FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29022

Additional documents

TitleType
29022 Narrative Narrative
29022 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleOmak Creek Water Temperature Model
Proposal ID29022
OrganizationConfederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation (CCT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameGary Passmore
Mailing addressP.O. Box 150 Nespelem, WA 99155
Phone / email5096342426 / gary.passmore@colvilletribes.com
Manager authorizing this projectGary Passmore
Review cycleColumbia Cascade
Province / SubbasinColumbia Cascade / Okanogan
Short descriptionCharacterize 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 speciesSpring Chinook (Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook ESU), Steelhead (Upper Columbia River Steelhead ESU),
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
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 agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
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

YearAccomplishment
2001 Preliminary Omak Creek water temperature, flow and groundwater monitoring
1999 CCT Hydrology Study--Low Flow Program

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
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
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Objective 3: Estimate Cumulative Effects of Lower Mainstem Watershed Recovery 2004 2005 $60,000
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2004FY 2005
$30,000$30,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Objective 4 2004 2007 $80,000
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$20,000$20,000$20,000$20,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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.

Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required
Date:
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.


Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002

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.


Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Indirect 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


Recommendation:
C
Date:
Jul 26, 2002

Comment:

Recommend deferral to Subbasin Planning
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: