FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29032
Contents
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 |
|---|---|
| 29032 Narrative | Narrative |
| 29032 Sponsor Response to ISRP | Response |
| Lisa Dally Wilson Resume | Narrative Attachment |
| Chris Pitre Resume | Narrative Attachment |
| Paul Wagner Resume | Narrative Attachment |
| Keith Wolf Resume | Narrative Attachment |
| 29032 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Okanogan Basin Water Strategy Development and Pilot Projects |
| Proposal ID | 29032 |
| Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation/Okanogan County (CCT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Joe Peone |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 150 Nespelam, WA |
| Phone / email | 5096342110 / joe.peone@colvilletribes.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Joe Peone |
| Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Okanogan |
| Short description | At the local level, identify, formulate, and implement reasonable and feasible water strategies to increase instream flow within three selected pilot project tributaries of the Okanogan basin |
| Target species | Priority will be placed on restoring streamflows for spring and summer chinook salmon, Upper Columbia ESU summer steelhead, sockeye |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 49.0033 | -119.6772 | Northernmost Okanogan Basin (at US/Canadian Border) |
| 48.0808 | -119.704 | Southernmost Okanogan Basin |
| 48.54 | -119.49 | Okanogan River |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Action 151 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 151 | NMFS | BPA shall, in coordination with NMFS, experiment with innovative ways to increase tributary flows by, for example, establishing a water brokerage. BPA will begin these experiments as soon as possible and submit a report evaluating their efficacy at the end of 5 years. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| New project |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | CURE: Conjunctive Use and River Enhancement Demonstrate the benefits between and/or impacts from direct augmentation of upper Methow River streamflow using groundwater from the prolific Upper Methow Valley Aquifer. | CURE is one type of water strategy for the Okanogan |
| 198347700 | Enloe Dam passage | provides information on flow and aquatic habitat that could be incorporated into data needs of the Water Strategy |
| 20000010 | Improvement of habitat and fish passage Omak Creek | |
| 0 | EDT Application for the Upper Columbia | Habitat assessed through EDT analysis in the Okanogan basin will complement the informational needs of the water strategy |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Administer and direct contract | a) 1.0 FTE w/overhead and fringe;b) Contract administration 0.1 FTE | Ongoing | $61,420 | |
| Miscellaneous: suppies, travel,etc | Ongoing | $12,500 | ||
| Objective 2: Program coordinator directs collection, summary and development of a database of water rights and water use data for the Okanogan tributaries. | a. Compile and review water rights data | 1 | $10,000 | Yes |
| b. Compile and review water use data | 1 | $20,000 | Yes | |
| c. Collect water use information from water resource managers and biologists and government agencies working in the basin | 1 | $5,000 | Yes | |
| d. Analyze water rights and use for each tributary . | 1 | $25,000 | Yes | |
| e. Develop a database of the information collected in Tasks 1-4. | 1 | $10,000 | Yes | |
| Objective 3: Program coordinator directs development of pilot project selection criteria and identification of three tributaries for the implementation of water strategies to serve as pilot projects. | a. Develop criteria for pilot project selection | 1 | $5,000 | Yes |
| b. Discuss flo w regimes with water resource managers, biologists, and government agencies working in the basin | 1 | $3,000 | Yes | |
| c. Review biological data, water use and rights information data (collected in Objective 1, sociological data concerning stakeholder information for selection of pilot projects based on criteria developed in Objective 2, Task 1. | 1 | $25,000 | Yes | |
| d. Hold a workshop for water users in top ranking tributaries based on criteria in tasks 1 –3 to provide information on data collected in Objective 1 and to assess interest in participation | 1 | $10,000 | Yes | |
| e. Select pilot project tributaries | 1 | $5,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1: Adminster contract and direct tasks | 2003 | 2007 | $150,000 |
| Objective 2: Program coordinator directs collection, summary and development of a database of water rights and water use data for the Okanogan tributaries. . | 2003 | 2004 | $70,000 |
| Objective 3: Program coordinator directs development of pilot project selection criteria and identification of three tributaries for the implementation of water strategies to serve as pilot projects. | 2003 | 2004 | $48,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $61,420 | $61,420 | $61,420 | $61,420 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 4. Program coordinator identifies stakeholders and develops a stakeholder forum for each pilot project tributary | a. Identify other stakeholder interests beyond those identified in Objective 3. Task 3. including, recreational, ecological, local, state, federal, tribal agencies, and other interests in the tributary to assess interest in participation. | 1 | $0 | |
| b. Establish a multi-stakeholder group for each pilot tributary with appropriate representation of all interests identified in Task 1 above | 1 | $0 | ||
| c. Facilitate monthly meetings of stakeholder group | Ongoing | $0 | ||
| Objective 5. Stakeholder group reviews water strategies for applicability and feasibility in the pilot tributary. | a. Collect information on and review water strategies in each pilot tributary. Water strategies that will be considered include: water conservation strategies, acquisition (purchase and/or lease) and transfer of water | 2 | $0 | |
| b. Coordinate with Deschutes Resources Conservancy (DRC) on lessons learned from implementation of Deschutes Water Exhange | 1 | $0 | ||
| c.Coordinate with Washington Water Trust on implementing applicable water strategies. | 2 | $0 | ||
| d. Identify which market strategies are reasonable and feasible for each pilot tributary based on stakeholder consensus | 2 | $0 | ||
| e. Identify which water strategies can be implemented immediately and which need framework/foundation development | 2 | $0 | ||
| f. Identify additional funding needs for implementation | 2 | $0 | ||
| g. Identify additional funding/cost share sources for implementation | 2 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 4. Program coordinator identifies stakeholders and develops a stakeholder forum for each pilot project tributary | 2004 | 2007 | $20,000 |
| Objective 5. Stakeholder group reviews water strategies for applicability and feasibility in the pilot tributary. | 2004 | 2006 | $43,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $38,000 | $25,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 6. Stakeholder group will develop and implement an action plan for consensus based water strategies for each of the three tributaries. | a. Develop water conservation strategies (if selected as a reasonable strategy) | Ongoing | $0 | |
| b. Begin Purchase/Lease/Transfer of Water (if selected as a reasonable and feasible strategy) | Ongoing | $0 | ||
| c. Develop Water Leasing Program Framework (if selected as a reasonable and feasible strategy) | Ongoing | $0 | ||
| d. Develop Water Market Framework (if selected as a reasonable and feasible strategy) | Ongoing | $0 | Yes | |
| e. Develop Compensatory Water Mitigation Bank framework (if selected as reasonable and feasible strategy) | Ongoing | $0 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 6. Stakeholder group will develop and implement an action plan for consensus based water strategies for each of the three tributaries. | 2005 | 2007 | $750,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|
| $100,000 | $300,000 | $350,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1.0 +200 hours | $37,000 |
| Fringe | 42.3% | $15,540 |
| Supplies | $5,000 | |
| Travel | $2,500 | |
| Indirect | 24% | $8,880 |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $5,000 | |
| Subcontractor | $118,000 | |
| $191,920 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $191,920 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $191,920 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
NA
Reason for change in scope
NA
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Colville Tribes | office, office supplies | $5,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed to clarify relationship to proposal #29001 and intended follow-up actions.This is a planning project to help correct the main habitat problems of the Okanogan basin: low flows and high temperatures. The project would work at the local level to identify, formulate, and implement reasonable and feasible water strategies to increase instream flow within three selected pilot project tributaries of the Okanogan basin. Water rights and uses would be inventoried in a database (updating existing databases), selection criteria for pilot projects would be developed and three pilot projects on tributaries would be selected where low instream flows make salmonid habitat problematic and where water use is significant and there are willing stakeholder participants. A multi-stakeholder forum would be established for each pilot project to obtain consensus strategies. Water conservation, land acquisition, water right acquisition for instream use, establishment of a formal water market, and a compensatory wetland mitigation bank are some of the strategies to be explored locally. An action plan would be developed for each pilot tributary.
The proposal was well done, and the presentation answered the ISRP team's questions about the subcontractor (Golder) and the source of the required stream flows (limiting factors analysis, a Washington state process). The project seems to meet the ISRP review criteria. The rationale for the work is well laid out on the basis of the BiOp, Subbasin Summary, Council's FWP, the Salmon Recovery Board, and the CCT's Integrated Resource Management Plan. There is a comprehensive listing of related projects and proposals. The objectives are not especially well written, but the intent is clear. Tasks are good. There is a worthy goal and needed planning (and follow-through with actions). Monitoring is not relevant to this proposal (until actions are to be implemented), although pre-implementation, baseline monitoring might be considered where pilot actions are likely.
There are questions about the proposal that require a response. The first is the detailed relationship of this proposal to proposal number 29001, which seems to be proposing much the same work by the CCT. The difference may be the scale (the western CCT reservation in 29001 and selected pilot watersheds in this proposal). Clarification would help. A second point is the intended follow-up. The planning leaves implementation of the pilots' action plans up in the air. Some further development of the ideas to an intended (future?) implementation phase would be helpful for ISRP review.
By way of information, the ISRP team suggests that the proponents look at the proposal #25074, Deschutes Water Exchange - see especially preliminary ISRP review. Do some of the comments and 7 questions apply here? See http://www.cbfwa.org/files/province/plateau/projects/25074.htm#reviews.
Comment:
Project sponsor has indicated that Objective 3c can be reduced by $25,000 for 2003. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.Comment:
Fundable. This is a planning project to help correct the main habitat problems of the Okanogan basin: low flows and high temperatures. The project would work at the local level to identify, formulate, and implement reasonable and feasible water strategies to increase instream flow within three selected pilot project tributaries of the Okanogan basin. Water rights and uses would be inventoried in a database (updating existing databases), selection criteria for pilot projects would be developed and three pilot projects on tributaries would be selected where low instream flows make salmonid habitat problematic and where water use is significant and there are willing stakeholder participants. A multi-stakeholder forum would be established for each pilot project to obtain consensus strategies. Water conservation, land acquisition, water right acquisition for instream use, establishment of a formal water market, and a compensatory wetland mitigation bank are some of the strategies to be explored locally. An action plan would be developed for each pilot tributary.The proposal was well done, and the presentation answered the ISRP team's questions about the subcontractor (Golder) and the source of the required stream flows (limiting factors analysis, a Washington state process). The project seems to meet the ISRP review criteria. The rationale for the work is well laid out on the basis of the BiOp, Subbasin Summary, Council's FWP, the Salmon Recovery Board, and the CCT's Integrated Resource Management Plan. There is a comprehensive listing of related projects and proposals. The objectives are not especially well written, but the intent is clear. Tasks are good. There is a worthy goal and needed planning (and follow-through with actions). Monitoring is not relevant to this proposal (until actions are to be implemented), although pre-implementation, baseline monitoring might be considered where pilot actions are likely.
The response addressed the ISRP's questions about relationships to proposal 29001, implementation, and the general issues related to water brokering from its review of proposal 25074. The ISRP still has uneasiness about the many overlaps with 29001 and the somewhat vague nature of this project, which may be symptomatic of work that is more social action than hard research, analysis, or implementation. The vagueness of the project may be necessary, however, to get meaningful dialogue on water conservation and use. However, the work proposed in 29001 might be lumped as a specific task in the broader planning effort of 29032.
There are clear overlaps with proposal 29001, which the response details. There is a common goal, the projects will use coordinated management, use one database (developed in proposal 29001), share information and use coordinated effectiveness monitoring once implementation is undertaken. Implementation will differ, however. Proposal 29001 is specifically for the western Colville Reservation, whereas 29032 covers all of the Okanogan basin in the U.S., with respective differences in stakeholders. Proposal 29001 focuses on water rights related to the 1872 treaty and is specifically implemented by water acquisition/transfer to a water fund, whereas all strategies are open for 29032. The response offered thoughtful comments on water brokering raised by the ISRP in review of another project.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUIndirect benefit. It could lead to increased survival if project results in the development of strategies to increase stream flows in three Okanogan Basin tributaries.
Comments
Well written proposal. Relationship to # 29001 could be better explained. Tributary flow improvement will be an essential element of steelhead recovery in the Okanogan.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Recommend deferral to Subbasin Planning or submission to Regional Water EntityComment: