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
Assessing Oregon Trust Agreement Planning Project Priorities Using Gap Analysis

BPA project number   9506500

Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding
ODFW

Sponsor type   OR-State/Local Agency

Proposal contact person or principal investigator
 NameGreg Sieglitz
 Mailing addressOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
7118 NE Vandenberg Ave.
Corvallis, OR 97330-9446
 Phone541/757-4186

BPA technical contact   Charlie Craig, EWP 503/230-3430

Biological opinion ID   

NWPPC Program number   

Short description
Evaluate and prioritize the potential mitigation projects identified through the Oregon Trust Agreement Planning Project by 1): determining prioritization criteria; 2) incorporating datasets for the potential mitigation areas as well as other regional and state-wide information into GIS; 3) assessing the proposed mitigation areas in context with a state-wide coarse filter approach.

Project start year   1995    End year   1996

Start of operation and/or maintenance   0

Project development phase   Planning

Section 2. Narrative

Related projects

Project history

Biological results achieved

Annual reports and technical papers
Three progress reports will be completed during the project and on final report will be produced with the findings when the assessment is concluded.

Management implications
The information gained from this project will further refine the list of potential mitigation areas. This refinement is necessary in order to depict the contribution of each proposed mitigation site to target species and habitats to complement biodiversity needs within the ecoregion and state as a whole. The sites will be ranked with respect to above as well as their potential to satisfy the mitigation priorities in terms of habitat unit credits that would be gained through their acquisition, enhancement, etc.. This will provide a springboard for more in-depth work with a sample of the "best" sites to explore different options for securing those areas.

Specific measureable objectives

Testable hypothesis
Some of the mitigation sites are significantly different in their composition and value as wildlife habitat towards meeting wildlife habitat mitigation units. The null hypothesis is that all sites are equal in there contribution towards the habitat deficit.

Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
1) The list of 287 sites represents the best areas in the Willamette and Columbia river basins for mitigation potential.

2) The sites are still in a condition which is conducive to providing wildlife habitat or that this condition is still achievable through enhancement.

3) Various datasets including GIS maps, at the minimum, meet National Map Accuracy Standards.

4) It is necessary to reach some level of wildlife habitat mitigation units.

Methods
Experimental design and analysis involves the use of a GIS and numerous state-wide datasets such as ownership, roads, topology, hydrography, geology, soils, boundaries of mitigation sites, and many others. Various combinations of these data and others will be aggregated to explore alternative futures for individual sites with respect to how they complement other land use planning efforts occurring concurrently in the two basins. Multiple iterations of the futures and combinations of futures will be presented at the end of the project. These will include analysis of issues such as proximity, complementarity, and juxtaposition with respect to other wildlife planning areas. The wildlife habitats and respective species used will be those identified in the mitigation priorities and estimated losses due to hydropower construction.

Brief schedule of activities

Biological need
The project is necessary to identify if and how the previously chosen sites could fill the niche of wildlife mitigation credits. In addition, it is important to determine how the mitigation sites complement or duplicate other wildlife planning efforts.

Critical uncertainties

Summary of expected outcome
The expected outcome includes a final report which will document all of the procedures used to arrive at a list of the most "valuable" or "best" mitigation sites which would help to satisfy the need to mitigate for wildlife habitat units lost through the construction of the mainstem hydropower projects. A myriad of alternative futures will be presented. These will address issues regarding juxtaposition, complementarity, and pro@ty to other small scale (large area) planning efforts occurring throughout Oregon. The groundwork will be laid to move towards on-theground exploration of acquisition, enhancement, and management alternatives for a select group of the original 287 parcels.

Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation
Opportunities for cooperation include subcontracts with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Oregon Natural Heritage Program. Others would be imperative in future phases of the project that involve on-the-ground scoping of securing individual sites.

Risks

Monitoring activity
A number of measurable objectives are identified in the current contract. These will be reviewed periodically to ensure that the project achieves the expected outcomes.

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
1995: 69,484
New project - no FY96 data available 1997:

* 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   Wildlife

Recommendation    Tier 2 - fund when funds available

Recommended funding level