FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 199604200

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleRestore and Enhance Anadromous Fish Populations and Habitat in Salmon Creek
Proposal ID199604200
OrganizationConfederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation (CCT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameHilary Lyman
Mailing addressP.O. Box 218 Winthrop, WA 98862
Phone / email5099962486 / hilary@methow.com
Manager authorizing this projectHilary Lyman
Review cycleColumbia Cascade
Province / SubbasinColumbia Cascade / Okanogan
Short descriptionProvide instream flows through on-farm water conservation & water leasing. Design a river pump station and an upgrade to the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal. Enhance channel habitat.Design channel restoration. Undertake NEPA. Raise funds for all of the above.
Target speciesSummer steelhead and spring chinook, both listed as endangered in this ESU.
Project location
48.5 -119.72 Salmon Creek is located between the towns of Conconully and Okanogan. Salmon Creek is a tributary to the Okanogan River; it flows into the Okanogan from the northwest
Driving Directions: Highway 97 north to Okanogan. Go to Tee and make a right onto second avenue south. This brings you into Okanogan. You will come to a bridge over the creek.
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)


Action 154
Action 150
Action 149
Action 151
Action 153

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
NMFS Action 153 NMFS BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

1998 Successfully negotiated partnership with Okanogan Irrigation District (OID)
1998 Developed Scope of work and RFP for Joint Feasibility Study conducted by the OID CCT; study investigated possibility of year-round flows in Salmon Creek for all life stages of anadromous fish while maintaining OID's ability to deliver water to irrigators
1999 Joint Feasibility Study completed & identified measures to increase instream flows in Salmon Creek; study also stated that lower 4.3 mile of channel requires major reconstruction for project to be successful
1999 NRCS completed a separate study: Salmon Creek Stream Survey & Analysis that identified fish passage barriers, stream geomorphology, sedimentation rates, fish habitat, ratio of pools:riffles, LWD, vegetation; NRCS identified treatments for problem areas
1999 Bureau of Reclamation constructed fish ladder at Okanogan Irrigation District diversion dam
1999 Bureau of Reclamation upgraded Okanogan Irrigation District's Fish Screen to NMFS' present criteria
1999 Fish passage barrier removed at site of private irrigator's withdrawal at Watercress Springs on lower Salmon Creek
2000 Implemented a water leasing program with OID to provide passage for steelhead adults, juvenile outmigration and overwintering rearing. Leased 900 af of water.
2000 Undertook Phase II of feasibility study and investigated several water supply measures with greater technical detail: Okan River pump station, a re-regulating reservoir, upgrade to the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal, and upgrade to the Johnson Creek pipeline
2000 Negotiated an agreement with the NRCS to use their engineers and range conservationists to conduct bank stabilization projects and congruent farm management plans on private lands in middle reach of Salmon Creek
2000 OID & CCT travelled to Wash. DC to testify before Congress asking for appropriation of funds into the BOR budget for BOR to conduct a separate feasibility study (funding raised; feasibility requirement dropped by the BOR in 2001)
2000 Advertised a Request for Statements of Qualifications from engineering firms to conduct channel reconstruction in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek
2001 Implemented second year of water leasing program with OID to provide passage for steelhead adults, juvenile outmigration and overwintering rearing. Leased 1,700 af of water.
2001 Implemented a district-wide automation program within OID; provides water savings of up to 600 af per year and estimated power savings of 20%
2001 Implemented year 1 of 5 of an on-farm water conservation program with OID irrigators; when complete will provide up to 1,153 af of water saved which can be used for instream flows for fish
2001 Requested proposals for reconstruction of lower reach in Salmon Creek, conducted interviews and hired Entrix Consultants
2001 Renegotiated agreement with NRCS since PPC would not approve hiring NRCS staff for more than a year at a time
2001 Facilitated meetings between BOR, BPA, OID & CCT re having BOR take the lead on NEPA & the BOR conducting their own feasibility study. Outcome was that BPA would take the lead on NEPA with BOR cooperating; BOR dropped feasibility study requirement
2001 Meetings held to decide who will take NEPA lead: BPA decides to take lead on NEPA, works with CCT to expand Entrix's contract so that Entrix will undertake the staff work of NEPA/SEPA and an EIS; Wash Dept of Ecology will take SEPA lead
2001 Entrix, BPA, & CCT developed an approach to NEPA/SEPA/EIS;
2001 CCT & OID meeting with washington state agency directors regarding funding $5M for the 1/2 the costs of the Okanogan River Pump Station
2001 CCT meets with key Wash. state legislators re state funding $5M for 1/2 costs of the pump station out of Gov. Locke's $1B water supply bond initiative
2001 CCT & OID meet with staff of U.S. senators and reps re a $5M congressional appropriation for 1/2 the costs of pump station

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
200001300 Evaluate reintroduction of Sockeye Salmon into Skaha Lake Context of restoration of anadromous fish populations in Okanogan Watershed/sub-basin
200000100 Improve anandromous fish habitat and passage in Omak Creek Context of restoration of anadromous fish populations in Okanogan Watershed/sub-basin
PL-566 Omak Creek Watershed Plan/Environmental Assessment Project (NRCS) Context of restoration of anadromous fish populations in Okanogan Watershed/sub-basin
Omak Creek Restoration sponsored by CCT, funded by NF&WF Context of restoration of anadromous fish populations in Okanogan Watershed/sub-basin
Omak Creek Watershed Restoration funded by Wash state SRFB Context of restoration of anadromous fish populations in Okanogan Watershed/sub-basin
An assessment of anadromous salmonid spawning habitat in the Upper Columbia River from Chief Joseph dam to Grand Coulee Dam by CCT/Battelle Context of restoration of anadromous fish populations in Okanogan Watershed/sub-basin

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Completion of engineering design of Okanogan River Pump Station, drawings, estimates of construction costs a. Recruit qualified engineer to take design to 100% criteria; hire a separate engineering firm to oversee work 1 year $950,000 Yes
b. Acquire right-of-way easementnts & or acquisition for Okanogan River Pump Station Pipeline. Work with OID attorney and manager to secure legal agreements; ownerships .Costs previously defined. 1 year $150,000 Yes
2. Engineering design of replacement of Salmon Lake Feeder Canal Recruit qualified engineer to design a replacement for the SL feeder canal and develop final costs for construction; hire separate firm to oversee work 1 year $335,000 Yes
3. NRCS engineer design Middle Reach bank stabilization projects. NRCS Range Conservationist develop farm manage-ment plans that are congruent with riparian restoration Salaries and administrative expenses only through BPA: funding for implementa-tion sought from Salmon Rec Fund Board 4 years $195,366 Yes
4. Lower reach channel reconstruction a. Public involvement 4 years $30,000 Yes
b. Landowner/tenant database 4 years $20,000 Yes
c. Additional field studies IF results of NEPA ask for further work 1 $100,000 Yes
d. Revisions to 100% final design IF changes are required as a result of NEPA 1 $50,000 Yes
e. Biological opinion IF restoration program becomes an HCP 1 $80,000 Yes
f. Master Plan (Stream Restoration & Management Plan) IF changes are required as a result of NEPA 2 $20,000 Yes
g. Project management 3 $66,000 Yes
h. Develop fundraising strategy 3 $15,000 Yes
i. Misc. Assignments (NWPPC present.) 3 $15,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Engineering design of pump station, drawings, construction estimates 3 3 $0
2. Acquire right of way easements & or acquisition for pump station pipeline 3 3 $0
3. Engineering design of Salmon Lake Feeder Canal upgrade 3 3 $0
4. NRCS engineer and range conservationist restoration design in middle reach 3 7 $896,470
5. a. Lower Reach Channel Reconstruction: Public involvement 3 6 $30,000
b. Landowner/tenant database 3 6 $20,000
c. Additional field studies IF results of NEPA ask for futher work 3 3 $0
d. Revisions to 100% final design IF changes are required as a result of NEPA 3 3 $0
e. New Biological opinion IF restoration program becomes an HCP 3 3 $0
f. Changes to Master Plan (Stream Restor & Mgmt Plan) IF NEPA requires it 3 3 $0
g. Project Management 3 5 $66,000
h. Develop fundraising strategy 3 5 $15,000
i. Misc. Assignments (i.e. presentations to NWPPC) 3 5 $30,000
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Construct Okanogan River Pump Station and Pipeline a. construction & contracting 2 $0 Yes
2. Construct streambank stabilization projects in middle reach of Salmon Creek NRCS will undertake with funding from the Salmon Rec. Funding Board 5 $0 Yes
3. Replace Salmon Lake Feeder Canal Construction & Contracting 1 $0 Yes
4. Reconstruct lower reach of Salmon Cr Contracting & Constructing 2 $0 Yes
5. Continue annual water leasing program until pump station and feeder canal are brought online OID releases water as directed by fishery managers 4 $125,000 Yes
6. Continue on-farm water conservation program Continues program previously initiated 5 $90,000 Yes
7. Acquire conservation easements on up to 5 miles of land adjacent to SC Work with non-profit land trust or WDFW to negotiate conservation easements. 2 $1,850,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Construct Okan River Pump Stn (with addl Funding from Congress & Legislature) 4 5 $2,000,000
2. construct streambank stabilization projects/farm mgmt plans in middle reach 3 7 $0
3. Replace Salmon Lake Feeder Canal 4 5 $1,700,000
4. Reconstruct lower reach of Salmon Creek 4 5 $2,700,000
5. Continue annual water leasing prog until pump stn & feeder canal implemented 4 6 $375,000
6. Continue on-farm water conservation program 4 5 $90,000
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Lower reach channel reconstruction Maintenance & adaptive management 10 $0 Yes
2. Okanogan River Pump Station a. Operations & Maintenance, annual pumping costs 50 $0 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Lower reach maintenance and adaptive management in development 2001 6 16 $100,000
2. Pump station O&M costs to be born by another entity; strategy presently being negotiated 4 54 $0
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2006FY 2007

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Lower reach channel reconstruction Monitoring: plan developed 02-03 10 $0 Yes
2. Middle reach stream bank stabilization projects Monitoring effectiveness of rock vanes, log jams, fencing, riparian plantings, costs to be born locally 10 $0 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2003 cost
Personnel FTE: 1.5 $46,844
Fringe salaries @ 30% $18,550
Supplies 6,000 $6,000
Travel 12,450 $12,450
Indirect salaries at 39.6% $39
Capital $2,000,000
NEPA NEPA included in 01-02 funding $0
PIT tags $0
Subcontractor add up subcontractor fees $4,091,366
Other GSA vehicle, office rent, OID partnership, training, utilities, postage, communications,etc. $92,103
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost$6,267,352
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2003 budget request$6,267,352
FY 2003 forecast from 2002$6,850,000
% change from forecast-8.5%
Reason for change in estimated budget

Engineering work with greater detail provides more accurate numbers on capital projects. In Dec. 2001 it is too early to estimate reconstruction costs for the lower reach. We won't be able to do this until a design has been approved in NEPA. Tribes have developed a funding strategy that seeks funding from many different sources, decreasing the burden to the NWPPC/BPA.

Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Salmon Recovery Funding Board Partial funding of OID District-wide conservation and automation program $230,000 cash
National Fish & Wildlife Foundation On-farm Conservation $75,000 cash
Bureau of Reclamation Design and construction of Fish ladder and Upgrade of fish screen $800,000 in-kind
Wash. State Governor's Salmon Recovery Office Removal of fish passage barrier at lower Salmon Creek $60,000 cash
Okanogan Irrigation District Implementation oversight, administration, coordination of on-farm water conservation program, district-wide automation and coservation program, water leasing program $18,000 in-kind
Okanogan Irrigation District Misc. Administration $3,500 in-kind
Salmon Recovery Funding Board Streambank stabilization projects in middle reach of Salmon Creek (applied for--not funded yet) $600,000 cash
Wash. State legislature Funding for 1/2 of the pump station construction costs has not been secured. This request might fit in to the Governor's proposed $1 billion dollar bond initiative for water supply, storage & instream flows $5,000,000 cash
U.S. Congressional Appropriation Funding for the second 1/2 of the pump station has not been secured. The goal is to match a congressional appropriation to a Wash. State legislative approval. $0 cash

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


Do not fund. A response is not needed. According to the proposal, the Salmon Creek watershed is not large enough to provide the flows needed for irrigators and fish. The proposal is to build a pump station on the Okanogan River so that irrigators may exchange Salmon Creek water for Okanogan River water. Elsewhere, it is noted that at times water temperatures in the Okanogan River exceed 80 degrees F, which is unsuitable for salmon. This is not mentioned in this proposal.

No significant benefit to fish is to be expected from this proposed project, which focuses on highly degraded habitat (dewatered, etc.) that would take an extensive effort and considerable resources to restore. The proposal is to restore steelhead and spring chinook salmon in Salmon Creek, which has an estimated 15 miles of habitat between Conconully Reservoir and the mouth of the Creek that might produce an unspecified (in the proposal) number of adult salmon. Project sponsors have done rough predictive estimates that 150 steelhead, and 130 chinook might result from restoration of this stream reach. We noted the absence of water during the ISRP site visit in October 2001. The creek bed was dry below the fish ladder that is present at the irrigation diversion, located 4.3 miles above the mouth of Salmon Creek. The proposal states that 100% of the creek is diverted at that point. From the oral presentation we learned that the stream drops 550 feet in the lowermost 2.4 miles. Presently, an alluvial fan at the mouth does not allow passage of salmonids except at flood stage. An Entrix study found released flows alone would not restore the stream. A channel would have to be dug. Steelhead would be reintroduced from the Wells Hatchery brood. There are no remnant stocks of spring chinook, so they would need to be introduced from outside. There is no description of a monitoring and evaluation plan that ought to be undertaken.

A "Regional Technical Team" is reported to have identified the project as "very good" in terms of its technical merit (p. 11 of proposal). It is said to have the potential of being the primary spawning and rearing area for spring chinook in the Okanogan basin. We have to question this conclusion on the basis of what we have learned. If the statement is true, it implies that there is very little potential for spring chinook in the Okanogan Basin, and that therefore efforts would be better directed toward other stocks, such as summer/fall chinook, sockeye, or the recently reintroduced coho salmon that appear to be less habitat limited.

Although the ISRP review and recommendation is not predicated on costs, the Council and CBFWA should be aware of the costs compared to the potential benefits of this project. The proposal refers to a review of the Salmon Creek proposal by the Council's Independent Economic Advisory Board in 2001. The IEAB is quoted, in part, on page 16 as complimenting the sponsors on the documentation provided with respect to costs, measurable goals in terms of effects on instream flows, and effects on water supplies for the irrigation district. However, the ISRP notes that there was no documentation of the anticipated numbers of salmon or steelhead that might result from this expenditure, a factor that is of primary concern to us. We also note that the IEAB did not reach any conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of the proposed project relative to other potential uses of the Fish and Wildlife Fund. The project is quite expensive ($7 million request for FY01 and another $7 million for FY02-05), plus about $5 million more in cost sharing from the Washington State Legislature and $5 million from the US Congress. Annual operation and maintenance costs thereafter are estimated at about $500,000. The US Congressional funds have not been secured at this point, and it was unclear in the proposal's budget cost share information, whether the Washington State Legislature allocation had been secured. The Council and CBFWA should carefully consider if the proposed amounts (estimated at $17 to $20 million for a project speculated to provide a few hundred salmon and steelhead) would be better spent on projects with more potential benefit to fish and/or wildlife.

High Priority
May 17, 2002


An EIS is currently being developed that will guide the eventual design of this project. The current proposal addresses all possible alternatives. It is anticipated that through the 3-step process, the focus and scope of the project will be defined. Funding should be provided for ongoing activities until the EIS is completed. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.
Do Not Fund
Jun 7, 2002


Do Not Fund. Potential benefits to the Salmon Creek steelhead and spring chinook population from this very expensive proposed project are minimal at best. Projects at other locations, such as Omak Creek and chinook and sockeye project in the upper Okanogan, offer greater potential benefits to fish for less investment. Benefits from this proposed project accrue mainly to the irrigation district. Further consideration of this proposed project should involve site visits by decision makers and consideration of significantly cheaper methods to place water back into the lower four miles of currently dewatered stream channel.
Jul 19, 2002


Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Provide access to 11 miles of Salmon Creek. Increase spawning and rearing area, and hence survival, for UCR SH, possibly spring chinook.

Anadromous fish are denied access to Salmon Creek as a result of BOR actions and facilities. While Salmon Creek Section 7 consultation is not yet underway, BOR has a responsibility to consult. Habitat in middle Salmon Creek is suitable for steelhead and spring chinook, and given the water quality problems in the Okanogan mainstem, tributary restoration will be an essential element of steelhead recovery. However, while not a biological issue, the proposal at present could cost nearly $20 million to implement, with additional long term O & M costs. With respect to Okanogan River ESU's, it would appear that more could be done elsewhere in the basin with BPA funds. Suggest considering alternatives including a lesser degree of pump exchange that could substantially lower costs. Finally, has it been determined that passage above Conconully is infeasible?

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Jul 26, 2002


Recommend bridge funding to complete NEPA process. Recommend that the Council then reevaluate project goals and priorities prior to making additional recommendations on project funding needs. We note that while this project has identified cost-sharing sources, there has been not apparent coordination among funding entities. The coordination and cost accountability should be emphasized.
Oct 30, 2002


Project Issue 2: Colville Confederated Tribe Project 199604200 Restore and Enhance Anadromous Fish Populations and Habitat in Salmon Creek

This is a comprehensive restoration project sponsored by the Confederated Colville Tribes developed in concert with a number of other participants. The project seeks substantial funding commitments (revised five year estimate of over $6 million).

CBFWA rated the project as "High Priority", Bonneville provided a "B" rating, stating that only bridge funding should be provided to allow the NEPA process to be completed, with a reevaluation of project priorities and goals before making additional commitments.

The ISRP ranked this project a "Do Not Fund". The ISRP review comments were very critical. The Panel stated that "the potential benefits to the Salmon Creek steelhead and spring chinook population from this very expensive proposed project are minimal at best" and that "the proposal is unjustified on the basis of small numbers of fish expected to be produced (in the low hundreds of returning adults based on the oral presentation, but not discussed in the proposal) when compared to the vast amount of effort and resources ($17 to $20 million, plus $500,000 annual operation and maintenance costs) required to restore the highly degraded habitat (dewatered for the lowest four miles, etc.) and the uncertainty of intended results".

NOAA Fisheries stated there is an association of this project to the Biological Opinion for the Federal Columbia River Power System through RPA 500, though they raise questions regarding costs and the perusal of other alternatives.

Council Recommendation: Given the very serious concerns expressed by the ISRP, the Council is recommending a limited and phased approach to moving forward with commitments to this project. The staff and Confederated Colville Tribes agree that the NEPA process, currently in its initial stages, should yield important information that will help the Council and sponsors decide if the anticipated costs of this project are justified by the potential fishery benefits.

As the NEPA process goes forward, there are some continuing administrative and coordination elements of this project that the staff recommends supporting. The Council recommends establishing a placeholder in the amount of $365,819 for FY 2003, $378,257 for FY 2004 and $391,117 for FY 2005 for these activities. These amounts are based upon the Council's funding recommendations for Fiscal Year 2002. The funding should be utilized as follows: $185,790 for support of water conservation and leasing efforts with the Okanogan Irrigation District; and $168,000 for the following sub-elements: $40,000 for OID Partnership Expenses, $118,000 for OID Water Leasing and $10,000 for OID On- farm Water Conservation).

No new funds are needed for the Colville element of the NEPA work that must be completed. The Council understands that the non-NRCS element of planning and design work and the EIS document will be completed with the funds approved by the Council in FY 2001.

The Council recommends that the interim funds identified above be put in a placeholder. Release of the funds would be conditioned on Council and Bonneville review of the project current scope and alternatives being evaluated through NEPA. Consistent with the Council decision in Fiscal Year 2001, Bonneville and the Council need to determine whether the EIS and design work should be continued. This decision should take into account and be based on review of the NEPA scoping documents and the IEAB report (Document IEAB 2001-2). This review needs to be scheduled with Bonneville and the sponsors immediately. The purpose of putting even the administrative and coordination funds in a placeholder until Bonneville, the Council, and the sponsor meet to discuss NEPA scope is to underscore the importance the Council attaches to having this meeting, and to ensure that the meeting is scheduled just as soon as possible.

Once the Council and Bonneville meet to discuss NEPA, the funds in the placeholder will be authorized for use until the project is addressed as part of the step review (which will include an IEAB review of all feasible alternatives). That step review will be linked to the completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, currently scheduled to be completed in June 2003. The step submittal needs to include an extensive delineation of the cost share components of the project. Any future funding (including FY 2005 and out-years) for this project is dependant on a favorable step review and the identification of available funding sources.

Apr 30, 2003


Fund - limit implementation to completion of NEPA review; funding for administrative and coordination activities for the project will be sized to address completion of the Preliminary Draft EIS only; water conservation and leasing activities will be addressed through the project no. 2002-013- 01 (Regional Water Entity). At this time, BPA will fund limited OID participation for their review of the draft EIS as they participate in development of one of the alternatives being analyzed in the EIS. Any additional funding for this project would be contingent on outcomes from the Council's 3-step review process. Since the Council's funding recommendation of October, 2002, BPA, Contractor and Council staff have met to address NEPA scoping issues identified in the Council's recommendation letter.
Sep 20, 2003


Increase due to riparian enhancement projects-lost cost share, cultural resource inventory. 2005 - very rough estimate, based on highest cost alternative (design 1/3 of construction costs) - actual amount needed unknown - dependant on outcome of EIS. EIS anticipated complete in October '04. CAPITAL
Sep 20, 2003


NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$45,000 $0 $0

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website