# Revised D R A F T 12/06/04 

# 

# UCUT Proposal[^1] for 

# Allocating BPA Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Funding

#  to the Upper Columbia Ecoregion[^2] 

[Introduction]{.underline}

With the adoption of subbasin plans into the Northwest Power &
Conservation Council\'s Fish & Wildlife Program, BPA anticipates an
increased demand for scarce funding. Full implementation of all subbasin
plans across the region could cost more than double BPA\'s current fish
and wildlife budget.

Historically, BPA funding in the Upper Columbia Ecoregion has been
proportionally far lower than in other areas of the Columbia River
basin. Under-funding in the Upper Columbia has persisted despite an
abundance of scientifically-sound project proposals and a compounding
demonstrated need for mitigation in this ecoregion. BPA has acknowledged
the mitigation backlog in the upper Columbia, and requested that UCUT
propose an equitable allocation method that would be mutually beneficial
to both BPA and UCUT interests.

A subcommittee of UCUT members\' fish and wildlife program managers
reviewed several different historical funding allocation methods,
including allocations: (a) prior to the 70-15-15 split[^3]; (b) during
the period the 70-15-15 split was applied; (c) during the first
Provincial Rolling Review process; and, (d) during the 2003 budget
reductions. Currently, funding allocations to each province are based on
an historic arbitrary allocation mechanism, not on clear objective
principles (such as biological basis, ESA or other statutory
obligation).

UCUT proposes an allocation based on a reasonable pace of implementation
of science-based measures in subbasin plans. This proposed allocation is
rooted in BPA\'s FCRPS mitigation obligation and targets specific
performance-based biological outcomes. Acknowledging the direct
correlation between reliable adequate funding and achievement of
biological performance, UCUT proposes a long-term commitment of an
equitable portion of funding.

UCUT\'s proposal builds on lessons learned in previous processes, and is
grounded in the region\'s need for an equitable and justifiable
rationale for future allocations. UCUT requests that its recommended
allocation method be incorporated into a long-term funding agreement for
the Upper Columbia Ecoregion.

[1. Anticipated Performance-Based Biological Outcomes]{.underline}

With this recommended allocation approach, measures submitted to the
NWPCC for adoption as amendments to the NWPCC\'s 2000 Program can be
implemented at a reasonable pace of implementation. *Any reduction in
overall funding will increase the timeframe required to substantially
meet these objectives.* Allocation of BPA\'s FCRPS PM&E funding ***in a
ten-year agreement at this funding level and rate of implementation***
will support UCUT\'s accomplishment of the following biological
outcomes:

a\) *Wildlife Mitigation Outcomes:*

1\) Achieve full mitigation for all construction and inundation habitat
unit (HU) losses identified in the \[xxxx\] loss assessments, i.e.:
28,000 HU\'s for Albeni Falls Dam; 12,000 HU\'s for Chief Joseph Dam;
and, 40,000 HU\'s for Grand Coulee Dam.

a\. Spokane and Upper Columbia Subbasins -

6,260 habitat units

2\) Enhance and maintain xxx acres of habitat protected with BPA
mitigation funding (xxx acres previously protected and xxx additional
acres protected with newly allocated funding).

a\. Spokane and Upper Columbia Subbasins -

3,177 acres of habitat already acquired, as well as approximately 7,500
acres to be acquired with funding provided in the ten-year agreement
(total 10,677 acres).

3\) Protect, enhance and maintain approximately 5-10 miles of riparian
habitat on the Spokane Indian Reservation.

4\) Improve water quality and quantity to McCoy Lake on the Spokane
Indian Reservation by improving riparian and upland conditions.

5\) Monitor and evaluate the wildlife population response to habitat
enhancement activities.

6\) Re-introduce Sharp-tailed grouse population to the Spokane Indian
Reservation, by:

a\. Increasing the northeast range of Sharp-tailed grouse in the
Intermountain Province.

b\. Protecting, enhancing and maintaining grassland/shrub-steppe
habitats.

*[b) Resident Fish Substitution Outcomes:]{.underline}*

1\) Pend Oreille Subbasin -

a\. Assess 250 kilometers of tributaries and 300 surface acres of lakes.

b\. Enhance or restore 30 kilometers of tributaries and 100 surface
acres of lakes to benefit local native and non-native game fish for
subsistence and sport fishing opportunities.

c\. Operate and maintain a low capital largemouth bass hatchery for
subsistence purposes. Produce 900,000 largemouth bass fry and
fingerlings to increase harvestable bass to 12 lbs./acre in the mainstem
of the Pend Oreille River.

d\. Contruct and place artificial cover structures in the mainstem Pend
Oreille River to increase the amount of largemouth bass fry winter
cover.

e\. Complete feasibility study of conservation aquaculture facility for
bull and/or westslope cutthroat trout. Based upon feasibility study,
construct, operate and maintain conservation aquaculture facility.

f\. remove 30,000 non-native brook trout from 50 kilometers of
tributaries for the purpose of enhancing bull trout and westslope
cutthroat trout populations.

g\. Monitor and evaluate 40 kilometers of tributaries that have already
been enhanced or restored.

2\) Spokane Subbasin -

Acquire 500 acres of habitat per year to foster robust native
populations of fish and wildlife to provide subsistence harvest
opportunities **as substitution for anadromous fish resource losses.**

3\) Coeur d\'Alene Subbasin -

a\. Acquire 300 acres of habitat per year to foster robust native
populations of fish and wildlife to provide subsistence harvest
opportunities **as substitution for anadromous fish resource losses.**

b\. Increase natural production of westslope cutthroat trout in Coeur
d'Alene Tribe managed waters as shown in the Table below:

Biological Objectives for Coeur d'Alene Reservation Tributaries in the
Coeur d'Alene Subbasin

+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+
| ####      | *       | **Esc   | **Harvest   | **B       | *       |
| Tributary | *Target | apement | Target^d^** | iological | *Year** |
|           | Lev     | Targ    |             | Objective |         |
|           | el^a^** | et^c^** |             | ^b^**     |         |
+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+
| Alder     | 25      | TBD     | TBD         | 2,628     | 2015    |
| Creek     |         |         |             |           |         |
+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+
|           | 50      | TBD     | TBD         | 5,256     | 2025    |
+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+
|           | 75      | TBD     | TBD         | 7,882     | 2035    |
+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+
|           | 100     | TBD     | TBD         | 10,510    | Beyond  |
+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+
| Benewah   | 25      | TBD     | TBD         | 3,353     | 2015    |
| Creek     |         |         |             |           |         |
+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+
|           | 50      | TBD     | TBD         | 6,704     | 2025    |
+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+
|           | 75      | TBD     | TBD         | 10,053    | 2035    |
+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+
|           | 100     | TBD     | TBD         | 13,405    | Beyond  |
+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+
| Evans     | 25      | TBD     | TBD         | 1,514     | 2015    |
| Creek     |         |         |             |           |         |
+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+
|           | 50      | TBD     | TBD         | 3,028     | 2025    |
+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+
|           | 75      | TBD     | TBD         | 4,540     | 2035    |
+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+
|           | 100     | TBD     | TBD         | 6,054     | Beyond  |
+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+
| Lake      | 25      | TBD     | TBD         | 3,080     | 2015    |
| Creek     |         |         |             |           |         |
+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+
|           | 50      | TBD     | TBD         | 6,160     | 2025    |
+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+
|           | 75      | TBD     | TBD         | 9,240     | 2035    |
+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+
|           | 100     | TBD     | TBD         | 12,320    | Beyond  |
+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+---------+

> ^a^ Target level is defined as the percent of estimated historic
> abundance levels based on the productivity of undisturbed habitats.

^b^ Biological objective is the sum of escapement and harvest targets.
The 100 percent target level is defined as the number of adult fish
needed to fully seed the available spawning habitat, given the following
assumptions:

-   Spawning is primarily restricted to 2^nd^ order tributaries (CDA
    Tribe population data, 1994-2003);

-   Usable spawning habitat comprises 4.1% of the total stream area in
    2^nd^ order tributaries, when averaged across the four target
    watersheds (CDA Tribe habitat assessment data, 1998);

-   Potential spawning gravel was defined as patches of substrate at
    least 0.25 m^2^ in area with particles 2-35 mm in diameter and
    average redd size is 0.15m^2^ (Magee et al. 1996).

-   1:1.6 male to female spawner ratio (IDFG 1998);

-   3 redds for every 2 spawning females (Scott and Crossman 1973);

^c^ Escapement targets will be calculated as the minimum number of
spawning adults needed to ensure a probability of persistence greater
than 99% over 100 years (Dennis et al 1991).

^d^ Harvest targets will be established as part of the ongoing process
to refine program measures.

4\) Upper Columbia Subbasin -

\...

\...

*c) Anadromous Fish Outcomes:*

1\) Kootenai Subbasin -

a\. White sturgeon ESA \....

b\. \...

2\) Okanogan Subbasin -

a\.

[2. The 70/15/15 Expense Budget Split:]{.underline}

The NWPCC-recommended 70-15-15 [expense]{.underline} funding split
should be retained as a regional benchmark for funding equitability.
Seventy percent of the total budget to anadromous fish and 15% each to
resident fish and wildlife is a reasonable approach to allocating
funding based on basin-wide needs and specific needs identified for the
Upper Columbia. The 70-15-15 approach has been endorsed by the region\'s
fish and wildlife managers and is currently in the NWPCC\'s 2000
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.

[3. Capital Project Funding:]{.underline}

[Capital]{.underline} funding should be made available for projects that
meet capital funding criteria on a needs basis. If total capital
investment capacity is inadequate to meet all regional need, allocation
criteria should be used to prioritize capital investments.

[4. Provincial/Subbasin Allocation *Criteria*:]{.underline}

Although the 70-15-15 allocation represents a region-wide overlay, the
NWPCC\'s 2000 Program is based on management plans for 11 geographic
provinces and 62 subbasins. Mitigation over these geographic units
should be prioritized using the following criteria:

> a\. Best science - have projects continually received appropriate
> scientific review and approval?

b\. Historical success - have past project goals been met? with economic
efficiency?

c\. Long-term benefits - do projects provide long-term benefits to fish
and wildlife?

d\. Mitigation obligation-- do projects move toward fulfilling BPA\'s
mitigation obligation?

e\. Equitable apportionment of mitigation efforts - do projects focus
effort in historically under-mitigated areas?

> f\. Proportionality - has BPA provided mitigation benefits to fish and
> wildlife in proportion to the relative impacts and benefits (power,
> irrigation, flood control) derived from operation of each facility in
> the hydropower system?

g\. Mitigation for lost anadromous fisheries - do projects mitigate for
anadromous fish lost to blockage by federal hydropower facilities?

[5. Provincial/Subbasin Allocation *Method*:]{.underline}

a.  Regional 70-15-15 Split -- This standard needs to be maintained.

b.  Provincial/subbasin base level & adjustments -- Each
    province/subbasin will receive an equal amount of base funding. The
    base level will be adjusted on an assessment of need identified by
    subbasin plans/BPA obligation.

> c\. Adjustments to equal base levels will be based on
> clearly-articulated criteria, including criteria described above in
> Section 2 of this proposal.
>
> d\. A provincial review committee will prioritize projects and make
> recommendations for funding, considering the budget allocation,
> consistency with subbasin plans, and the recommendations of the ISRP.
> As an example, UCUT would serve as the review committee for the
> allocation to the Upper Columbia Ecoregion.
>
> e\. No single provincial allocation mechanism can be based purely on
> objective principles. Some subjective reasoning will be used to
> complete the final apportionment. For UCUT, BPA will factor into this
> reasoning it\'s government-to-government relationship and trust
> responsibilities to Tribes.

**[6. EXAMPLE: Allocation Method Applied to UCUT Funding]{.underline}**

**[for Upper Columbia Ecoregion:]{.underline}**

NOTE: These calculations are based on BPA\'s current FY2005 budget cap
and would be adjusted with changes to BPA\'s total fish and wildlife
funding.

***INTERMOUNTAIN PROVINCE***

+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+
| Base **expense**       |   | 6/62^nd^[^4] of \$127[^5]m  |   | \$12     |
| funding                |   |                             |   | ,290,000 |
+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+
| Adjustments to base:   |   |                             |   |          |
+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+
| 40% impact to          |   | 6/62^nd^ of 15% RF and 15%  |   | \$       |
|                        |   | W @ \$1.8445 m ea.          |   | 3        |
| wildlife and salmon    |   |                             |   | ,687,000 |
+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+
| JCCA                   |   | 10% (6/62^nd^) of 70% of    |   | \$       |
| hydro-allocation[^6]   |   | 15% RF and 15% W (\$38.1 m) |   | 2        |
|                        |   |                             |   | ,667,000 |
| above 70%              |   |                             |   |          |
+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+
| Subtotal Expense       |   |                             |   | \$18     |
| Allocation             |   |                             |   | ,644,000 |
+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+
| **Capital**            |   |                             |   |          |
| Adjustments            |   |                             |   |          |
+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+
| \>35% regional         |   | add 25% of capital (avg.    |   | \$       |
| benefits               |   | annual)                     |   | 9        |
|                        |   |                             |   | ,000,000 |
| (flows & power)        |   |                             |   |          |
+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+
| **Total** Capital and  |   |                             |   | \$27     |
| Expense Funding        |   |                             |   | ,644,000 |
| Allocation             |   |                             |   |          |
+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+
|                        |   |                             |   |          |
+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+
| ***Compare to Maximum  |   |                             |   | **       |
| Historic Expense       |   |                             |   | *\$11,00 |
| Allocation***          |   |                             |   | 0,000*** |
+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+

***KOOTENAI SUBBASIN***

+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+
| Base **expense**       |   | 1/62^nd^ of \$127m          |   | \$       |
| funding                |   |                             |   | 2        |
|                        |   |                             |   | ,048,000 |
+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+
| Adjustments to base:   |   |                             |   |          |
+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+
| ESA Compliance         |   | 1/24^th^ of non-salmon ESA  |   | \$       |
|                        |   | subbasins of 30% (\$38.1 m) |   | 1        |
|                        |   |                             |   | ,587,500 |
+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+
| JCCA hydro-allocation  |   | 5% (1/24^th^) of 70% of 15% |   | \$       |
|                        |   | RF and 15% W (\$38.1 m)     |   | 1        |
| above 70%              |   |                             |   | ,333,500 |
+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+
| Subtotal Expense       |   |                             |   | \$       |
| Allocation             |   |                             |   | 4        |
|                        |   |                             |   | ,969,000 |
+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+
| **Capital**            |   |                             |   |          |
| Adjustments            |   |                             |   |          |
+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+
| downstream benefits    |   | Average annual capital      |   | \$       |
|                        |   |                             |   | 2        |
| (flows & power)        |   |                             |   | ,000,000 |
+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+
| Total Capital and      |   |                             |   | \$       |
| Expense Funding        |   |                             |   | 6        |
| Allocation             |   |                             |   | ,969,000 |
+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+
|                        |   |                             |   |          |
+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+
| ***Compare to Maximum  |   |                             |   | ***\$    |
| Historic Expense       |   |                             |   | 3,00     |
| Allocation***          |   |                             |   | 0,000*** |
+------------------------+---+-----------------------------+---+----------+

***OKANOGAN SUBBASIN***

  ------------------------- -- ------------------------------ -- --------------
  Base **expense** funding     1/62^nd^ of \$127 m               \$ 2,048,000

  Adjustments to base:                                           

  ESA Compliance               1/38^th^ of salmon ESA            \$ 3,510,000
                               subbasins of 70% (\$88.9 m) x     
                               1.5 for endangered stocks in      
                               SB                                

  Subtotal Expense                                               \$ 5,558,000
  Allocation                                                     

  Capital Adjustments                                            

  Hatchery and ESA needs       Average annual capital            \$ 2,500,000

  Total Capital & Expense                                        \$ 8,058,000
  Funding Allocation                                             

                                                                 

  ***Compare to Maximum                                          ***\$
  Historic Expense                                               1,600,000***
  Allocation***                                                  
  ------------------------- -- ------------------------------ -- --------------

**Summary of UCUT Allocation for**

**Intermountain Province, Kootenai, and Okanogan:**

Expense \$29,171,000

Capital [\$13,500,000]{.underline}

Total Allocation \$43,958,500

This equates to:

22.9% of total expense funding, or

61.9% of 15% + 15% and 6.3% of 70%,

and 37.5% of capital funding,

assuming BPA\'s current budget

[7. Justification for Allocation Method:]{.underline}

The Upper Columbia Ecoregion (IMP + Kootenai SB + Okanogan SB) has
experienced some of the basin\'s most profound losses due to the
construction and operation of the federal Columbia River hydropower
system.

*a. Percent of total impact -*

According to loss assessments currently adopted into the NWPCC's Fish
and Wildlife Program, anadromous fish losses in this ecoregion rank
number one in the Basin at 37%, as do wildlife losses at 37%.

*b. Percentage of benefit derived from federal hydropower facilities -*

Compounding this imbalance is the fact that nearly 50% of the hydropower
generation and the majority of downstream flow and irrigation benefits
come from the Upper Columbia, an area with hydropower allocation
percentages (JCCA) ranking number one in the Columbia River Basin.
(Hydropower allocations: Grand Coulee 77%; Chief Joseph 100%; Albeni
Falls 97%. See attached table of hydropower allocations for comparison
of all Columbia River federal hydropower facilities.)

*c. Percent of historic and current mitigation spending -*

Since the inception of the NWPA in 1980, funding to the region for
mitigation has ranked near the bottom at less than 7.7% annual average
of BPA\'s F&W expense funding since 1980.

*d. Remaining unmitigated wildlife habitat units -*

Most lower Columbia River hydropower projects are at or over HU
mitigation, while others remain under-mitigated. Three under-mitigated
facilities in the system (Grand Coulee, Chief Joseph, and Albeni Falls)
directly affect the Upper Columbia Ecoregion.

*e. Unmet need based on historical and current funding -*

Funding for UCUT members\' projects in the Upper Columbia Ecoregion has
averaged less than \$15 million from 2001-2003. Funding need identified
through subbasin planning averages approximately \$53 million annually
for five years.

[8. The UCUT Allocation Request]{.underline}

The UCUT member Tribes are requesting that Bonneville Power
Administration, our trustee, fund reasonable and equitable mitigation
within the upper Columbia region by providing \$29.2 million annually in
expense funding and \$13.5 million annually in capital funding to the
UCUT tribes over a ten year period, from 2006 to 2016. These funds will
be used for the express purpose of funding BPA\'s hydropower mitigation
responsibilities within the upper Columbia ecoregion, consistent with
the recently completed subbasin plans, the 1980 NWPA, and BPA's
hydropower mitigation obligations to these tribes.

The requested level of funding is less than 23% of BPA\'s entire current
Fish and Wildlife expense budget and about 37.5% of the capital
budget[^7]. This level of funding is both reasonable and defensible.
These funds will be spent consistent with NPCC-adopted subbasin plans
and all associated levels of accountability, including ISRP reviews.
This will assure that each project is providing biological benefits and
accomplishments toward meeting BPA's mitigation obligations.

UCUT encourages BPA to pursue the continued development of ranking
criteria, to be applied as an equitable funding mechanism for the
remaining subbasins and provinces within the Columbia River Basin.

[9. Other Issues:]{.underline}

This allocation method would fund needs in the Upper Columbia Ecoregion
at levels less than supported by subbasin plans. It does not incorporate
all of the other fish and wildlife managers\' needs based on subbasin
plans.

Program support and coordination funding are not addressed under this
province/subbasin allocation process.

This method for allocation beginning in FY2006 does not resolve issues
arising during the current funding cycle. Among unresolved issues: How
will unspent funds from previous years -- the difference between what
was "booked" and what was "paid" to contractors -- be made available for
FY05 and \'06 budgets? (For example, although \$28 million was booked as
accruals at the end of FY 03, only \$22 million was paid for via
invoices received[^8]. This left \$6 million unaccounted for, which
should be and available for Fish and Wildlife Mitigation funding in
subsequent years.)

[^1]: This proposal is for UCUT and its project-planning partners, and
    does not incorporate all parties to subbasin planning.

[^2]: Upper Columbia Ecoregion includes the InterMountain Province and
    the Kootenai and Okanogan subbasins.

[^3]: 70% of F&W budget to anadromous fish projects, 15% to resident
    fish, 15% to wildlife.

[^4]: 6 of the 62 subbasins are in the InterMountain Province.

[^5]: BPA\'s current expense budget cap of \$139m less BPA overhead =
    \$127m expense funding available to projects.

[^6]: JCCA allocation of hydropower\'s share of a facility is used as an
    indicator of proportionality.

[^7]: At BPA\'s 2003-2006 budget levels of average \$127 million expense
    (\$139 million less \$12 million BPA overhead), and \$36 million
    capital.

[^8]: BPA F&W Program FY 2003 Accruals, and Invoices for FY 2003
    Received in FY 2004 -- released by BPA on 3/22/04