FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 199604200

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Reason for change in estimated budget

Engineering work with greater detail provides more accurate numbers on capital projects. In Dec. 2001 it is too early to estimate reconstruction costs for the lower reach. We won't be able to do this until a design has been approved in NEPA. Tribes have developed a funding strategy that seeks funding from many different sources, decreasing the burden to the NWPPC/BPA.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

No significant benefit to fish is to be expected from this proposed project, which focuses on highly degraded habitat (dewatered, etc.) that would take an extensive effort and considerable resources to restore. The proposal is to restore steelhead and spring chinook salmon in Salmon Creek, which has an estimated 15 miles of habitat between Conconully Reservoir and the mouth of the Creek that might produce an unspecified (in the proposal) number of adult salmon. Project sponsors have done rough predictive estimates that 150 steelhead, and 130 chinook might result from restoration of this stream reach. We noted the absence of water during the ISRP site visit in October 2001. The creek bed was dry below the fish ladder that is present at the irrigation diversion, located 4.3 miles above the mouth of Salmon Creek. The proposal states that 100% of the creek is diverted at that point. From the oral presentation we learned that the stream drops 550 feet in the lowermost 2.4 miles. Presently, an alluvial fan at the mouth does not allow passage of salmonids except at flood stage. An Entrix study found released flows alone would not restore the stream. A channel would have to be dug. Steelhead would be reintroduced from the Wells Hatchery brood. There are no remnant stocks of spring chinook, so they would need to be introduced from outside. There is no description of a monitoring and evaluation plan that ought to be undertaken.

A "Regional Technical Team" is reported to have identified the project as "very good" in terms of its technical merit (p. 11 of proposal). It is said to have the potential of being the primary spawning and rearing area for spring chinook in the Okanogan basin. We have to question this conclusion on the basis of what we have learned. If the statement is true, it implies that there is very little potential for spring chinook in the Okanogan Basin, and that therefore efforts would be better directed toward other stocks, such as summer/fall chinook, sockeye, or the recently reintroduced coho salmon that appear to be less habitat limited.

Although the ISRP review and recommendation is not predicated on costs, the Council and CBFWA should be aware of the costs compared to the potential benefits of this project. The proposal refers to a review of the Salmon Creek proposal by the Council's Independent Economic Advisory Board in 2001. The IEAB is quoted, in part, on page 16 as complimenting the sponsors on the documentation provided with respect to costs, measurable goals in terms of effects on instream flows, and effects on water supplies for the irrigation district. However, the ISRP notes that there was no documentation of the anticipated numbers of salmon or steelhead that might result from this expenditure, a factor that is of primary concern to us. We also note that the IEAB did not reach any conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of the proposed project relative to other potential uses of the Fish and Wildlife Fund. The project is quite expensive ($7 million request for FY01 and another $7 million for FY02-05), plus about $5 million more in cost sharing from the Washington State Legislature and $5 million from the US Congress. Annual operation and maintenance costs thereafter are estimated at about $500,000. The US Congressional funds have not been secured at this point, and it was unclear in the proposal's budget cost share information, whether the Washington State Legislature allocation had been secured. The Council and CBFWA should carefully consider if the proposed amounts (estimated at $17 to $20 million for a project speculated to provide a few hundred salmon and steelhead) would be better spent on projects with more potential benefit to fish and/or wildlife.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comments
Anadromous fish are denied access to Salmon Creek as a result of BOR actions and facilities. While Salmon Creek Section 7 consultation is not yet underway, BOR has a responsibility to consult. Habitat in middle Salmon Creek is suitable for steelhead and spring chinook, and given the water quality problems in the Okanogan mainstem, tributary restoration will be an essential element of steelhead recovery. However, while not a biological issue, the proposal at present could cost nearly $20 million to implement, with additional long term O & M costs. With respect to Okanogan River ESU's, it would appear that more could be done elsewhere in the basin with BPA funds. Suggest considering alternatives including a lesser degree of pump exchange that could substantially lower costs. Finally, has it been determined that passage above Conconully is infeasible?

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

Comment:

Project Issue 2: Colville Confederated Tribe Project 199604200 Restore and Enhance Anadromous Fish Populations and Habitat in Salmon Creek

This is a comprehensive restoration project sponsored by the Confederated Colville Tribes developed in concert with a number of other participants. The project seeks substantial funding commitments (revised five year estimate of over $6 million).

CBFWA rated the project as "High Priority", Bonneville provided a "B" rating, stating that only bridge funding should be provided to allow the NEPA process to be completed, with a reevaluation of project priorities and goals before making additional commitments.

The ISRP ranked this project a "Do Not Fund". The ISRP review comments were very critical. The Panel stated that "the potential benefits to the Salmon Creek steelhead and spring chinook population from this very expensive proposed project are minimal at best" and that "the proposal is unjustified on the basis of small numbers of fish expected to be produced (in the low hundreds of returning adults based on the oral presentation, but not discussed in the proposal) when compared to the vast amount of effort and resources ($17 to $20 million, plus $500,000 annual operation and maintenance costs) required to restore the highly degraded habitat (dewatered for the lowest four miles, etc.) and the uncertainty of intended results".

NOAA Fisheries stated there is an association of this project to the Biological Opinion for the Federal Columbia River Power System through RPA 500, though they raise questions regarding costs and the perusal of other alternatives.

Council Recommendation: Given the very serious concerns expressed by the ISRP, the Council is recommending a limited and phased approach to moving forward with commitments to this project. The staff and Confederated Colville Tribes agree that the NEPA process, currently in its initial stages, should yield important information that will help the Council and sponsors decide if the anticipated costs of this project are justified by the potential fishery benefits.

As the NEPA process goes forward, there are some continuing administrative and coordination elements of this project that the staff recommends supporting. The Council recommends establishing a placeholder in the amount of $365,819 for FY 2003, $378,257 for FY 2004 and $391,117 for FY 2005 for these activities. These amounts are based upon the Council's funding recommendations for Fiscal Year 2002. The funding should be utilized as follows: $185,790 for support of water conservation and leasing efforts with the Okanogan Irrigation District; and $168,000 for the following sub-elements: $40,000 for OID Partnership Expenses, $118,000 for OID Water Leasing and $10,000 for OID On- farm Water Conservation).

No new funds are needed for the Colville element of the NEPA work that must be completed. The Council understands that the non-NRCS element of planning and design work and the EIS document will be completed with the funds approved by the Council in FY 2001.

The Council recommends that the interim funds identified above be put in a placeholder. Release of the funds would be conditioned on Council and Bonneville review of the project current scope and alternatives being evaluated through NEPA. Consistent with the Council decision in Fiscal Year 2001, Bonneville and the Council need to determine whether the EIS and design work should be continued. This decision should take into account and be based on review of the NEPA scoping documents and the IEAB report (Document IEAB 2001-2). This review needs to be scheduled with Bonneville and the sponsors immediately. The purpose of putting even the administrative and coordination funds in a placeholder until Bonneville, the Council, and the sponsor meet to discuss NEPA scope is to underscore the importance the Council attaches to having this meeting, and to ensure that the meeting is scheduled just as soon as possible.

Once the Council and Bonneville meet to discuss NEPA, the funds in the placeholder will be authorized for use until the project is addressed as part of the step review (which will include an IEAB review of all feasible alternatives). That step review will be linked to the completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, currently scheduled to be completed in June 2003. The step submittal needs to include an extensive delineation of the cost share components of the project. Any future funding (including FY 2005 and out-years) for this project is dependant on a favorable step review and the identification of available funding sources.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website