Return to Proposal Finder FY 1999 Proposal 9130

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Burns Paiute Mitigation Coordinator
BPA Project Proposal Number 9130
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Burns Paiute Tribe
Business acronym (if appropriate) BPT
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Haace St. Martin
Mailing Address HC 71 - 100 Pasigo St
City, State, Zip Burns, OR 97720
Phone 5415731533
Fax 5415732422
E-mail Burns@ordnet.org
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 1999
Province Upper Snake
Subbasin Malheur
 
Short Description Develop wildlife mitigation stategies consisting of selection, scientific analysis, implementation (acquisition, enhancement, etc.), O&M, and evalution of wildlife Mitigation projects for the Burns Paiute Tribe.
Target Species


Project Location

[No information]


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal


NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: Section 11, secifically measures 11.D,11.3B and 113E. Section 7, measure7.6
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses:
Other Planning Document References


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): wildlife


Section 2. Past Accomplishments

n/a or no information


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
9705900 Planning & coordination No
9701900 Stinkingwater Salmonid Project Fisheries project sponsored by BPT in the same watershed No


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Coordinate & develop mitigation plans a. Secure mitigation sites for the Burns Paiute Tribe.
. b. Evaluate and Prioritize habitat mitigation opportunities for tribal, and state plans, the WWG ranking criteria & GAP analysis
2. Develop and implement statewide mitigation strategies based upon sound biological and technical principles. a. Maintain "active " list of potential project implementation prioritization.
. b. Evaluate and Prioritize habitat mitigation opportunities utilizing federal, tribal, and state plans, the WWG ranking criteria & GAP analysis
3. Develop MOA between the oregon Wildlife Managers to guide coordination, implementation, and planning. a. Integrate technical, administrative and policy issues associated with timely and effective implemetation of coordinated statewide wildlife of mitigation into a Memorandum of Agreement for Policy signing.
. b. Secure full Policy review and approval and submit the signed document to BPA and NPPC as formal documentation of Oregon Wildlife Manager's concurrence on process for coordination and implementation.
4. Cooperate in the development and implementation of mitigation projects in the State of Oregon. a. Coordinate project planning and implementation for Managers to increase efficience and reduce duplication of effort.
. b. Provide technical coordination and support for Managers includin aspects such as conducting Procedures on project.
. c. Develop and implement a consistant state-wide monitoring & evaluation program.
. d. Develop and implement coordinated public outreach strategies.
5. Establish and manage Oregon Project Implementation Funding Vehicle to provide the flexibility and security required to meet changing financial and project implementation scenarios a. Develop funding process and interim agreement with BPA, consistent with Section 11.3d of the NPPC Fish and wildlife program.
. b. Establish Oregon Mitigation Fund with associate investment policy.
. c. Coordinate development and approval of Annual project budjets for Oregon Fund..

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 01/01/98 01/01/03 20.0%
2 01/01/98 01/01/03 20.0%
3 01/01/98 01/01/03 40.0%
4 01/01/98 01/01/03 40.0%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 1999 Cost
Personnel 22,050 $ 23,153
Fringe 5,513 $ 5,789
Supplies 3715 $ 3,715
Travel 3,624 $ 3,624
Indirect 9,000 $ 9,000
Subcontractor $ 0
Total Itemized Budget $ 45,281


Total estimated budget

Total FY 1999 project cost $ 45,281
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 1999 budget request $ 45,281
FY 1999 forecast from 1998 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%


Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable


Reason for change in scope

Not applicable


Cost Sharing

Not applicable
 

Outyear Budget Totals

2000 2001 2002
All Phases $ 47,000 $ 48,500 $ 50,000
Total Outyear Budgets $ 47,000 $ 48,500 $ 50,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: Delays due to extensive landowner negotiatonsans slow resonse time from the regulatory agencies regarding issuance of permits for proposed in-stream work.


Section 6. References

n/a or no information


Section 7. Abstract

Abstract

The long-term goal of this project is full mitigation of all losses to wildlife in Oregon as a result of the development and operation of the federal Columbia Basin hydropower system. Under the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, this means providing Habitat Units (HU’s) of the highest priority habitat types for target species in a sustainable, cost-effective manner so that Bonneville receives mitigation credit. Since 1991 Oregon’s wildlife managers have been working together to coordinate the planning, selection and implementation of BPA funded wildlife projects under the NW Power Planning Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program as outlined in Sections 7 and 11, specifically measures 7.6, 11.2D, 11.3E and 11.3F. The intent of this on-going project is twofold. First to facilitate coordination and planning between Oregon wildlife managers via individual funding of wildlife planning and coordination staff for each OWC member. This varies by need of the individual entity, and should remain stable or decline as mitigation goals are attained. The GAP Analysis, along with other federal, state and tribal wildlife mitigation plans are used by the OWC to evaluate potential projects. Projects selected are given further scientific, policy and economic review, and those agreed upon by the OWC are brought forth to the WWG and the Council for approval, leading to funding by Bonneville. The second component of this project is implementation of the wildlife mitigation projects that have come through the above process. This will include acquisitions, easements, enhancement and O&M. In 1991 the Oregon Trust Agreement (OTA) Planning Project was initiated by Oregon’s wildlife managers to bring Oregon wildlife managers together to develop an Oregon trust similar to what was done in Montana and Washington. This effort resulted in the “Brown Book” which identified and assessed potential wildlife mitigation opportunities throughout Oregon. Later, this effort was refined via a statewide GAP analysis, a Bonneville funded research project used to reevaluate the previously identified wildlife mitigation sites and identify new sites. The results of this project, as well as other federal, state and tribal wildlife management plans, are being used in this current phase to select, evaluate and implement wildlife mitigation opportunities in Oregon. Oregon’s wildlife managers, working within the Wildlife Working Group (WWG), have developed a budget for Bonneville dollars to implement Oregon wildlife mitigation projects through the year 2001. Initially funds were used for coordination and planning; in FY98, FY99 and beyond, the majority of funds will be used for implementation projects. Oregon’s wildlife managers believe that the attached implementation projects are the result of a rigorous planning process. They have been evaluated using tested, regionally accepted scientific methods and criteria. They have been reviewed closely for consistency with the Council program, existing federal, state and tribal wildlife management plans, BPA Wildlife and Watershed Programmatic EIS’s, etc. Their potential to provide the highest priority HU’s in an economical and fiscally responsible manner has been assessed and reviewed. It is important to note that most of the implementation projects proposed build upon existing activities: whether by expansion or enhance of existing wildlife areas, tying into regional programs like Metro Greenspaces, or complementing existing Bonneville funded watershed and wildlife projects. Oregon’s wildlife managers understand that while the proposed implementation projects are some of the best wildlife mitigation opportunities in Oregon, not all of them may be implemented for a variety of reasons. Additionally, new sites may be identified that are equal or better than those proposed and require immediate action to secure. In light of this the managers will continually review and monitor the database of existing sites, but more importantly, will work with Bonneville to develop a funding arrangement that will provide Oregon’s wildlife managers the flexibility to respond appropriately. Initial HEP estimates have or will be taken on all sites identified by the planning process. Once sites are acquired or under management, a full baseline HEP analysis for current and potential HU’s will be taken and agreed to by the project proponents and Bonneville. Throughout the life of this project, HEP analysis will be done regularly to ensure Bonneville and the region that contracted habitat goals are met. Additionally, Oregon’s wildlife managers will work with the WWG to develop monitoring protocols for populations of target and non-target species, as called for by the ISRP.


Reviews and Recommendations

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

This project has not yet been reviewed

Return to top of page