BPA Fish and Wildlife FY 1997 Proposal

Section 1. Administrative
Section 2. Narrative
Section 3. Budget

see CBFWA and BPA funding recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Title of project
Repair of Dam and Construction of Fish Passage Facilities on Bates Pond

BPA project number   5519900

Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding
Joann Vidondo

Sponsor type   OR-Consultant

Proposal contact person or principal investigator
 NameJoann Vidondo, Landowner
 Mailing addressRoute 2, Box 720
Prairie City, OR 97869
 Phone541/820-3393

BPA technical contact   ,

Biological opinion ID   

NWPPC Program number   

Short description
The dam is in need of repairs to bring it up to current dam safety standards which are required before the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) will issue permits to allow storage of water. The BPA grant funds would be used for dam repairs. Fish passage facilities also have to be constructed before permits to store water can be allowed. Grant (s) through the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) will be applied for to fund the fish passage facilities.

Project start year   1996    End year   1997

Start of operation and/or maintenance   0

Project development phase   Planning & Implementation

Section 2. Narrative

Related projects
None

Project history

Biological results achieved

Annual reports and technical papers

Management implications

Specific measureable objectives
An estimated ten miles of anadromous fish habitat would be opened up on a tributary of the Middle Fork John Day River.

Testable hypothesis
ODFW personnel believe that native wild steelhead and possibly native wild chinook will use the newly opened habitat for spawning and rearing purposes.

Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
As stated elsewhere in this application, the repair of the dam and the construction of fish passage facilities are both required, if the dam is to remain, and both are contingent upon successful grant applications to BPA and ODFW.

Methods
1) I do not have an experimental design. Dam safety repairs would have to be designed by a registered professional engineer licensed in the State of Oregon. The repair designs would then have to be approved by the OWRD. Fish passage designs would have to be designed and constructed under the approval of the registered professional engineer, the OWRD and the ODFW.

2) Statistical analysis: An estimated ten miles of anadromous fish habitat will be opened up on Bridge Creek.

3) Type and number of fish to be used: ODFW personnel believe wild native steelhead will, and wild native chinook may, use the newly opened habitat for spawning and rearing purposes.

Brief schedule of activities
Major tasks for 1997 would be to accomplish dam repairs and construct fish passage facilities. Significant changes in project activities for 1998-2001 are not anticipated with the possible exception of land sales or trades.

Biological need
To open up an estimated ten miles of anadromous fish habitat on Bridge Creek. Habitat that ODFW personnel believe will be used by wild native steelhead and may be used by wild native chinook for spawning and rearing purposes.

Critical uncertainties
Whether BPA and ODFW grant applications can be applied for and approved in conjunction with each other to allow both dam repairs and fish passage facilities to be designed and built. If grant applications are not successful through the BPS and ODFW, I do not have the resources to accomplish the dam repairs and construct fish passage facilities. If these two issues are not resolved, the OWRD will not issue the permits I have already applied for. This could force removal of the dam to prevent storage of water and blockage of fish passage. It is anticipated that the costs of dam removal would be substantial, extremely difficult and beyond my resources to accomplish.

Summary of expected outcome
If dam safety repairs are completed and fish passage is provided, an estimated ten miles of anadromous fish habitat would be opened up on a tributary of the Middle Fork John Day River. After this is accomplished there are other options that may be pursued. Among the present possibilities are:

* To keep the pond and surrounding land under my ownership.
* A sale of Bates Pond and surrounding lands to other private ownership (s).
* A trade of Bates Pond and surrounding lands to the USFS or another agency in exchange for other lands.
* A trade or sale of Bates Pond and surrounding lands to The Nature Conservancy.

Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation
It is not anticipated that a NEPA analysis would be required unless it would be part of the decision making process for the Division of State Lands.

Other agencies that could be or would be involved:

* Approval of the Oregon Division of State Lands would be required.
* Approval of the US Army Corp of Engineers may be required.
* Approval of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality would be required.
* Approval of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife would be required.
* Approval of the Oregon Water Resources Department would be required.
* Grant County Court - approval of any land trades would be required.
* Grant County Planning Commission - zoning amendments may be required if land trades occur.

Risks
This grant would be utilized in conjunction with a grant (s) applied for through the ODFW. The BPA grant would provide funding for dam repairs. The ODFW grant (s) would provide funding for fish passage facilities. A risk is that grants may be approved to fund only passage or dam repair. Both fish passage and dam repair are required to complete the project.
In short, one grant would be dependent upon approval of the other grant (s).

If grant applications are not successful through the BPS and ODFW, I do not have the resources to accomplish the dam repairs and construct fish passage facilities. If these two issues are not resolved, the OWRD will not issue the permits I have already applied for. This could force removal of the dam to prevent storage of water and blockage of fish passage. It is anticipated that the costs of dam removal would be substantial, extremely difficult and beyond my resources to accomplish.

Monitoring activity
None anticipated. If monitoring occurs, it will likely be performed by OFDW personnel.

Section 3. Budget

Data shown are the total of expense and capital obligations by fiscal year. Obligations for any given year may not equal actual expenditures or accruals within the year, due to carryover, pre-funding, capitalization and difference between operating year and BPA fiscal year.

Historic costsFY 1996 budget data*Current and future funding needs
(none) New project - no FY96 data available 1997: 100,000

* For most projects, Authorized is the amount recommended by CBFWA and the Council. Planned is amount currently allocated. Contracted is the amount obligated to date of printout.

Funding recommendations

CBFWA funding review group   Bonneville Dam - Priest Rapids Dam

Recommendation    Tier 2 - fund when funds available

Recommended funding level   $100,000