FY 2000 proposal 20137

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
20137 Narrative	Narrative
20137 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Acquisition of Malheur Wildlife Mitigation Site
Proposal ID	20137
Organization	Burns Paiute Tribe (BPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Daniel Gonzalez/Haace St.Martin
Mailing address	HC 71 - 100 Pasigo St. Burns OR 97720
Phone / email	5415731375 / Gonfish@orednet.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 2000
Province / Subbasin	Middle Snake / Malheur
Short description	The project would protect and enhance critical fish and wildlife habitat. The project consist of riparian/riverine that can be restored to its natural state. In many places there are large areas of shrub steppe that can provide significant HU's.
Target species	Redband trout, Bull trout, Mule Deer, Elk and Antelope, Sanhill Cranes.

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
1	BPA and Trust for Public Lands have initiated negotiations with landowner.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
9705900	Stinkingwater Salmonid Project	Bull trout/redband trout life history study. This study is being conducted in the same river basin.
9107	North Fork Malheur Bull Trout/Redband Trout Life History Study	Bull trout/redband trout life history study. This study is also being conducted in the same river basin.
9284	Assessing Oregon Trust Agreement Planning Project
9705900	Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites-Oregon
975900	Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites-Oregon
5519400	Burns Paiute - Mitigation Coordinator

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2000 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost
Personnel	Wildlife Biologist 2080hrs @ 16.90 Program/site Manager 2080 @ 13.90	$64,112
Fringe	25%	$16,028
Supplies	Purchase existing haying equipment and implements, 1 flatbed 1-ton truck, ATV	$200,000
Operating	6700 acres @ $15/acre	$100,500
Capital	Acquisition cost	$1,400,000
NEPA	estimate	$150,000
Travel	120 miles round trip X 4 days X 20 weeks @.31/mile	$3,000
Indirect	26.3%	$96,439
		$2,030,079

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 cost	$2,030,079
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2000 budget request	$2,030,079
FY 2000 forecast from 1999	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Delays due to extensive landowner negotiations and slow response time from the regulatory agencies reguarding insuance of permits for proposed project. Issues of crediting this project to dams with inundation and contruction losses.

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 99-2)

Recommendation:
Delay Funding

Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Delay funding until concerns about value and cost-effectiveness of land acquisition are addressed. Future proposals should better develop and justify management and monitoring and evaluation plans.

Comments: This proposal suggests that the habitat selected for acquisition and restoration would benefit numerous sensitive species. The land to be purchased includes riverine and riparian as well as sage-steppe and includes water rights, so should benefit fish as well as wildlife. The land is in the same river basin as the Stinkingwater Salmonid project and the redband trout and bull trout life history study. The land to be purchased and rationale for purchase are clearly described. In addition to game species, a number of valuable non-game species are noted as present. The strategy to use HEP in monitoring is a good start, but objectives should be better specified in terms of biological measurements. Acquisition of the land appears justifiable, but the management plan is not. Several questions should be addressed during contracting for the work: What will be done with the water rights and cattle grazing rights? Who will own the land? Is the cost reasonable for a ranch in poor condition? Do the location and water rights of the land make up for its poor condition?

Further, the OM plan needs much better development and justification. What will happen to the land once acquired? The methods here lack detail. What are the specific management objectives for the land? Will cattle grazing continue? Use of repeated HEPs on baseline areas not directly affected by enhancement activities or maintenance activities is a good idea, as it allows evaluation of naturally occurring trends and contributes to a design in which effects of enhancement can be evaluated, but the experimental design and evaluation criteria need to be clearly described.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments

Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Explain how the project will achieve the fish and wildlife objectives.

Explain the goals for property and how they will be met.

Strengthen monitoring component.

High personnel and operation and maintenance costs.

Clarify funding. It appears this project received funding costs in FY 1999 from BPA.

Explain how this project fits into a watershed context. .

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Wildlife Committee Comments

Recommendation:
Fundable

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

OWC

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation (NWPPC 2000-6)

Recommendation:
Fund pending compliance

Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 12-7-99 Council Meeting]; Fund pending compliance with ISRP Comments through BPA's Contract Process