FY 2000 proposal 199604200

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
199604200 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Restore and Enhance Anadromous Fish Populations & Habitat in Salmon Creek
Proposal ID	199604200
Organization	Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Hilary Lyman
Mailing address	P.O. Box 218 Winthrop, WA 98862
Phone / email	5099962486 / hilary@methow.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 2000
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Cascade / Okanogan
Short description	Protect/restore/enhance fish habitat for all life stages of anadromous fish in SC through continued studies and partnerships with the Okanogan Irrigation District, government agencies and private landowners.
Target species	Steelhead and Chinook Salmon

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
1997	Initiated the coordination of a watershed planning project to assist with the restoration and enhancement of the basin's anadromous fish resources through a locally-developed and integrated planning process
1998	Negotiated a crucial partnership agreement with a primary stakeholder group (the Okanogan Irrigation District) from 1997-1998
1998	Initiated a joint study with the Okanogan Irrigation District to assess the feasibility of providing instream flows in Salmon Creek below the district's diversion dam while maintaining the irrigation district's water rights: Study--Phase I
1998	Developed a scope of work & recruited engineers/scientists to: study conserva-tion options for the irrig. district, quantify the instream flows requirements for all life stages of anadro. fish in Salmon Creek, develop alternatives to meet these goals
1999	Environmental/Engineer. consultants conducted a study, prepared a report identifying water conservation options, quantifying instream flow requirements, protecting irrigators' water rights, iden-tified alternatives to meet these goals: Study/Phase I
1999	The Tribes partnered with the NRCS to conduct a riparian corridor assessment: made recommendations for improving bank stability, fish habitat, water quality
1999	Developed a partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the NRCS to undertake demonstration projects by identifying willing private landowners who could contribute to habitat restoration by restoring the riparian zone on private lands
1999	Initiated partnerships with the Bur. of Rec., the BLM, the WDF&W to perman-ently protect sensitive riparian lands through land exchanges, conservation easements or fee simple acquisitions.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description

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		$41,361
Fringe		$12,408
Supplies		$1,500
Capital		$1,850,000
NEPA		$50,000
Travel		$12,300
Indirect		$16,214
Other	Training, Telecommunications, Postage, printing, rentals	$17,200
Subcontractor		$427,000
		$2,427,983

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 cost	$2,427,983
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2000 budget request	$2,427,983
FY 2000 forecast from 1999	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
Bureau of Reclamation	Funding of easement or acquisition as well as ap-praisal and real estate agency services	$50,000	unknown

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Unforeseen circumstances or timing of spring runoff could alter the schedule for conducting field studies leading up to FY2000. Projects & future studies would not be delayed for more than 4-6 months.

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 99-2)

Recommendation:
Fund (High)

Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Fund (High), but review next year for inclusion of a better monitoring plan.

Comments: The proposal is very well done with clearly stated problems and measurable objectives. It was good to see the results of the watershed assessments being put to use. The need for the project is clear and the area is historically important. The table is especially helpful in providing priority for selecting restoration sites. They do not include a very good description of the post enhancement monitoring. This should be included in the watershed management plan. They did not adequately explain what is being done to reduce the sources of habitat loss above the dam, and whether passive restoration is being considered as an alternative to bioengineering.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments

Recommendation:

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

This is an ongoing project with positive strides and should continue. There are established agreements in place regarding instream flows, passage, and land acquisition that should not be compromised. However, a clear demonstration that enough water will be provided in the stream on a sustainable basis has not been provided. If results from FY99 determine funds should be used for land acquisition, an option should be available to transfer these funds from the implementation project. Only objectives 1, 2, 3, 4 should be funded.

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments

Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

The narrative is repetitive and confusing and provides a historical review rather than a tangible discussion of project accomplishments.

Cost-sharing (2%) is minimal. Primary sponsor should fund their own activities and other agencies should cover their own personnel. A major part of the funding request ($1,850,000) is not clearly explained.

What is the linkage to BPA's mitigation goals and objectives?

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation (NWPPC 2000-6)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$45,000	$0	$0

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website