FY 2000 proposal 20033
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Rehabilitate Instream and Riparian Habitat on the Similkameen and Okanogan Rivers |
| Proposal ID | 20033 |
| Organization | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Kate Terrell |
| Mailing address | 517 S. Buchanan Street Moses Lake, WA 98837 |
| Phone / email | 5097656125 / Kate_Terrell@fws.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Okanogan |
| Short description | Rehabilitate and enhance 6 miles of in-stream and riparian habitat along the Okanogan and Similkameen river channels adjacent to Driscoll Island. This will enhance spawning habitat for adult anadromous salmonids and improve the rearing and resting habita |
| Target species | Species that will be affected include chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) salmon as well as resident species. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 9604200 |
Colville Confederated Tribes to carry out Okanogan Watershed Planning and t |
|
| 9604000 |
Restore and Enhance Anadromous Fish Habitat in Salmon Creek |
|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
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 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
Cost Share |
$0 |
| Fringe |
Cost Share |
$0 |
| Supplies |
Survey Equipment |
$1,420 |
| Capital |
Installation of a one lane bridge |
$430,000 |
| NEPA |
Cost Share |
$0 |
| Construction |
See capital acquisitions |
$0 |
| Travel |
Cost Share |
$0 |
| Indirect |
Contract Administration |
$44,082 |
| Other |
Training |
$9,400 |
| $484,902 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $484,902 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $484,902 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| USFWS |
Personnel for Survey and Design |
$24,838 |
unknown |
|
Environmental Compliance |
$16,559 |
unknown |
|
Monitoring |
$20,000 |
unknown |
| NRCS |
Personnel for Survey and Design |
$24,838 |
unknown |
| WDFW |
Engineering for bridge crossing and permitting |
$32,000 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: It will be necessary that all instream work be completed during the work window established by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fund (medium priority)
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund (medium priority), but cost per mile is very high and vulnerability of project to anthropogenic and natural disturbances has not been adequately considered.
Comments:
The proposal's primary goals are to improve instream and riparian habitat improvement around Driscoll Island, which offers the potential for broad benefits to fish and wildlife. River channels around Driscoll Island provide migration corridors, spawning areas, and rearing habitat for summer chinook, and summer steelhead, as well as migration corridors for sockeye salmon. Bull trout may be present. The project has a clear relationship to overall goals for anadromous fishes in the Okanogan River, although they could have better described potential benefits in the context of the entire Okanogan subbasin.
The proposed activities are focused on improvements in water temperature (primary limiting factor), riparian vegetation, streambank stability, and habitat complexity are anticipated. Sources of LWD are lacking. The proposal calls for investing about $300,000 per mile over the life of the project to improve 6 miles of river and riparian zone in a very large watershed. There has been no effort to quantify the potential benefits to fish populations that would derive from enhancing this limited stream reach at very high cost. Proposed activities include Rosgen habitat survey, restoration plan development, and rehabilitation of 6-7 miles of river corridor. Reviewers were concerned that the proposal did not describe the potential for passive restoration methods. Rather, the proposal seems to assume that expensive bioengineering as the solution for habitat improvement. A large portion of project costs is for bridge construction for permanent access to the island (ca. 84%). What are project restoration costs relative to bridge construction costs? Are there alternatives to a bridge? The bridge offers some benefits such as improved access for public education opportunities such as the planned interpretive trail, but there are also potential negative impacts associated with public access. Monitoring is included. The proposal leaves several important questions unanswered. Specific stream condition information for the project area is lacking. Soils in the area are highly erodible and the area is subject to high flood events. Will problems remaining in upstream watersheds contribute to flooding and erosion that will be detrimental to project? If it has been highly impacted in the past, they should provide assurances that the restoration activities will not be impacted by the same factors that contributed to the degradation of the site.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Mostly a literature review and does not synthesize information into project detail. It appears to repeat proposal 20001. This proposal seems to be the antithesis of Rosgen principles (i.e. make the system work naturally rather than forcing it structurally).
Poor cost-benefit for fisheries production. High cost per mile of stream ($298,000), shoreline ($716,000), and/or island ($448,000).
Recommendation:
Rank 32
Date:
Oct 8, 1999
Comment:
Rank Comments:
In general the ISRP was supportive of the proposal's primary goals to improve instream and riparian habitat around Driscoll Island, which offers the potential for broad benefits to fish and wildlife.
Recommendation:
Rank 32
Date:
Oct 8, 1999
Comment:
In general the ISRP was supportive of the proposal’s primary goals to improve instream and riparian habitat around Driscoll Island, which offers the potential for broad benefits to fish and wildlife.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 2-2-00 Council Meeting];