Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Prepare a Master Plan for Protecting and Restoring Salmon Habitat in Okanagan River |
| Proposal ID | 29017 |
| Organization | Colville Confederated Tribes/Okanagan Nation Fisheries Commission (CCT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Christopher Fisher |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 862 Omak, WA 98841 |
| Phone / email | 5094227427 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Gerald Marco / Byron Louis |
| Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Okanogan |
| Short description | Prepare a Master Plan to guide the protection and restoration of sockeye salmon habitat in the Canadian portion of Okanagan River. |
| Target species | Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 49.2578 |
-119.6785 |
Okanagan River between Okanagan and Osoyoos Lakes, British Columbia, Canada |
| 48.99 |
-119.72 |
Okanagan River between Okanagan and Osoyoos Lakes, British Columbia, Canada |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 2000 |
Completed a report on the merits of setback dyking and meander restorations. |
| 2001 |
Completed a pilot project showing how concrete drop structures can be replaced by natural riffle/pool complexes. |
| 2000 |
Completed a pilot revegetation project and developed a draft protocol for planting on dykes. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 200001300 |
Evaluation of an experimental re-intorduction of sockeye salmon into Skaha Lake |
The present proposal would provide a conceptual framework and master plan which would consider all fisheries initiatives for this waterway. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Project management and administration |
a. coordinate and facilitate agency and stakeholder meetings |
|
$6,000 |
Yes |
| 2. Compile & record relevant data on fisheries habitat |
a. Identify, review & summarize exising reports, maps, photos & files.
b. Interview staff of ONFC; Canada Fisheries & Oceans; Ministry of Water , Land and Air Protection; and critical stakeholders.
c. collect anecdotal information |
|
$14,000 |
Yes |
| 3. Develop prioritization of river reaches based on fisheries data for potential restoration options |
a. identify reaches that were historically used by anadromous fish
b. facilitate fisheries management meetings
c.Develop draft prioritization plan of river reaches for restoration and viable alternatives for each river section. |
|
$39,000 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| Continued project management , develop prioritization of river reaches based on outcome of agency meeting and stakeholder meetings, finalize plan, develop monitoring and evaluation plan, identify potential partners, and implementation of plan |
2004 |
2004 |
$118,000 |
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 |
|---|
|
|
|
$0 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| Implement desired options for river restoration sites and techniques which may include: removal of vertical drop structure, dyke setback , riffle construction, meander construction. |
2005 |
2005 |
$526,000 |
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 Required |
|
|
$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 |
|---|
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 |
|---|
| Subcontractor |
|
$59,000 |
| $59,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $59,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $59,000 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
Please refer to the attached response document as requested by the ISRP review.
Reason for change in scope
Please refer to the attached response document as requested by the ISRP review.
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Canadian Fisheries Authorities, Local Governments, Critical Stakeholders |
Expert advice, consultation and plan review. |
$20,000 |
in-kind |
| Non-governmnet organizations e.g. Ducks Unlimited, The Land Conservancy of BC |
Riparian land securment for restoration project implementation beginning 2005 |
$750,000 |
in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed. The proposal is to develop a plan for restoring portions of the Okanogan River that have been channelized or otherwise disturbed by human actions. This may involve setbacks of dykes, and/or work within a section of river that has been channelized to restore a more natural gradient and substrate. An example is given. Between Osoyoos and Vaseau Lake a series of concrete vertical drop structures was placed after channelization. In 2001 rock barriers were placed between two of the concrete structures, thereby creating a natural pool riffle complex, resulting in creation of spawning habitat that was used by sockeye. The proposal is to identify the most essential or potentially productive stream reaches within the Okanogan as a long-range action plan.
This is somewhat of a skeletal proposal without much detail about methods. It is a one-year planning study only. Actual implementation would come later (what is the plan for this continuation?). There is insufficient detail about how the plan would be developed. Objectives, tasks and methods should all be expanded significantly. What product comes out of this one-year effort? It appears they have a good idea on some restoration projects, e.g. replacing the drop structure, how will these efforts be funded. Why weren't funds requested in this process? This planning effort should include specification of development of a monitoring and evaluation plan. Is one year enough to ensure stakeholder participation?
Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
May 17, 2002
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002
Comment:
Fundable at high priority. The response was adequate and is now a much more realistic proposal and includes an appropriate timeframe. The proposal is to develop a plan for restoring portions of the Okanogan River that have been channelized or otherwise disturbed by human actions. This may involve setbacks of dykes, and/or work within a section of river that has been channelized to restore a more natural gradient and substrate. An example is given. Between Osoyoos and Vaseau Lake a series of concrete vertical drop structures was placed after channelization. In 2001 rock barriers were placed between two of the concrete structures, thereby creating a natural pool riffle complex, resulting in creation of spawning habitat that was used by sockeye. The proposal is to identify the most essential or potentially productive stream reaches within the Okanogan as a long-range action plan. This is a proposal for a one-year planning study only. Actual implementation would come later.
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Assessment could lead to improved habitat conditions and increased habitat area for Okanogan SockeyeComments
Not clear how this proposal would be integrated with or supplemental to existing efforts to enhance Okanogan Sockeye. Proposal is short on detail.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No
Recommendation:
C
Date:
Jul 26, 2002
Comment:
Recommend deferral to Subbasin Planning; this kind of project could support implementation of RPA 154.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002
Comment: