Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Develop a Coordinated Resource Management Plan for Beaver Creek and plan and implement habitat restoration activities. |
| Proposal ID | 29046 |
| Organization | Okanogan Conservation District, Colville Confederated Tribes (co-sponsor) (Okanogan CD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Craig Nelson |
| Mailing address | 1251 S.2nd Ave, Room 101 Okanogan, WA 98841 |
| Phone / email | 5094220855 / ocd@wa.nacdnet.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | Craig Nelson |
| Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Methow |
| Short description | Develop a Coordinated Resource Management Plan for the Beaver Creek drainage; restore habitat complexity; protect and restore riparian habitat; and research alternatives for ensuring perrenial flow in lower Beaver Creek. |
| Target species | Summer steelhead trout, Chinook salmon, Bull trout, Westslope cutthroat trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 48.3252 |
-120.059 |
Beaver Creek and Methow River confluence: T33N, R22E, sec. 27; 5 miles south of the town of Twisp, WA. RM 0 - 1.25 |
| 48.4733 |
-119.9331 |
Frazer Creek fencing opportunity |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Action 153 |
| Action 154 |
| Action 149 |
| Action 150 |
| Action 151 |
| Action 152 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
| NMFS |
Action 153 |
NMFS |
BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 2001 |
OCD and NRCS begin Beaver CRM process in February, 2001 |
| 2001 |
BOR agrees to fund and implement survey and design needs for instream flow and barrier issues. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 9604200 |
Restore and enhance anadromous fish populations & habitat in Salmon Creek |
Support. The Salmon Creek project is addressing similar habitat and water use conditions and as exist in Beaver Creek |
| 9704900 |
Teanaway instream flow restoration |
Support. The Teanaway Creek project addresses similar habitat and water use conditions as exist in Beaver Creek. |
| 25021 |
Teanaway: Implement actions to reduce water temps and meet water quality standards |
Support. The Teanaway Creek project addresses similar habitat and water use conditions as exist in Beaver Creek. |
| 198710001 |
Enhance Umatilla River Basin Anadromous Fish Habitat |
Support. The Umatilla project addresses similar habitat and water use conditions as exist in Beaver Creek. |
|
Barrier Removal (WDFW proposal to BPA) |
Complement. Barrier removal on Beaver Creek will further the goal of improving fish habitat conditions in Beaver Creek. |
|
State Campground fencing (OCD proposal to BPA) |
Complement. Riparian protection at the state campground on Beaver Creek will further the goal of improving fish habitat conditions in Beaver Creek. |
|
Provide Analytical Foundation for Columbia Cascade Subbasin Plans - EDT analysis(WDFW proposal to BPA) |
Complement. The Beaver Creek proposed project will make us of data collected and analyzed for EDT. The Beaver Ck proposed project will also provide data to the EDT effort. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Continue CRMP process |
a. public outreach and education on CRM to Beaver Ck landowners and agencies |
2003-2005 |
$3,100 |
|
|
b. gather existing data and identify data gaps |
2003 |
$4,400 |
|
| 2. Coordinate with BOR to assess instream flow restoration options Beaver Ck |
a. Assist in assessment of options for reestablishing flow |
2003 |
$625 |
|
| 3. Coordinate with USFS to protect and restore riparian habitat |
a. Assist in planning and NEPA process for fencing on 4.5 miles of Frazer Ck |
2003 |
$900 |
|
| 4. Develop plan to monitor benefits to habitat and fish |
a. Work with CCT and agencies to develop a pilot monitoring plan |
2003 |
$2,700 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. Continue CRMP process (public outreach & education) |
2004 |
2005 |
$6,000 |
| 2. Coordinate with BOR to assess instream flow restoration options Beaver Ck |
2004 |
2005 |
$3,000 |
| 4. Work with CCT and agencies to develop long term monitoring plan based on pilot plan and report |
2005 |
2005 |
$5,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $4,500 | $9,500 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Continue Coordinated Resource Management Plan Process |
a. Produce a Plan document |
2003 - 2005 |
$7,200 |
|
| 2. Coordinate with BOR to assess instream flow restoration options Beaver Ck |
a. Establish long term, continuous stream gaging stations |
2003 |
$10,000 |
Yes |
|
b. Coordinate with BOR on stream survey of lower 8 miles of Beaver Ck. |
2003 |
$800 |
|
| 3. Coordinate with USFS to protect and restore riparian vegetation through livestock exclusion |
Repair and install fence on Frazer Ck |
2003 |
$22,058 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. Develop a CRM plan |
2004 |
2005 |
$18,000 |
| 2. Coordinate with BOR to assess instream flow restoration options Beaver Ckk |
2006 |
2007 |
$20,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|
| $9,000 | $9,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 2. Coordinate with BOR to assess instream flow restoration options Beaver Ck |
2004 |
2007 |
$7,500 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|
| $2,500 | $2,500 | $2,500 | $2,500 |
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 |
|---|
| 1. Monitor changes in habitat and fish populations: implement pilot plan, report on pilot plan, and implement long term M& E plan |
2004 |
2007 |
$20,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|
| $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 1/3 fte for 3 years |
$20,000 |
| Supplies |
3 pressure transducers |
$6,500 |
| Travel |
.345/mile; hotel, meals |
$2,500 |
| Capital |
|
$0 |
| NEPA |
Provided by USFS |
$0 |
| PIT tags |
# of tags: 0 |
$0 |
| Subcontractor |
install and maintain 3 gaging stations and manage data |
$2,500 |
| Subcontractor |
JITW crew 0 fence repair and installation |
$19,458 |
| Other |
office rental - 3 years |
$825 |
| $51,783 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $51,783 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $51,783 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| BOR |
Technical assistance: survey 8 miles of stream habitat; assess options to reestablish flow; design and implement preferred option |
$175,000 |
in-kind |
| USFS |
NEPA and pre-fencing layout preparation |
$1,200 |
in-kind |
| USFS |
fencing materials |
$5,500 |
in-kind |
| CCT |
Technical support: 1/4 fte for 3 years |
$44,050 |
in-kind |
| NRCS |
facilitate monthly meeting and distribute minutes: 10 hours/month for 3 years |
$10,800 |
in-kind |
| OCD |
Provide computers, software (3 years) |
$3,000 |
in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
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 #29010
The "Proposal objectives, tasks and methods section" is too brief for scientific review. Details are needed on methods for each specific task proposed including need for, location and construction of gaging stations, monitoring of flow, fencing, monitoring and evaluation. 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.
There is significant cost share by BOR and CCT and smaller amounts by other agencies. With respect to in-stream flow the primary objective appears to be to help BOR identify options for restoring year around flow to lower Beaver Creek. Options include increased storage, upgrading irrigation systems, improved on-farm water management, conversion to wells, and pump exchange from the Methow River. The proposal notes that the lower 1.25 miles of Beaver Creek go dry in most years. Our notes from the presentation suggest that in five to seven years out of ten the creek has water. The response should provide a table of data clarifying the extent of the problem. Proposal #2018 includes a map showing that location of the Methow River - probably including the mouth of Beaver Creek - is a losing reach. Measures designed to increase in-stream flow may be problematic, considering the nature of the landscape. The proponents should address whether any such efforts should await completion of #29018, when it should be possible to better develop the feasibility of maintaining flows in Beaver Creek.
The proposers have already done a lot in the watershed to identify and address problems. WDFW has screened all diversions. The Conservation District is already working on passage at the first 5 dams. The DOT has provided passage via a new culvert under the highway close to the mouth of the Beaver Creek. Project links to three other proposals are good and logical (whether or not they are funded), as are links to existing BPA projects and collaborations with other agencies. Work in the Beaver drainage is among the best cooperative efforts the ISRP has reviewed. What is the relationship of the CRMP to other watershed assessment methods?
Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
May 17, 2002
Comment:
NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project. Due to WA SRFB funding, the project sponsor has requested that the budget for 2003 be reduced by $27,325 (1/3 FTE = $20,000, 3 pressure transducers = $6,500, and office space rental = $825). The total FY 2003 project cost of $51,783 has been reduced to $24,458 accordingly.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002
Comment:
Fundable. 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 review criteria is not met (that we recommend only projects that "have provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results.").
Proposal #29010 in the same subbasin proposes to use the recommendations of The Draft Strategy Framework of the Washington Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy currently in development by the Washington Governor's Salmon Recovery Team to guide development of a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, but details are not given. Perhaps these proponents of these projects could cooperate in development of a monitoring plan giving the specific sample areas, methods, and sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what type where and when) as requested by the ISRP.
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Enhance survival by Improving riparian conditions and instream flows within the Beaver Creek watershed, an important Methow tributary. Comments
Proposal is to sustain planning efforts in the watershed. To date, a number of passage improvements have been implemented, but little has been accomplished in the way of flow improvement.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Recommendation:
C
Date:
Jul 26, 2002
Comment:
Recommend deferral to Subbasin Planning
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002
Comment: