FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29022
Contents
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 |
---|---|
29022 Narrative | Narrative |
29022 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Omak Creek Water Temperature Model |
Proposal ID | 29022 |
Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation (CCT) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Gary Passmore |
Mailing address | P.O. Box 150 Nespelem, WA 99155 |
Phone / email | 5096342426 / gary.passmore@colvilletribes.com |
Manager authorizing this project | Gary Passmore |
Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Okanogan |
Short description | Characterize water temperature regime in Omak Creek, quantify range of variability, and develop of numerical model to assess the effect of water and land use in the watershed on water temperature and to predict effectiveness of salmon recovery actions. |
Target species | Spring Chinook (Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook ESU), Steelhead (Upper Columbia River Steelhead ESU), |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
48.5 | -119.08 | The Project Area is the Omak Creek watershed in the western extent of the Colville Indian Reservation, that portion located within the Okanogan Basin watershed. |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
9 |
150 |
152 |
154 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|---|---|---|
NMFS | Action 154 | NMFS | BPA shall work with the NWPPC to ensure development and updating of subbasin assessments and plans; match state and local funding for coordinated development of watershed assessments and plans; and help fund technical support for subbasin and watershed plan implementation from 2001 to 2006. Planning for priority subbasins should be completed by the 2003 check-in. The action agencies will work with other Federal agencies to ensure that subbasin and watershed assessments and plans are coordinated across non-Federal and Federal land ownerships and programs. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|---|
2001 | Preliminary Omak Creek water temperature, flow and groundwater monitoring |
1999 | CCT Hydrology Study--Low Flow Program |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
Assement of tributary habitat for steelhead and spring chinook production | Transfer of water to instream flows in tributaries will assist in the evaulation of potential steelhead and spring chinook production. | |
Prioritize and implement tributary action items from LFA | Low flows and high temperatures are identified as limiting factors. Transfer of water within or to adjacent basins will assist in over coming limiting factors. | |
Develop a water strategy for Okanogan Basin | The evaluation of availble water rights to be placed in a trust account for potential transfer to instream flows is part of an innovative approach to an overall water strategy in the Okanogan Basin. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1: Develop Omak Ck. Heat Source Model | a Characterize Temperature Regime, | 1 | $15,000 | Yes |
1 | b Develop Conceptual Model, | 1 | $20,000 | Yes |
1 | c Construct Numerical Model | 1 | $35,000 | Yes |
2: Develop and Prioritize Watershed Recovery Alternatives | a Define and Simulate Normative Condition | 1 | $15,000 | Yes |
2 | b Compute Indexes of Water Temperature Alteration | 1 | $10,000 | Yes |
2 | c Simulate and Rank Watershed Recovery Alternatives | 1 | $20,000 | Yes |
2 | d Technical and General Review of Model Results and Final Report | 1 | $30,000 | |
3: Estimate Cumulative Effects of Lower Mainstem Watershed Recovery | a Develop Extrapolation Method | 1 | $10,000 | Yes |
3 | b Select and Simulate Watershed Recovery Actions | 2 | $30,000 | Yes |
3 | c Determine Cumulative Effects | 2 | $10,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
Objective 3: Estimate Cumulative Effects of Lower Mainstem Watershed Recovery | 2004 | 2005 | $60,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
---|---|
$30,000 | $30,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 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 2003 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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
Objective 4: Develop Adaptive Management Program | a Select Hypotheses to be Tested | 5 | $15,000 | Yes |
b Design Experiments to Test Hypotheses | $15,000 | Yes | ||
c Evaluate and Revise Hypotheses and Monitoring Plan | $20,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
Objective 4 | 2004 | 2007 | $80,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
---|---|---|---|
$20,000 | $20,000 | $20,000 | $20,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | FTE: Project Manager (.15 FTE), Hydrologist (.2 FTE), Biologist (.2 FTE), 2 Tech.s (.8 FTE) | $58,300 |
Fringe | $11,700 | |
Supplies | Misc. Field supplies for stream measurements | $4,500 |
Travel | Mileage, truck and gas | $3,800 |
Indirect | Office reproduction, office supplies | $2,500 |
Subcontractor | Engineering firm to develop and apply water temperature model | $164,200 |
$245,000 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost | $245,000 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2003 budget request | $245,000 |
FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
Colville Confederated Tribes | Labor | $58,300 | in-kind |
Colville Confederated Tribes | Equipment (Field equip, GIS, etc.) | $10,800 | in-kind |
Colville Confederated Tribes | Fringe Benefits | $11,700 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Do not fund - no response required
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
Not Fundable. No response is needed. Not adequately justified scientifically or by regional planning; poorly-prepared proposal.This is a proposal to develop a water temperature model for Omak Creek, a tributary of the Okanogan River. High water temperatures are a chronic problem for the Okanogan watershed in summer. This proposal seeks to determine the sources of heating (and cooling) in the landscape of the Omak and the lower Okanogan River basin so that remedial measures might be taken. The primary focus of the proposal is the development of a water temperature model, which could be run with various modifications of input parameters to test alternative temperature management strategies. Secondarily, the CCT would review management strategies for implementation in light of the model results. The project would be managed by the CCT but a contractor would develop the model.
Although the motivation and concept are good, the proposal is poor. The background section was clearly written for another project, as the words do not relate to this work but to the acquisition of water rights. The project rationale is short and not well thought out. There are no references to statements of need in the FWP, BiOp, Subbasin Summary, or other plans. Preliminary work by the CCT seems to be the main driver (this is good, but it needs a regional context). There is a good table of related projects, but no attempt to define what the relationship might be to this work. Objectives and tasks are laid out well, however. No literature is cited with respect to the science of water temperature modeling, other than one reference to the FWP. Resumes for the CCT personnel are included.
A large drawback to the proposal is its lack of information on temperature modeling. The proposal gives no indication that there are existing stream temperature models that might be used for this work (e.g., Bartholow's SSTEMP), although the presentation clarified that a model developed at Oregon State University would be used. The proposal suggested that a wholly new model will be developed (from conceptualization to computerization). There is also no indication in the proposal of who would do the modeling, except that this part of the work would be contracted. At the presentation it was indicated that Brown and Caldwell would do this work, but no qualifications were provided. Development of computer models for water temperature is a field of expertise not found everywhere, and the proposed modelers warrant scrutiny by the ISRP. No scientific references to water temperature models are given. On a positive note, the proposal goes through a logical set of steps (tasks) for the objective of developing a model and for using it for subsequent objectives to develop alternative management strategies for temperature in the Omak and potentially for the rest of the lower Okanogan mainstem and its tributaries. This good overall project structure fails, however, on the critical lack of information about the modeling. Without the key information about models and modeling, the proposal is not fundable.
The project does not seem needed or justified for Omak Creek. The PI's slides at the presentation showed that water temperatures reached the mid-20s C only once in the last decade. Habitat improvements associated with project 200000100 should have positive effects on sediment and temperature inputs, such that Omak Creek temperatures could be merely be monitored to determine if there are chronic or acute temperature problems. Steelhead may be able to accommodate short-term temperature exceedences by remaining in cooler water refuges and migrating into Omak Creek after temperature declines. This life history strategy is observed in steelhead returning to the John Day and Snake River subbasins.
The proposal seems to go beyond what could be concluded from temperature modeling alone. Objective 2 reads "Develop and Prioritize Watershed Recovery Alternatives" and Task 2.c. reads "Simulate and Rank Watershed Recovery Alternatives." It is hard for the ISRP to visualize how this kind of broad information might emerge from a simulation based on data that do not (and can not) include a range of values that would encompass "recovery." Are the sponsors claiming that historical data do include such a range?
The proposal mentions that there is considerable loss of surface flow to the underlying alluvial aquifer. Does this mean the stream dewaters? Is the loss going to hyporheic flow that would affect water temperatures in an upwelling zone downstream (as seen in other locations)?
The proposed exercise is very conceptual at this point in time, and the proposal needs to demonstrate a utility that cannot be addressed without this work. It is unclear why it is appropriate to extrapolate from a small creek like Omak Creek to a larger system like the Okanogan River? How would the larger application be tested for veracity? In summary, there are many concerns with this proposal that do not seem resolvable with a response by the proponents.
Comment:
NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.Comment:
Not Fundable. A response was not needed, because the poorly prepared proposal was not adequately justified scientifically or by regional planning.This is a proposal to develop a water temperature model for Omak Creek, a tributary of the Okanogan River. High water temperatures are a chronic problem for the Okanogan watershed in summer. This proposal seeks to determine the sources of heating (and cooling) in the landscape of the Omak and the lower Okanogan River basin so that remedial measures might be taken. The primary focus of the proposal is the development of a water temperature model, which could be run with various modifications of input parameters to test alternative temperature management strategies. Secondarily, the CCT would review management strategies for implementation in light of the model results. The project would be managed by the CCT but a contractor would develop the model.
Although the motivation and concept are good, the proposal is poor. The background section was clearly written for another project, as the words do not relate to this work but to the acquisition of water rights. The project rationale is short and not well thought out. There are no references to statements of need in the FWP, BiOp, Subbasin Summary, or other plans. Preliminary work by the CCT seems to be the main driver (this is good, but it needs a regional context). There is a good table of related projects, but no attempt to define what the relationship might be to this work. Objectives and tasks are laid out well, however. No literature is cited with respect to the science of water temperature modeling, other than one reference to the FWP. Resumes for the CCT personnel are included.
A large drawback to the proposal is its lack of information on temperature modeling. The proposal gives no indication that there are existing stream temperature models that might be used for this work (e.g., Bartholow's SSTEMP), although the presentation clarified that a model developed at Oregon State University would be used. The proposal suggested that a wholly new model will be developed (from conceptualization to computerization). There is also no indication in the proposal of who would do the modeling, except that this part of the work would be contracted. At the presentation it was indicated that Brown and Caldwell would do this work, but no qualifications were provided. Development of computer models for water temperature is a field of expertise not found everywhere, and the proposed modelers warrant scrutiny by the ISRP. No scientific references to water temperature models are given. On a positive note, the proposal goes through a logical set of steps (tasks) for the objective of developing a model and for using it for subsequent objectives to develop alternative management strategies for temperature in the Omak and potentially for the rest of the lower Okanogan mainstem and its tributaries. This good overall project structure fails, however, on the critical lack of information about the modeling. Without the key information about models and modeling, the proposal is not fundable.
The project does not seem needed or justified for Omak Creek. The PI's slides at the presentation showed that water temperatures reached the mid-20s C only once in the last decade. Habitat improvements associated with project 200000100 should have positive effects on sediment and temperature inputs, such that Omak Creek temperatures could be merely be monitored to determine if there are chronic or acute temperature problems. Steelhead may be able to accommodate short-term temperature exceedences by remaining in cooler water refuges and migrating into Omak Creek after temperature declines. This life history strategy is observed in steelhead returning to the John Day and Snake River subbasins.
The proposal seems to go beyond what could be concluded from temperature modeling alone. Objective 2 reads "Develop and Prioritize Watershed Recovery Alternatives" and Task 2.c. reads "Simulate and Rank Watershed Recovery Alternatives." It is hard for the ISRP to visualize how this kind of broad information might emerge from a simulation based on data that do not (and can not) include a range of values that would encompass "recovery." Are the sponsors claiming that historical data do include such a range?
The proposal mentions that there is considerable loss of surface flow to the underlying alluvial aquifer. Does this mean the stream dewaters? Is the loss going to hyporheic flow that would affect water temperatures in an upwelling zone downstream (as seen in other locations)?
The proposed exercise is very conceptual at this point in time, and the proposal needs to demonstrate a utility that cannot be addressed without this work. It is unclear why it is appropriate to extrapolate from a small creek like Omak Creek to a larger system like the Okanogan River? How would the larger application be tested for veracity? In summary, there are many concerns with this proposal that did not seem resolvable with a response by the proponents.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUIndirect benefit. It could lead to better understanding of thermal characteristics of Omak Creek, which could identify enhancement and protection opportunities
Comments
Proposal does not make a case that a temperature model is needed for Omak Creek. It may be more useful to inventory water withdrawals and riparian conditions and then assess the extent to which improvements in either or both could improve water quality in Omak Creek.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Recommend deferral to Subbasin PlanningComment: