FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29010

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
29010 Sponsor Response to ISRP	Response
29010 Narrative	Narrative
Response in Opposition from Okanogan Wilderness League	Response
29010 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation
Letter from T. Fitzsimmons (WA Dept of Ecology) and J. Koenings (WDFW) to F. Cassidy and T. Karier (NPCC) RE: State of Washington project proposals for the Columbia Cascade and Lower Columbia Provinces	Correspondence

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Restore Passage on Private Lands in Beaver Creek Drainage to Benefit Spring Chinook, Steelhead and Bulltrout
Proposal ID	29010
Organization	Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Mark Cookson
Mailing address	WDFW, PO Box 753 Omak, WA 98841
Phone / email	5098260079 / cooksmac@dfw.wa.gov
Manager authorizing this project	Dennis Beich
Review cycle	Columbia Cascade
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Cascade / Methow
Short description	This project will further long-term, ongoing efforts to fully restore anadromous fish passage on private lands within the Beaver Creek drainage.
Target species	steelhead, spring chinook, and bull trout

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
48.3573	-120.0401	Beaver Creek RM 2.96 to RM 8.99 (Lat/Lon for all is first river mile)
48.3584	-120.0403	Frazer Creek RM.03 to RM 3.97
48.3937	-120.0472	Storer Creek RM.06 to RM .83

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Action 149

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 149	NMFS	BOR shall initiate programs in three priority subbasins (identified in the Basinwide Recovery Strategy) per year over 5 years, in coordination with NMFS, FWS, the states and others, to address all flow, passage, and screening problems in each subbasin over 10 years. The Corps shall implement demonstration projects to improve habitat in subbasins where water-diversion-related problems could cause take of listed species. Under the NWPPC program, BPA addresses passage, screening, and flow problems, where they are not the responsibility of others. BPA expects to expand on these measures in coordination with the NWPPC process to complement BOR actions described in the action above.
BPA	Action 149	NMFS	BOR shall initiate programs in three priority subbasins (identified in the Basinwide Recovery Strategy) per year over 5 years, in coordination with NMFS, FWS, the states and others, to address all flow, passage, and screening problems in each subbasin over 10 years. The Corps shall implement demonstration projects to improve habitat in subbasins where water-diversion-related problems could cause take of listed species. Under the NWPPC program, BPA addresses passage, screening, and flow problems, where they are not the responsibility of others. BPA expects to expand on these measures in coordination with the NWPPC process to complement BOR actions described in the action above.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
1998	Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) Salmonid Screening, Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Division's (SSHEAR) Beaver Creek Fish Passage and Screening Inventory, provides information on all barriers to fish migration.
1998	Methow River Barkley screen replacement
1999	Beaver Creek fish screen replaced RM 6.2
1999	Eightmile Creek screen replacement
2000	IAC Biodiversity Project
2000	Wolf Creek Stream Restoration and Conservation Project
2000	Replace screens on Skyline Ditch on the Chewuch River
2001	McKinney Mtn. Methow River rescreening
2001	Early Winters Creek point of diversion changes negotiated and completed.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
199802500	Early Winters Creek Habitat Restoration	Restore access to and quality of important stream habitat
23024	Hancock Springs Passage and Habitat Restoration	Restore access to and quality of important stream habitat
26015	Methow Basin Screening. This project provides fish screen facilities upgrades, and new fish screen construction, on Methow River Basin irrigation diversions	Restore access to and quality of important stream habitat
199802900	Goat Creek Instream Habitat Restoration	Restore access to and quality of important stream habitat
200106300	Methow Basin Screening	Restore access to and quality of important stream habitat

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1. Develop restoration plan on Beaver, Shorer, and Frazer creeks	a. Complete engineering and design work for 12 culverts and 9 dams	1	$180,000	Yes
	b. Acquire all necessary permits including NEPA	1	$6,000
	c. WDFW review of engineering and design work	1	$8,500	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1. Restore fish passage on Beaver, Shorer and Frazer creeks	a.Replace or realign 7 culverts on and remove 5 diversion dams on Frazer Creek	2	$0	Yes
	b. Replace or realign 1 culverts on and remove 3 diversion dams on Beaver Creek	2	$0	Yes
	c. Replace or realign 4 culverts on and remove 1 diversion dams on Shorer Creek	2	$0	Yes
	d. Restore native riparian vegtation in areas disturbed by corrective actions	2	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Restore fish passage on Beaver, Shorer and Frazer creeks (task a. Replace or realign 7 culverts and remove 5 diversion dams on Frazer) Creek	2004	2005	$480,000
1. (task b. Replace or realign 1 culvert and remove 3 diversion dams on Beaver Creek)	2004	2005	$160,000
1. (task c. Replace or realign 4 culverts and remove 1 diversion dam on Storer Creek)	2004	2005	$200,000
1. (task d. Restore native riparian vegetation in areas disturbed by corrective actions)	2004	2005	$20,000

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005
$430,000	$430,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1. Maintain fish passage in Beaver, Shorer and Frazer creeks	a. Restore failed revegetation where necessary	2	$0
	b. Correct any problems associated with installation of culverts or rock weirs	2	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Maintain fish passage in Beaver, Shorer and Frazer creeks (a. Restore failed revegetation where necessary)	2004	2005	$5,000
1. (b. Correct any problems associated with installation of culverts or rock weirs)	2004	2005	$5,000

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2004	FY 2005
$5,000	$5,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1. Develop and implement a monitoring plan	a. Assess fish passage annually using fixed point photo analysis	3	$17,675
	b. Conduct snorkeling and/or spawner surveys to confirm fish presence above and below site of barriers	3	$27,599

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Develop and implement a monitoring plan (task a. Assess fish passage bi-annually using fixed point photo analysis)	2004	2005	$14,000
1. (task b. Conduct snorkeling and/or spawner surveys to confirm fish presence above and below site of barriers)	2004	2005	$80,300

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005
$49,300	$45,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2003 cost
Personnel	FTE: .5 review engineering and design work	$25,400
Fringe	@ 30%	$7,620
Supplies	GPS units, snorkling gear, photopoint, software	$7,800
Travel	Travel to and from sites	$3,700
Indirect	@25.2%	$9,254
NEPA		$6,000
Subcontractor	Correct culverts and dams in drainage	$180,000
		$239,774

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 cost	$239,774
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2003 budget request	$239,774
FY 2003 forecast from 2002	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
Okanogan Conservation District	Equipment and labor	$30,000	in-kind
Upper Columbia Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group	Labor	$20,000	in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2002-2)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

A response is needed. This project appears to offer potential benefits to steelhead and spring chinook, if other planned activities in the drainage are completed. Steelhead spawn and rear in the drainage at the present time. The proponents should provide one response that also addresses proposal #29046. In particular, the proponents should explain why this project should be funded before the CRMP proposed in #29046 is completed.

This proposal appears to have higher priority than some of the other similar projects in this Province, e.g., there is a similar proposal for work on Chumstick Creek, a much smaller stream with correspondingly less potential benefit to anadromous fish.

The proponents should provide better estimates of the expected increased production of steelhead and potential production of spring chinook if this and other projects in the Beaver drainage are completed.

A detailed M&E plan is needed in the "Proposal objectives, tasks, and methods" section, particularly for the baseline, pre-project monitoring but also post-project monitoring. The specific sample areas, methods, and sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what type where and when) need to be specified. Baseline data should be given if monitoring is already in place.

Most of the money goes to actual construction work at dams and culverts. There is good in-kind cost sharing, but some of this appears to be from other current proposals. There are appropriate supporting quotes from the FWP, BiOp, and Salmon Recovery Plan, but the proponents should indicate how Beaver Creek stacks up against other watersheds for potential production of anadromous fish. The lack of water in late summer seems to suggest a real problem with restoration and potential to obtain late season flows should be more completely addressed in the response.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

Due to funding for a Coordinated Resource Management Plan from the WA SRFB, the costs for this project can be reduced by 20% across the board and implementation of this project can be deferred for one year. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-11)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Fundable. The response seemed to adequately show that this project is an initial one to remove instream barriers, while 29046, companion proposal, is for longer-range planning among private landowners. The sponsor's response to most ISRP concerns is adequate; however, the lack of an Implementation Monitoring plan and a Tier I monitoring plan for documentation and evaluation of benefits to anadromous fish is a serious deficiency that needs to be rectified prior to funding. Detailed plans for M&E should be developed and reviewed by the ISRP before funding of the project. The ISRP believes that it is not appropriate to recommend unconditional funding for projects when one of the four primary ISRP evaluation criteria is not met (that we recommend only projects that "have provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results.").

The proponents propose to follow the guidelines of The Draft Strategy Framework of the Washington Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy currently in development by the Washington Governor's Salmon Recovery Team. This strategy has the proper goals with intentions of implementing the probabilistic sampling plan developed by the USEPA in their EMAP program. Unfortunately, details are not available for reviewed by the ISRP and some of the references provide only general guidelines. Proposal #29046 in the same subbasin is also lacking an adequate Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. Perhaps these projects should cooperate in development a Tier I monitoring plan in addition to providing individual plans for implementation monitoring.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Project would reconnect suitable habitats in a significant Methow River tributary, potentially increasing survival.

Comments
Project is aimed at resolving culvert and irrigation diversion problems in Beaver Creek. It appears that the inventory is fairly rigorous. Compliments other projects implemented with SRFB and DOT funds. Suggest that DFW focus on fixing culvert passage problems and leave irrigation diversion problems to the BOR as required under Action item 149. BOR feels it currently lacks authority for construction - should rely on them to at least perform engineering.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
A

Date:
Jul 26, 2002

Comment:

Recommend to implement RPA 149. High priority area for this type of work.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: