FY07-09 proposal 200600100
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Mcintyre Dam Feasibility Study |
| Proposal ID | 200600100 |
| Organization | Colville Confederated Tribes |
| Short description | Providing fish passage at McIntyre Dam will allow anadromous salmon access historic habitats and improve the conditions experienced by fish moving downstream through the dam. The irrigation flume will also be screened to prevent fish entrainment. |
| Information transfer | This inormation will be presented via pubic open houses and regional working groups as well as doumented in written reports. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Kari Long | Okanagan Nation Alliance | w8d5j@unb.ca |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Chris Fisher | Colville Tribes | chris.fisher@colvilletribes.com |
| Chris Fisher | Colville Tribes | chris.fisher@colvilletribes.com |
| Kari Long | Okanagan Nation Alliance | w8d5j@unb.ca |
| Joe Peone | Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation | joe.peone@colvilletribes.com |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Cascade / Okanogan
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 49 15 24 | 119 31 42 | Okanagan River | McIntyre Dam |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Chinook Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESUprimary: Sockeye Okanogan River ESU
primary: Steelhead Upper Columbia River ESU
secondary: Rainbow Trout
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|---|
| 2005 | Work began in BPA's fiscal year 2006: From November 2005 to present, the feasibility study has been completed (find attached). In 2006 we will also be completeing the engineered designs (To be completed by August 2006. |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 200302200 | Monitor/Eval Okanogan Basin Pr | M&E sites found upstream and downstream of the project area. |
| BPA | [no entry] | Skaha Lake sockeye reintroduction feasibility study | BPA#200001300. Future directive to have unimpeded fish passage for sockeye to migrate into Skaha Lake. |
| Other: DFO | [no entry] | Chinook population and habitat assessment | chinook assessment will need to be extended to include above McIntyre Dam |
| Other: DCPUD | FWMT | Fish-water management tools | the reguation of the dam is apart of the FWMT program |
| Other: COBTWG | [no entry] | Fisheries Ecosystem Planning | This project falls in line with prioritized ecosystem planning outlined |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remove barriers | return anadromous salmon to thier historic rangeby providing passage | Okanogan | AU017: Construct passage at McIntyre Dam |
| Screen irrigation intake | screen the dams irrigation flume to prevent entrainment | Okanogan | AU017: Screen the irrigation canal at McIntyre Dam |
| Survey salmon spawning and rearing areas | survey the spawning and rearing areas of anadromous salmon for limiting factors | Okanogan | AU17: survey the reach upstream of McIntyre Dam and compare with steelhead and chinook spawning and rearing requirements |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manage and Administer Projects | Administration | Administration and management of the contract | 10/1/2007 | 10/1/2009 | $186,000 |
|
Biological objectives Remove barriers |
Metrics |
||||
| Coordination | Stakeholder meetings, Environmental Impact Assessment and permitting | Coordiate meetings, prepare and EIA and obtain required permits | 10/1/2006 | 10/1/2007 | $65,600 |
|
Biological objectives Remove barriers |
Metrics |
||||
| Submit/Acquire Data | Habitat assessment | using data on fish distrubution and field measurements of spawning and rearing areas prepare a limiting factors report | 10/1/2008 | 10/1/2009 | $13,760 |
|
Biological objectives Survey salmon spawning and rearing areas |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Final evaluation and summary report | prepare a final evaluation and summary report as well as refining a water use plan for McIntyre Dam | 10/1/2008 | 10/1/2009 | $10,000 |
|
Biological objectives Remove barriers |
Metrics |
||||
| Install Fish Screen | install fish screen on the irrigation flume | install fish screen on the irrigation flume | 10/1/2006 | 10/1/2007 | $782,609 |
|
Biological objectives Screen irrigation intake |
Metrics |
||||
| Submit/Acquire Data | M & E: baseline data for fish moving downstream through the dam | M&E: collect baseline data for sockeye smolts moving downstream through the dam | 1/1/2007 | 10/1/2007 | $42,100 |
|
Biological objectives Remove barriers |
Metrics |
||||
| Remove/Modify Dam | Modify the dam | Refit the dam with 3 of the 5 overflow gates and build the backwater riffle | 10/1/2006 | 10/1/2007 | $517,391 |
|
Biological objectives Remove barriers |
Metrics * # of miles of habitat accessed: 13 |
||||
| Submit/Acquire Data | M& E fish movement upstream through the dam | monitor the movement and distribution of anadromous salmon migrating upstream of the dam | 7/1/2007 | 12/30/2007 | $16,850 |
|
Biological objectives Remove barriers |
Metrics |
||||
| Submit/Acquire Data | M&E fish movement downstream through the dam | monitor the spring movement of sockeye smolts and fry through the dams gates. | 10/1/2007 | 10/1/2008 | $42,100 |
|
Biological objectives Remove barriers |
Metrics |
||||
| Remove/Modify Dam | final dam modifications | basedon the ability of the fish to migrate upstream the final 2 overflow gates are installed or 1 gate and 1 fish ladder. | 10/1/2007 | 10/1/2008 | $330,435 |
|
Biological objectives Remove barriers |
Metrics |
||||
| Submit/Acquire Data | M&E: fish movement upstream through the dam | modnitor the upstream migration of anadromous salmon and thier distribution upstream of MacIntyre Dam | 10/1/2007 | 10/1/2008 | $16,850 |
|
Biological objectives Remove barriers |
Metrics |
||||
| Submit/Acquire Data | M&E: fish movement downstream through the dam | monitor the movement and condition of sockeye smolts and fry moving downstream through the dam in the spring. | 10/1/2008 | 10/1/2009 | $42,100 |
|
Biological objectives Remove barriers |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | ONAFD staff | $47,800 | $38,000 | $41,200 |
| Supplies | [blank] | $16,650 | $16,650 | $15,860 |
| Travel | [blank] | $4,100 | $3,300 | $2,800 |
| Other | sub-contracts | $1,356,000 | $331,435 | $6,000 |
| Overhead | CCT and ONA admin | $140,500 | $39,000 | $6,500 |
| Totals | $1,565,050 | $428,385 | $72,360 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $2,065,795 |
| Total work element budget: | $2,065,795 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Town of Oliver | Intake Screen constuction | $200,000 | $0 | $0 | Cash | Under Development |
| Totals | $200,000 | $0 | $0 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $65,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $65,000 |
Comments: Town of Oliver and Ministry of Environment, Water Branch |
Future O&M costs: Operation and maintenance costs are assumed by the agency responsible (i.e. the Town of Oliver will assume annual costs ($10,000) for maintaining the irrigation screen and the Ministry of Environment, Water Branch will assume annual costs ($5,000) of maintaining and operating the overshot gates). The ONA will sucure funding for two follow-up years of M&E ($50,000)
Termination date: 09/30/2009
Comments:
Final deliverables: Summary reports on the dam and screens final outcomes.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Fund Pending Available Funds |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: Summary: This is an important project that should be funded. It was a pleasure to review this well-prepared, straightforward proposal. It should be given highest possible priority for funding as the project will likely have highly significant benefits to fish and wildlife that will persist. The M and E plan should be strengthened by better describing the study design to be used for the proposed assessment of the effectiveness of passage improvements. Generally monitoring in the basin should be covered by the Colville's project 200302200. Technical and scientific background: This is a concise, well-written technical and scientific background. More background information on the fish and wildlife that might benefit from salmon passage in this area would be useful. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: This project is a high priority in the Okanogan Subbasin Plan - described “as the largest natural increase to salmon and steelhead production for a low-cost improvement within the entire Okanogan River sub-basin.” Relationships to other projects: There are a number of ongoing related projects funded by BPA, Douglas County PUD, Grant County PUD, and others. Project history: The project began in 2005. This section could have been expanded with more details. Objectives: Objectives are clearly stated (facilitate upstream and downstream fish migration, screening of irrigation canal) Tasks (work elements) and methods: These are brief, and could have included more detail. We particularly appreciated the discussion of the question whether provision for adult passage will be necessary. The decision depends upon observations of their behavior at the new overflow spill gates to be installed. Monitoring and evaluation: There is a provision for pre-project monitoring, and there will be post-project monitoring - but detailed methods are not provided. We are concerned there might not be a scientifically sound study design sufficient to measure "before and after" effects. Facilities, Equipment, and Personnel: An impressive number of agencies and entities are involved in this project, each of which has its particular expertise and equipment. The project might benefit from advice from a senior-level biostatistician to oversee the M&E experimental design/statistical analysis procedures. Information Transfer: The plans seem appropriate for this type of project. The matter of long-term storage of data is not discussed and should be. Data obtained in the monitoring effort could be useful in the future for other purposes.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: Summary: This is an important project that should be funded. It was a pleasure to review this well-prepared, straightforward proposal. It should be given highest possible priority for funding as the project will likely have highly significant benefits to fish and wildlife that will persist. The M and E plan should be strengthened by better describing the study design to be used for the proposed assessment of the effectiveness of passage improvements. Generally monitoring in the basin should be covered by the Colville's project 200302200. Technical and scientific background: This is a concise, well-written technical and scientific background. More background information on the fish and wildlife that might benefit from salmon passage in this area would be useful. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: This project is a high priority in the Okanogan Subbasin Plan - described “as the largest natural increase to salmon and steelhead production for a low-cost improvement within the entire Okanogan River sub-basin.” Relationships to other projects: There are a number of ongoing related projects funded by BPA, Douglas County PUD, Grant County PUD, and others. Project history: The project began in 2005. This section could have been expanded with more details. Objectives: Objectives are clearly stated (facilitate upstream and downstream fish migration, screening of irrigation canal) Tasks (work elements) and methods: These are brief, and could have included more detail. We particularly appreciated the discussion of the question whether provision for adult passage will be necessary. The decision depends upon observations of their behavior at the new overflow spill gates to be installed. Monitoring and evaluation: There is a provision for pre-project monitoring, and there will be post-project monitoring - but detailed methods are not provided. We are concerned there might not be a scientifically sound study design sufficient to measure "before and after" effects. Facilities, Equipment, and Personnel: An impressive number of agencies and entities are involved in this project, each of which has its particular expertise and equipment. The project might benefit from advice from a senior-level biostatistician to oversee the M&E experimental design/statistical analysis procedures. Information Transfer: The plans seem appropriate for this type of project. The matter of long-term storage of data is not discussed and should be. Data obtained in the monitoring effort could be useful in the future for other purposes.