Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199604200

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Restore and Enhance Anadromous Fish Populations & Habitat in Salmon Creek
BPA Project Proposal Number 199604200
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Colville Confederated Tribes
Business acronym (if appropriate) CCT
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Hilary Lyman
Mailing Address P.O. Box 218
City, State, Zip Winthrop, WA 98862
Phone 5099962486
Fax
E-mail hilary@methow.com
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Columbia Cascade
Subbasin 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

[No information]


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal


NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: Sections 4.0A, 4.0C, 4.1, 4.1A, 7.6A, 7.6B.1,7.6B.3, 7.6B.6, 7.6C5, 7.6D 7.7A.3, 7.7A.6, 7.7B, 7.8D.1, 7.8E, 7.8E.2
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: Upper Columbia Summer Steelhead ESA Listing
Other Planning Document References Wy Kan Ush Me WA Kush Wit, Volume II Sub-basin Plans, Okanogan River, Recommended Actions, Subset 2, Page 91 NWPPC Sub-basin Plans, Okanogan Basin


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous


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

n/a or no information


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Continue partnership between Okanogan Irrigation District & Colville Tribes: The partners hire a consultant to assess the feasi-bility of increasing instream flows while maintaining OID water rights a. Continue regular partnership efforts to oversee FY1998-99 Joint Study Phase I between the Tribes and the District: Phase I of the study out-lines mutlitple alternatives to a-chieve the objective of increased instream flows/protect. OID water rights
1. b. Continue partnership with OID to initiate Phase II of the feasibilility study (Phase II is a study in greater depth of a preferred alternative, chosen by the partners from Phase I
1. c. Continue to meet to oversee FY2000 Joint study to have consultant conduct Phase II of the feasibility study (Phase II is a refined study of a preferred alternative chosen by the partners from joint study Phase I)
1. d. Hire environmental/engineering consulting firm to develop Phase II of the feasibility study & conduct NEPA analysis
1. e. Conduct tour of Salmon Creek & OID with state, federal & tribal governments; local, state, & federal officials to promote joint OID/CCT partnership efforts & seek funding for implementation of joint study
2. Continue partnerships with agencies to work with private landowners on demonstration projects (US Fish & Wildlife Svc. & Natural Resources Conservation Svc.) a. Carryover from FY1999: Work with the USF&W & NRCS to undertake demonstration projects to stabilize streambanks and restore habitat on private lands
3. Continue partnership with NRCS to implement actions outlined in their FY1999 Salmon Creek riparian assessment a. Begin implementation of projects that may include: bank stabilization, plantings, exclusionary fencing, structures, spring development or passive restoration
4. Hire a facilitator to work with the watershed coordinator to plan and facilitate public outreach activ-ities a. Invite SC landowners to meetings: Discuss formation of a landowner steering committee or watershed council
4. b. Meet with public and private land-owners to explain studies underway, future studies and prioritize projects for implementation
4. c. Work with NRCS to undertake restoration activities on the ground (may include instream structures, vegetation, labor & equipment)
5. Contract with agencies who already own and manage lands within the watershed to negotiate with private landowners for con-servation easements, land ex-changes or fee simple acquisitions (WDF&W, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management) a. Work with agencies to identify critical parcels to fish and riparian habitat; identify landowners who may be interested in land exchanges, conservation easements or fee simple acquisitions
6. Develop a Salmon Creek Watershed Plan a. Work with landowners & facilitator to develop a scope of work
6. b. Advertise, recruit & select a qualified consultant to both work w/committee to identify data gaps, develop plan, conduct field studies & prepare report

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 10/01/99 09/01/00 Identification of how to increase instream flows Phases I &II Joint OID/CCT Study Completed 8.2%
2 03/01/99 11/01/00 Demonstration projects: improvement to riparian area and fish habitat Projects com-pleted: carryover from FY1999 0.0%
3 03/01/99 09/01/00 Stabilized stream banks, excluded livestock, planted native woody vegetation Projects completed 4.0%
4 10/01/99 09/01/00 Facilitate meetings 1.0%
5 10/01/99 12/01/00 Yes: acquired lands in riparian area Land transactions completed 74.7%
6 10/01/99 06/01/01 Watershed plan completed 4.0%


Section 5. 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
Total Itemized Budget $2,427,983


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project 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%


Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable


Reason for change in scope

Not applicable


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

 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002
All Phases $2,000,000 $500,000
Total Outyear Budgets $2,000,000 $500,000
 

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.


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Hansen, J. 1995. Abundance and quality of salmonid fish spawning habitat in Salmon Creek, Washington. Colville Confederated Tribes. Nespelem, Washington. 9 pages No
Fisher, C.J. and L. Fedderson. 1998. Quantity of spawning habitat for summer steelhead and spring chinook salmon and estimate of production in Salmon Creek, Washington. Colville Confederated Tribes. Nespelem, Washington No
Mullan, J. W., K. R. Williams, G. Rhodus, T. W. Hillman, and J. D. McIntyre. 1992. Production and habitat of salmonids in Mid-Columbia River tributary streams. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Monograph 1. Leavenworth, Washington No
Aquatic species and habitat assessment of the Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow and Okanogan Watersheds for the mid-Columbia Habitat Conservation Plan, Draft. 5/28/96. Yes
Smith, A.K. 1973. Development and application of spawning velocity and depth criteria for Oregon salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 102:312-316 No
Timber/Fish/Wildlife (TFW) Ambient monitoring stream segment summary (Salmon Creek). 1992. Colville Confederated Tribe. Nespelem, Washington No
Thompson, K. 1972. Determining stream flows for fish life. Pages 31-50 in Proceedings, instream flow requirements workshop. Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, Vancouver, Washington. No
Bureau of Reclamation, Fish Passage & Protective Facilities, Pre-design Memorandum, Salmon Creek Main canal Fish Ladder, Aug. 1998 No
Bureau of Reclamation, Fish Passage and Protective Facilities, Pre-design Memorandum, Salmon Creek Main Canal Fish Screen Modifications, July 1998. No
U.S. Fish and Wildife Service, Preliminary Evaluation Report, January 1949 (Fish & Wildlife Resources in the Area of the Okanogan Irrigation Project). No
Columbia Basin System Planning Production Plan for Salmon and Steelhead, Methow and Okanogan River Sub-basins, Sept. 1, 1990. Yes
Okanogan National Forest, Tonasket Ranger District. April 1997. Salmon Watershed Assessment, I-1. Yes
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1995. Omak Creek Watershed Plan/Environmental Assessment. United States Dept. of Agriculture. Spokane, Washington. 54 pages Yes
Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources, GIS Map of Salmon Creek Land Ownerships, June 1997. No
Okanogan Irrigation District/ Colville Confederated Tribes: Letter of Intent to negotiate the terms of a partnership, February 12, 1998. No
Partnership offer letter from Colville Tribes to Okanogan Irrigation District, May 6, 1998 No
Letter of Acceptance of Partnership offer, May 16, 1998 No
Support of planning activities for the restoration and enhancement of anadromous fisheries in Salmon Creek, correspondence from fisheries managers: WDF&W, USF&W, BLM, 1997. No
Correspondence stating interest in to providing permanent protection to the riparian corridor in Salmon Creek through land exchanges, conservation easements or fee simple acquisitions, from WDF&W, USF&W, BOR, Nov. 1998 No
Yates, H.A. 1968. A Pioneer Project. Metropoitan Press, Portland, Oregon No


Section 7. Abstract

Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

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

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 99-2 Recommendation:
Fund (High)
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
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.


CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$578,000
Comment:

CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
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.

CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
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?


NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
2000
$577,983
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$ 45,000
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$ 0
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$ 0
Sponsor (Colville Confederated Tribes) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page