FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29037
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 |
|---|---|
| 29037 Narrative | Narrative |
| 29037 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Response to ISRP Comments for project proposal 29037 | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment in the Columbia Cascade Province |
| Proposal ID | 29037 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (WDFW/YN/CCT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Dennis Beich |
| Mailing address | 1550 Alder St. NW Ephrata, WA 98823-9699 |
| Phone / email | 5097544624 / beichdvb@dfw.wa.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | Dennis Beich |
| Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Okanogan |
| Short description | Provide an analytic foundation, including refinement of the coarse screen EDT, needed for the aquatic assessment and management components of subbasin plans in the Columbia Cascade Province. |
| Target species | Spring Chinook (Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook ESU), Steelhead (Upper Columbia River Steelhead ESU), and Coho (Wenatchee system only). |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 47.456 | -120.3156 | Approximate position of the Mouth of the Wenatchee, lower end of the Columbia Cascade Province |
| 49.5 | -119.5 | Upper end of evaluation area, near Penticton, British Columbia |
| 48.08 | -120.13 | Columbia Cascade Province |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| 7 |
| 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 progress report completed for "Entiat EDT Watershed Analysis" funded by the SRFB. |
| 2001 | Regional Technical Team report to Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board "A STRATEGY TO PROTECT AND RESTORE SALMONID HABITAT IN THE UPPER COLUMBIA REGION" May, 2001 |
| 2002 | Continuation of EDT work (funded by BPA) in Yakama Nation Ceded lands and Reservation streams (YKFP). |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 200020033 | Rehabilitate Instream and Riparian Habitat on the Similkameen and Okanogan | EDT assesment could be used to estimate benefits of this work to overall watershed productivity, carrying capacity and life history diversity. |
| 200126033 | Okanogan Watershed Land and Water Rights Acquisition | EDT assesment could be used to estimate benefits of this work to overall watershed productivity, carrying capacity and life history diversity. |
| 200126008 | Omak Creek Relocation Implementation | EDT assesment could be used to estimate benefits of this work to overall watershed productivity, carrying capacity and life history diversity. |
| 199604200 | Okanogan Focus Watershed | EDT results will allow watershed assessments to be more focused and complete in evaluating habitat conditions and in establishing monitoring framework. |
| 20001300 | Evaluation Sockeye Re-introduction into Skaha Lake | EDT assessment may be useful in describing potential limiting factors for sockeye production. |
| 200000100 | Fish Habitat Improvement; Omak Creek | EDT assesment could be used to estimate benefits of this work to overall watershed productivity, carrying capacity and life history diversity. |
| 200126017 | Stream Gaging Installation and Operations | Information collected by these devices will be important to continue to refine EDT data in the future. |
| 200020042 | Integrating Okanogan and Methow Watershed Data for Salmonid Restoration | A continuation of data collection and sysntesis will continue to augment and refine EDT inputs and provide more reliable outputs. |
| 199603401 | Methow River Valley Irrigation District | EDT assesment could be used to estimate benefits of this work to overall watershed productivity, carrying capacity and life history diversity. |
| 199802500 | Early Winters Creek Habitat Restoration | EDT assesment could be used to estimate benefits of this work to overall watershed productivity, carrying capacity and life history diversity. |
| 9604000 | Mid-Columbia Coho Feasibility Reintroduction Study, Yakama Nation | EDT assessment may be useful in helping define carrying capacities for individula species and providing a means for evaluating species interactions. |
| 23024 | Hancock Springs Passage and Habitat Restoration Improvements, Yakama Nation | EDT assesment could be used to estimate benefits of this work to overall watershed productivity, carrying capacity and life history diversity. |
| 199802900 | Goat Creek Instream Habitat Restoration | EDT assesment could be used to estimate benefits of this work to overall watershed productivity, carrying capacity and life history diversity. |
| 200123012 | Arrowleaf/Methow River Conservation Easement | EDT assesment could be used to estimate benefits of this work to overall watershed productivity, carrying capacity and life history diversity. |
| 200126015 | Methow Basin Screening | EDT outputs may be useful in describing increases in salmon productivity as a result of inprovements in irrigation systems. |
| Methow Watershed Project II | EDT assesment could be used to estimate benefits of this work to overall watershed productivity, carrying capacity and life history diversity. | |
| 199803500 | Measure Mine Drainage Effects of Alder Creek | EDT assesment could be used to estimate benefits of this work to overall watershed productivity, carrying capacity and life history diversity. |
| 91999155 | Establish the Methow Watershed Council | EDT results will allow watershed assessments to be more focused and complete in evaluating habitat conditions and in establishing monitoring framework. |
| 19999046 | Identify Res Fish & Macroinvertebrate Taxa & Function in Anad Fish Habitat | EDT assesment could be used to estimate benefits of this work to overall watershed productivity, carrying capacity and life history diversity. |
| 200123027 | Methow Basin Floodplain and Riparian Land Acquisitions | EDT assesment could be used to estimate benefits of this work to overall watershed productivity, carrying capacity and life history diversity. |
| 26029 | Stream Gaging Installation and Operations - Wenatchee | Information collected by these devices will be important to continue to refine EDT data in the future. |
| 199604000 | Wenatchee and Methow River Coho Restoration | EDT assesment could be used to estimate benefits of this work to overall watershed productivity, carrying capacity and life history diversity. |
| 200126036 | Chumstick Creek (North Road) Culvert Replacement | EDT assesment could be used to estimate benefits of this work to overall watershed productivity, carrying capacity and life history diversity. |
| 200020001 | Remove 23 Migrational Barriers and Restore Instream and Riparian Habitat on Chumstick Creek | EDT assesment could be used to estimate benefits of this work to overall watershed productivity, carrying capacity and life history diversity. |
| 200123023 | Stormy Creek High Priority Culvert Replacement | EDT assesment could be used to estimate benefits of this work to overall watershed productivity, carrying capacity and life history diversity. |
| 200123055 | Acquire Prime Salmonid Spawning and Rearing Habitat on Entiat River | EDT assesment could be used to estimate benefits of this work to overall watershed productivity, carrying capacity and life history diversity. |
| 19999031 | Implement Entiat Model Watershed Plan | EDT assesment could be used to estimate benefits of this work to overall watershed productivity, carrying capacity and life history diversity. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. (FY 2003) Characterize the physical environment for each subbasin under the historic (pre-European) and current reference conditions. | 1.a Hire 3.2 FTE's. Technical and Citizen Team facilitators to organize, coordinate, facilitate all meetings, activities and reporting formats. Total staff support. | 1 year | $311,875 | |
| Objective 1. | 1.b. Staff Training - Technical review and training of all aspects of the EDT process, data requirements and model inputs/outputs. Development of the staff infrastructure. Development of staff coordination at regional level. | FY 2003: 1 week | $7,000 | |
| Objective 1. | 1.c. Review coarse screen characterization of aquatic habitat obtained from the Columbia River Basin Multi-Species Framework. | FY 2003: 1 Week | $18,000 | |
| Objective 1. | 1.d. Identify base layer of all reach breaks, including significant passage barriers. | FY 2003: 1 Week | $6,750 | |
| Objective 1. | 1.e. Meeting/workshop: Introduction to EDT process and work needs, timing. Two day meeting Day 1 general information, Day 2 technical information. | FY 2003: 1 Week | $1,000 | |
| Objective 1. | 1.e. Mobrand Biometrics consulting. | FY 2003: 1 Week | $1,000 | Yes |
| Objective 1. | 1.f. Compile all relevant published and unpublished data, including Limiting Factor Analysis and the subbasin summaries, and provided at the workshops. | FY 2003: 1 Month | $15,000 | |
| Objective 1. | 1.g. Set up electronic version of all documentation formats to be used throughout the EDT process. Mobrand Biometrics consulting. | FY 2003: 1 Week | $1,000 | Yes |
| Objective 1. | 1.h. Technical teams will be assembled to “rate” habitat attributes according to existing definitions. | FY 2003: 5 Months | $183,000 | |
| Objective 1. | 1.h. Mobrand Biometrics consulting. | FY 2003: 5 Months | $7,000 | Yes |
| Objective 1. | 1.i. EDT/GIS analysis and support, 0.5 FTE: Public and technical presentation tools and analysis. | FY 2003: 6 Months | $45,313 | |
| Objective 1. | 1.j. Backfilling habitat ratings. Technical work to be completed outside of the workshops for review and input by technical team. | FY 2003: 3 Weeks | $23,000 | |
| Objective 1. | 1.j. Mobrand Biometrics consulting. | FY 2003: 3 Weeks | $500 | Yes |
| Objective 1. | 1.k. Technical and citizen review of current and historic habitat attributes (Level 2 data) that will be used in the modeled characterization (Diagnosis) of the four subbasins. | FY 2003: 2 weeks | $31,000 | |
| Objective 2. (FY 2003) Identify, by using the EDT model, key habitat factors hypothesized to limit the potential production of indicator species (chinook salmon and steelhead in all subbasins, including coho salmon in the Wenatchee) in each subbasin. | 2.a. EDT Modeling Run 1. Preliminary Diagnosis model run to begin “calibrating” the model and to provide preliminary results indicating relative changes to habitat from historic to current conditions, as experienced by the diagnostic species. | FY 2003: 2 Months | $60,000 | Yes |
| 2.b. Technical Review of Diagnosis. First Diagnosis review by technical teams to verify consistency of model results with actual observations and understanding of the stream reaches. Preliminary reports is much abbreviated from expected final report. | FY 2003: 1 Week | $22,500 | ||
| Objective 2. | 2.b. Mobrand Biometrics consulting. | FY 2003: 1 Week | $1,500 | Yes |
| Objective 2. | 2.c. Collect additional field data required to verify and/or address critical uncertainties identified during technical workshops. | FY 2003: 4 Months | $59,375 | |
| Objective 2. | 2.d. EDT Modeling Run 2. Final Diagnostic Report. Second EDT model run for refinement of Diagnosis. | FY 2003: 2 Months | $75,000 | Yes |
| Objective 2. | 2.e. Evaluate the sensitivity of model predictions to data limitations; identify a prioritized list of research and monitoring needs. | FY 2003: 1 Week | $11,250 | |
| Objective 2. | 2.e. Mobrand Biometrics consulting. | FY 2003: 1 Week | $20,000 | Yes |
| Objective 2. | 2.f. Technical and Citizen Review of the Final Diagnosis Report. Final MBI Report review by technical and general public and approved as a working hypothesis of the changes in environmental conditions responsible for affecting productivity, etc. | FY 2003: 1 Week | $24,000 | |
| Objective 2. | 2.f. Mobrand Biometrics consulting. | FY 2003: 1 Week | $500 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 3. (FY 2004)Develop a working hypothesis regarding the condition and processes affecting the ecosystem within each subbasin and identify alternative management strategies to protect, or restore to, healthy aquatic and riparian characteristics. | 2004 | 2004 | $272,250 |
| Objective 4. Develop Engineered Actions. Incorporate a subroutine or Physical Process Model to identify causal mechanisms for Level 2 attributes and associated actions to "treat" causal mechanisms of environmental degradation. | 2004 | 2004 | $0 |
| Objective 5a and 5b. Identify potential Alternative Management Strategies and estimate changes in carrying capacity, species productivity, and habitat diversity. Evaluate and describe expected Costs, Benefits and Risks. | 2004 | 2004 | $400,000 |
| Objective 6. Identify a preferred Management Strategy for each subbasin and highly refine the Cost, Benefit and Risk assessment for potential site-specific projects consistent with a prioritized strategy. | 2005 | 2005 | $119,125 |
| Objective 7. Develop a preferred Subbasin Management Strategy, for each subbasin, that will best attain stated long-term goals and objectives towards protection and restoration of aquatic/riparian resources. | 2005 | 2005 | $100,000 |
| Note: Objective 4: NPPC money is not requested for this objective within this proposal. The development of the Physical Process Model is being proposed by Golder and Associates (Keith Wolf) as a separate but integrated component of the EDT modeling | $0 | ||
| Note: 3.7 FTE expenses included in estimates for FY 2004. 1.0 FTE for 2005. | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| $672,250 | $219,125 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not Applicable | $0 | |||
| No construction or implementation of projects expected. | $0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not Applicable | $0 | |||
| No Operation and Maintenance funds are requested. | $0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not Applicable | $0 | |||
| No Monitoring or Evaluation funds are requested. | $0 |
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 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 3.7 FTE required (includes field crew, facilitators, and EDT/GIS support) | $205,000 |
| Fringe | Assume 35% of base salary | $61,500 |
| Supplies | Office materials and lap-top computer systems. | $14,000 |
| Travel | Assume vehicle and fuel expenses and occasional lodging. Assume office space. | $41,250 |
| Indirect | Assume 25 % | $83,313 |
| Capital | Assume office space | $11,500 |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | Mobrand Biometrics Inc. | $167,500 |
| Other | All agency personnel (Tot Reg Supt) and Add. Reg. Ex's associated with Objectives 1 and 2. | $341,500 |
| $925,563 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $925,563 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $925,563 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| NOTE: | Impossible to predict how much agencies and private stakeholders will participate in future years. Assume at least 80 hours per agency for Subbasin Planning in 2005, and likely substantially more involvement throughout development of EDT final report. | $0 | in-kind |
| CCT | Personnel support; Staff and Policy | $20,000 | in-kind |
| WDFW | Personnel support; Staff and Policy | $20,000 | in-kind |
| YN | Personnel support; Staff and Policy | $20,000 | in-kind |
| USFWS | Personnel support; Staff and Policy | $20,000 | in-kind |
| USBLM | Personnel support; Staff and Policy | $20,000 | in-kind |
| WDOE | Personnel support; Staff and Policy | $20,000 | in-kind |
| USFS | Personnel support; Staff and Policy | $20,000 | in-kind |
Other budget explanation
NOTE: No agencies have been formally requested to provide in-kind services for this request at this time. These in-kind estimates are assuming their participation in the development of the EDT report for the benefit of the subbasin process and estimates are likey substantially low.
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. To be fundable this proposal should have a letter of support from the Council that it is needed as part of the subbasin planning effort.The proposal should be reviewed in the context of the subbasin planning effort rather than the provincial review. Would this proposal add significant value to the EDT analysis already envisioned and potentially funded through that effort. The proponents should indicate what scale of information is needed for the subbasin planning? A review of the scientific soundness of EDT and this further refinement needs to be done at a more in depth level than can provided as part of the Columbia Cascade Provincial Review. Perhaps this project and related EDT activities should be reviewed by the Council's and NMFS' Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) in the broader context of subbasin planning and recovery of anadromous fish in the entire Columbia Basin.
The response should report current results from the use of EDT in the Entiat subbasin, and other subbasins starting with the Grand Ronde subbasin in 1992 and illustrate the role of EDT in selection of specific management actions for these subbasins. The response should identify specific management actions that have or will be carried out as a direct result of the use of EDT. Please give names and contact information of individuals responsible for these management actions. Include letters of support from individuals who have used EDT to reach consensus on management actions.
Is the following quote from proposal #29021 correct? "Habitat models such as the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment model provide an adequately clear picture for relative conditions across a well-defined set of environmental attributes but stop short of assisting planners and decision-makers with identifying specific actions (e.g., realign a segment of stream, mobilize and store sediments, normalize a hydrograph, stabilize a bank, remove a road, modify a dike structure) that will result in changes in the condition of habitat attributes, or the ability to assess the effects of specific actions." If correct, explain why this project should be funded. If incorrect, provide some counter examples. Proposal #29021 also has the critical question "Which alternative project strategy exhibits the 'best' expected performance or outcome?" Is this an output of an EDT analysis? Give real illustrations.
What exactly is the expected outcome of the proposed EDT analysis for a given subbasin? In the relationship to other projects the phrases "EDT could be used to....." or "EDT may be useful in ......" are given. Where are the demonstrated important uses and results?
The response should describe in detail a monitoring and evaluation component for this project. What real data will be collected and how will the project be evaluated (ground truthed)? How and when will one know that the project was a success or a failure? Apparently, the Regional Analytical Advisory Committee will provide some ground-truthing and review of EDT for use in subbasin planning, but these efforts are just underway and should be described in detail. What is the work plan and method developed by the RAAC for the EDT validation project? The copy of the proposal may have been cut off short. References and resumes should be given. The response should contain references to and perhaps copies of critical documents (technical appendices) that give the actual mathematical formulas and methods behind EDT.
Comment:
The budget for this project has been reduced to reflect ecosystem diagnosis but not treatment and salmon recovery funding is being pursued. Funding was not provided through the WA SRFB process. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.Comment:
Not Fundable. No response was provided to address the ISRP's preliminary review concerns.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUIndirect benefit. Assemble analysis to support subbasin planning. No direct benefit to any ESU.
Comments
In that TRT has been formed for upper Columbia, regional technical team and TRT may wish to jointly determine the potential value of en extensive EDT analysis in this area.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Recommend deferral to Subbasin PlanningComment: