FY 2000 proposal 20033

Additional documents

TitleType
20033 Narrative Narrative
20033 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleRehabilitate Instream and Riparian Habitat on the Similkameen and Okanogan Rivers
Proposal ID20033
OrganizationU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameKate Terrell
Mailing address517 S. Buchanan Street Moses Lake, WA 98837
Phone / email5097656125 / Kate_Terrell@fws.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Cascade / Okanogan
Short descriptionRehabilitate and enhance 6 miles of in-stream and riparian habitat along the Okanogan and Similkameen river channels adjacent to Driscoll Island. This will enhance spawning habitat for adult anadromous salmonids and improve the rearing and resting habita
Target speciesSpecies that will be affected include chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) salmon as well as resident species.
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9604200 Colville Confederated Tribes to carry out Okanogan Watershed Planning and t
9604000 Restore and Enhance Anadromous Fish Habitat in Salmon Creek

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel Cost Share $0
Fringe Cost Share $0
Supplies Survey Equipment $1,420
Capital Installation of a one lane bridge $430,000
NEPA Cost Share $0
Construction See capital acquisitions $0
Travel Cost Share $0
Indirect Contract Administration $44,082
Other Training $9,400
$484,902
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$484,902
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$484,902
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
USFWS Personnel for Survey and Design $24,838 unknown
Environmental Compliance $16,559 unknown
Monitoring $20,000 unknown
NRCS Personnel for Survey and Design $24,838 unknown
WDFW Engineering for bridge crossing and permitting $32,000 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: It will be necessary that all instream work be completed during the work window established by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife


Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Fund (medium priority)
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Fund (medium priority), but cost per mile is very high and vulnerability of project to anthropogenic and natural disturbances has not been adequately considered.

Comments: The proposal's primary goals are to improve instream and riparian habitat improvement around Driscoll Island, which offers the potential for broad benefits to fish and wildlife. River channels around Driscoll Island provide migration corridors, spawning areas, and rearing habitat for summer chinook, and summer steelhead, as well as migration corridors for sockeye salmon. Bull trout may be present. The project has a clear relationship to overall goals for anadromous fishes in the Okanogan River, although they could have better described potential benefits in the context of the entire Okanogan subbasin.

The proposed activities are focused on improvements in water temperature (primary limiting factor), riparian vegetation, streambank stability, and habitat complexity are anticipated. Sources of LWD are lacking. The proposal calls for investing about $300,000 per mile over the life of the project to improve 6 miles of river and riparian zone in a very large watershed. There has been no effort to quantify the potential benefits to fish populations that would derive from enhancing this limited stream reach at very high cost. Proposed activities include Rosgen habitat survey, restoration plan development, and rehabilitation of 6-7 miles of river corridor. Reviewers were concerned that the proposal did not describe the potential for passive restoration methods. Rather, the proposal seems to assume that expensive bioengineering as the solution for habitat improvement. A large portion of project costs is for bridge construction for permanent access to the island (ca. 84%). What are project restoration costs relative to bridge construction costs? Are there alternatives to a bridge? The bridge offers some benefits such as improved access for public education opportunities such as the planned interpretive trail, but there are also potential negative impacts associated with public access. Monitoring is included. The proposal leaves several important questions unanswered. Specific stream condition information for the project area is lacking. Soils in the area are highly erodible and the area is subject to high flood events. Will problems remaining in upstream watersheds contribute to flooding and erosion that will be detrimental to project? If it has been highly impacted in the past, they should provide assurances that the restoration activities will not be impacted by the same factors that contributed to the degradation of the site.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Mostly a literature review and does not synthesize information into project detail. It appears to repeat proposal 20001.

This proposal seems to be the antithesis of Rosgen principles (i.e. make the system work naturally rather than forcing it structurally).

Poor cost-benefit for fisheries production. High cost per mile of stream ($298,000), shoreline ($716,000), and/or island ($448,000).


Recommendation:
Rank 32
Date:
Oct 8, 1999

Comment:

Rank Comments: In general the ISRP was supportive of the proposal's primary goals to improve instream and riparian habitat around Driscoll Island, which offers the potential for broad benefits to fish and wildlife.
Recommendation:
Rank 32
Date:
Oct 8, 1999

Comment:

In general the ISRP was supportive of the proposal’s primary goals to improve instream and riparian habitat around Driscoll Island, which offers the potential for broad benefits to fish and wildlife.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 2-2-00 Council Meeting];