that the proposed budget has been reduced to $49,000 to allow for a literature search and subsequent report (on habitat status and reintroduction feasibility). The response by project proponents adequately addressed the issues raised by the ISRP regarding the subcontractor and proposed methods. Although technically sound, questions remain regarding the extent to which this is appropriate for BPA funding.Comment:
Do not recommend. The discussions are agreements among responsible entities, as called for in the Council's 1995 F&W Program have not yet taken place. Findings on Section 10.5B. As BPA commented in 1995, FWL Program amendments, it may not be an FCRPS responsibility to mitigate above Hells Canyon dam if not affected by the construction or operation of Black Canyon, Anderson Ranch, Boise Diversion, Minidoka, or Palisades reservoirs.Comment:
Project Issue 7: New projects that were prioritized by the Middle Snake province group
The sponsors in the province have proposed four new projects to utilize the funds within the Council's province allocation that remains after the existing projects discussed above have been funded.
(b) Burns Paiute Tribe -- 32016 (Assess the feasibility of the Upper Malheur Watershed to support the reintroduction of anadromous populations above the Beulah & Warmsprings Reservoir) (approximately $49,000 in Fiscal Year 2003 and $130,000 in Fiscal Year 2004) The ISRP rated this project as "Fundable" as a planning and prioritization action. CBFWA rated it as "High Priority." Bonneville rated the project as a "D", stating that the regional agreement regarding Bonneville's responsibility for such projects above Hell's Canyon Dam that were called for in the Council's 1995 program have not been achieved. Bonneville questions if the project is within the scope of its obligations under the Act.
The sponsor states that anadromous fish were present in the investigation area before migration blocking hydroprojects were constructed, and does not believe that the option of reintroducing anadromous populations should be foreclosed for all time and that this feasibility study would yield important information for developing long-term objectives for subbasin planning.
Council Recommendation: The Council recommends modest funding for this project. The project was made a consensus priority by the province group. The staff does not believe that the failure of the region to respond to the Council's request in its 1995 program to reach an agreement about Bonneville's responsibility above the Hell's Canyon complex is sufficient basis for a deferral -- Bonneville was one of the primary parties that was called upon to engage that discussion, and could have done so, but did not. The Council does not believe that Bonneville's funding of a feasibility project predisposes it to fully funding the actual reintroduction efforts should those ever come to pass. Bonneville's historic position that its anadromous mitigation responsibilities were absolved when Idaho Power Company owned projects eliminated anadromous passage presumes and relies upon the scenario that passage will never be restored past those projects. However, if anadromous fish are ever reintroduced to that area, it seems reasonable to believe that federal hydroprojects on the Snake and Columbia Rivers will impact these populations and Bonneville will have obligations under the Act to mitigate for those impacts. The Council does believe that this relatively modest expenditure for a two-year study would aid subbasin planning efforts in the area.
Comment:
Phase 3 will be initiated upon resolution of identified issues. BPA will reengage with the Council regarding applicability of this project to the FCRPS mitigation responsibility prior to issuing a final decision.Comment:
Phase III. Realign budget one year.Comment:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $49,000 | $0 | $0 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website