FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29023
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 |
---|---|
29023 Narrative | Narrative |
29023 Sponsor Response to ISRP | Response |
29023 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Restoration/Protection of Kartar Creek In-stream, riparian, and Wetland Habitats |
Proposal ID | 29023 |
Organization | Colville Confederated Tribes, Fish and Wildlife Department (CCT) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | John Arterburn, Sherri Sears, And Tahnea Jafari |
Mailing address | PO Box 150 Nespelem, WA 99155 |
Phone / email | 5096342110 / john.arterburn@colvilletribes.com |
Manager authorizing this project | Joe Peone |
Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Okanogan |
Short description | Enhance natural reproduction, establishment of a sustainable fishery, provide a riparian corridor located between seasonal wildlife to partcially mitigate for loss of andromous fish and wildlife created by the building of Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph Dam |
Target species | Lahontan cutthroat trout, elk, big horn sheep, other mamals, Tailed frog and other anphibians, migratory and non-migratory birds, reptiles, and Ute ladies'-tresses plus other plants with cultural significants. |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
48.3127 | -119.4336 | From the southern most part of Omak Lake upstream 6 miles |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Not Applicable |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|---|
many | The Colville Tribes Fishand Wildlfie Department has many successful on-going and completed projects |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
8503800 | Colville Tribal Hatchery | Currently stocks fish into Omak Lake, this could be reduced or eliminated depending upon the success of this project. |
9001800 | Lake Roosevelt Habitat Improvement | The Biologist in charge of this program will assisst and consult with the project lead on fisheries and ecological process issues (In-kind Support) |
9204800 | Hellsgate project | Will provide in-kind support for this project by helping with fencing needs and maitenance |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
Objective 1. Modifying water allocations or obtaining water rights, increase wetland storage to increase the quantity of available in-stream, riparian, and wetland habitat for lahotan cutthroat trout and wildlife within the lower 6 miles of Kartar Creek. | Task a. Conduct a hydrogeology survey in the Kartar Creek watershed to establish the best ways to improve in-stream flow in an ecologically sound manner. | 2003 | $60,000 | Yes |
Task b and c. Develop designs for wetland storage, reconnecting overland flow between stream sections disconnected by over utilization of local ground water sources, and modification of in-stream, riparian and wetland habitats. | 2003 | $80,000 | Yes | |
Task d. Report writing, bid compliance, contracting, permitting | 2003 | $159,659 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
All | 2004 | 2007 | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
All | All | none | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
Objective 2. Modify current stream course, enhance wetland storage, restore riparian areas to increase the quality of habitats for lahotan cutthroat trout and wildlife within the lower 6 miles of Kartar Creek.. | 2004 | 2004 | $485,659 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2004 |
---|
$485,659 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
All | All | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
Objective 3 (First year). Monitor, evaluate, and maintain improvements made to Kartar Creek to ensure long-term benefits to Lahotan cutthroat trout and wildlife are achieved and sustained. | 2005 | 2005 | $4,000 |
Objective 3 (Second and third year). Monitor, evaluate, and maintain improvements made to Kartar Creek to ensure long-term benefits to Lahotan cutthroat trout and wildlife are achieved and sustained. | 2006 | 2007 | $4,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
---|---|---|
$4,000 | $4,000 | $4,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
Objective 1. Modifying water allocations or obtaining water rights, increase wetland storage to increase the quantity of available in-stream, riparian, and wetland habitat for lahotan cutthroat trout and wildlife within the lower 6 miles of Kartar Creek. | Task a. Baseline fish, wildlife and habitat surveys. | 2003 | $138,164 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
Objective 2. Modify current stream course, enhance wetland storage, restore riparian areas to increase the quality of habitats for lahotan cutthroat trout and wildlife within the lower 6 miles of Kartar Creek.. | 2004 | 2004 | $16,164 |
Objective 3 (First year). Monitor, evaluate, and maintain improvements made to Kartar Creek to ensure long-term benefits to Lahotan cutthroat trout and wildlife are achieved and sustained. | 2005 | 2005 | $231,823 |
Objective 3 (Second and third year). Monitor, evaluate, and maintain improvements made to Kartar Creek to ensure long-term benefits to Lahotan cutthroat trout and wildlife are achieved and sustained. | 2006 | 2007 | $203,783 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
---|---|---|---|
$16,164 | $231,823 | $203,783 | $203,783 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | FTE: 3.5 | $96,751 |
Fringe | 22.92% of salaries | $22,175 |
Supplies | $64,605 | |
Travel | $7,560 | |
Indirect | 42.1 % of salaries 1 | $40,732 |
Capital | Land/water rights acquisition and conservation easements | $56,000 |
NEPA | In house | $0 |
Subcontractor | $150,000 | |
$437,823 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost | $437,823 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2003 budget request | $437,823 |
FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
N/A
Reason for change in scope
N/A
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
CCT Hellsgate project (#9204800) | Fence installation and maintenance labor | $40,000 | in-kind |
CCT Habitat improvement (#9001800) | Fisheries and ecological consultation | $25,000 | in-kind |
CCT Tribal Hatchery (#9204800) | Project administration and consultation | $20,000 | in-kind |
NRCS | Remote water facilaties | $15,000 | in-kind |
Other budget explanation
2005 M&E phase dollars are higher to allow employees to become proficent and to allow necessary equipment to be purchased and these cost should not be incured in 2006 or 2007.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed. Kartar Creek has a dewatered section in the agricultural area above the lake. The goal of this project is to get water back in the creek. Perhaps the creek would need to be lined or detoured in the reach where it surrounds the agricultural lands. The proposal is primarily to assess options, followed by planning and implementation. They also plan wetlands creation and riparian fencing and planting.The project focuses on Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT), a non-native species, which is currently planted in Omak Lake and supports a trophy class recreational fishery that has strong local and regional support. The lake is highly alkaline and unlikely to support salmonids, other than alkaline-adapted stocks like Lahontan Cutthroat trout. The project seems logical with a laudable goal of attempting to convert a hatchery-supported recreational fishery to a self-supporting self-sustaining fishery.
More detail needs to be provided in the budget section that links specific costs to specific objectives and tasks. As presented, large dollar amounts are associated with generalized multiple objectives making it difficult to assess task-specific effort and cost.
There should be discussion of the potential numbers of Lahontan trout that might be produced in Kartar Creek. Some reasonable estimate ought to be possible, given experience in similar streams. Such a number could be compared with the number of fish currently being planted to evaluate the feasibility of the project's objective. The number could be too high or too low.
Historically, this should have been redband trout habitat, although the highly alkaline nature of the natural Omak Lake may have prevented their occurrence in the lake and portions of the watershed. Nevertheless, the Kartar Creek watershed above the lake should be surveyed for the existence of native salmonids such as redband trout. The existence of remnant redband trout populations in the upper Kartar Creek watershed could complicate the plans for introducing Lahontan cutthroat trout into the creek, Redband trout are a species of special concern and their protection would be threatened by potential hybridization with Lahontan cutthroat trout, if they occur together.
Comment:
Columbia Cascade Province Budget Work Group supports funding Objective 1 with a phased approach and reduced costs. There are only two resident fish proposals in this province. This would convert a supplementation project funded by BPA into a natural production program. The budget has been adjusted to reflect the recommendation for High Priority.Comment:
Fundable. Kartar Creek has a dewatered section in the agricultural area above the lake. The goal of this project is to get water back in the creek. Perhaps the creek would need to be lined or detoured in the reach where it surrounds the agricultural lands. The proposal is primarily to assess options, followed by planning and implementation. They also plan wetlands creation and riparian fencing and planting.The project focuses on Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT), a non-native species, which is currently planted in Omak Lake and supports a trophy class recreational fishery that has strong local and regional support. The lake is highly alkaline and unlikely to support salmonids, other than alkaline-adapted stocks like Lahontan Cutthroat trout. The project seems logical with a laudable goal of attempting to convert a hatchery-supported recreational fishery to a self-supporting self-sustaining fishery.
The proponents provided a good response to the ISRP including conducting field surveys for presence of redband trout. No redband trout were detected in the surveys. The response also provided good attempts at calculating numbers of fish that could be produced. The project would replace hatchery planting with natural reproduction.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUComments
Not Reviewed
Already ESA Req?
Biop? No
Comment:
Recommend deferral to Subbasin PlanningComment: