FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29022

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

This is a proposal to develop a water temperature model for Omak Creek, a tributary of the Okanogan River. High water temperatures are a chronic problem for the Okanogan watershed in summer. This proposal seeks to determine the sources of heating (and cooling) in the landscape of the Omak and the lower Okanogan River basin so that remedial measures might be taken. The primary focus of the proposal is the development of a water temperature model, which could be run with various modifications of input parameters to test alternative temperature management strategies. Secondarily, the CCT would review management strategies for implementation in light of the model results. The project would be managed by the CCT but a contractor would develop the model.

Although the motivation and concept are good, the proposal is poor. The background section was clearly written for another project, as the words do not relate to this work but to the acquisition of water rights. The project rationale is short and not well thought out. There are no references to statements of need in the FWP, BiOp, Subbasin Summary, or other plans. Preliminary work by the CCT seems to be the main driver (this is good, but it needs a regional context). There is a good table of related projects, but no attempt to define what the relationship might be to this work. Objectives and tasks are laid out well, however. No literature is cited with respect to the science of water temperature modeling, other than one reference to the FWP. Resumes for the CCT personnel are included.

A large drawback to the proposal is its lack of information on temperature modeling. The proposal gives no indication that there are existing stream temperature models that might be used for this work (e.g., Bartholow's SSTEMP), although the presentation clarified that a model developed at Oregon State University would be used. The proposal suggested that a wholly new model will be developed (from conceptualization to computerization). There is also no indication in the proposal of who would do the modeling, except that this part of the work would be contracted. At the presentation it was indicated that Brown and Caldwell would do this work, but no qualifications were provided. Development of computer models for water temperature is a field of expertise not found everywhere, and the proposed modelers warrant scrutiny by the ISRP. No scientific references to water temperature models are given. On a positive note, the proposal goes through a logical set of steps (tasks) for the objective of developing a model and for using it for subsequent objectives to develop alternative management strategies for temperature in the Omak and potentially for the rest of the lower Okanogan mainstem and its tributaries. This good overall project structure fails, however, on the critical lack of information about the modeling. Without the key information about models and modeling, the proposal is not fundable.

The project does not seem needed or justified for Omak Creek. The PI's slides at the presentation showed that water temperatures reached the mid-20s C only once in the last decade. Habitat improvements associated with project 200000100 should have positive effects on sediment and temperature inputs, such that Omak Creek temperatures could be merely be monitored to determine if there are chronic or acute temperature problems. Steelhead may be able to accommodate short-term temperature exceedences by remaining in cooler water refuges and migrating into Omak Creek after temperature declines. This life history strategy is observed in steelhead returning to the John Day and Snake River subbasins.

The proposal seems to go beyond what could be concluded from temperature modeling alone. Objective 2 reads "Develop and Prioritize Watershed Recovery Alternatives" and Task 2.c. reads "Simulate and Rank Watershed Recovery Alternatives." It is hard for the ISRP to visualize how this kind of broad information might emerge from a simulation based on data that do not (and can not) include a range of values that would encompass "recovery." Are the sponsors claiming that historical data do include such a range?

The proposal mentions that there is considerable loss of surface flow to the underlying alluvial aquifer. Does this mean the stream dewaters? Is the loss going to hyporheic flow that would affect water temperatures in an upwelling zone downstream (as seen in other locations)?

The proposed exercise is very conceptual at this point in time, and the proposal needs to demonstrate a utility that cannot be addressed without this work. It is unclear why it is appropriate to extrapolate from a small creek like Omak Creek to a larger system like the Okanogan River? How would the larger application be tested for veracity? In summary, there are many concerns with this proposal that do not seem resolvable with a response by the proponents.

Comment:

Comment:

This is a proposal to develop a water temperature model for Omak Creek, a tributary of the Okanogan River. High water temperatures are a chronic problem for the Okanogan watershed in summer. This proposal seeks to determine the sources of heating (and cooling) in the landscape of the Omak and the lower Okanogan River basin so that remedial measures might be taken. The primary focus of the proposal is the development of a water temperature model, which could be run with various modifications of input parameters to test alternative temperature management strategies. Secondarily, the CCT would review management strategies for implementation in light of the model results. The project would be managed by the CCT but a contractor would develop the model.

Although the motivation and concept are good, the proposal is poor. The background section was clearly written for another project, as the words do not relate to this work but to the acquisition of water rights. The project rationale is short and not well thought out. There are no references to statements of need in the FWP, BiOp, Subbasin Summary, or other plans. Preliminary work by the CCT seems to be the main driver (this is good, but it needs a regional context). There is a good table of related projects, but no attempt to define what the relationship might be to this work. Objectives and tasks are laid out well, however. No literature is cited with respect to the science of water temperature modeling, other than one reference to the FWP. Resumes for the CCT personnel are included.

A large drawback to the proposal is its lack of information on temperature modeling. The proposal gives no indication that there are existing stream temperature models that might be used for this work (e.g., Bartholow's SSTEMP), although the presentation clarified that a model developed at Oregon State University would be used. The proposal suggested that a wholly new model will be developed (from conceptualization to computerization). There is also no indication in the proposal of who would do the modeling, except that this part of the work would be contracted. At the presentation it was indicated that Brown and Caldwell would do this work, but no qualifications were provided. Development of computer models for water temperature is a field of expertise not found everywhere, and the proposed modelers warrant scrutiny by the ISRP. No scientific references to water temperature models are given. On a positive note, the proposal goes through a logical set of steps (tasks) for the objective of developing a model and for using it for subsequent objectives to develop alternative management strategies for temperature in the Omak and potentially for the rest of the lower Okanogan mainstem and its tributaries. This good overall project structure fails, however, on the critical lack of information about the modeling. Without the key information about models and modeling, the proposal is not fundable.

The project does not seem needed or justified for Omak Creek. The PI's slides at the presentation showed that water temperatures reached the mid-20s C only once in the last decade. Habitat improvements associated with project 200000100 should have positive effects on sediment and temperature inputs, such that Omak Creek temperatures could be merely be monitored to determine if there are chronic or acute temperature problems. Steelhead may be able to accommodate short-term temperature exceedences by remaining in cooler water refuges and migrating into Omak Creek after temperature declines. This life history strategy is observed in steelhead returning to the John Day and Snake River subbasins.

The proposal seems to go beyond what could be concluded from temperature modeling alone. Objective 2 reads "Develop and Prioritize Watershed Recovery Alternatives" and Task 2.c. reads "Simulate and Rank Watershed Recovery Alternatives." It is hard for the ISRP to visualize how this kind of broad information might emerge from a simulation based on data that do not (and can not) include a range of values that would encompass "recovery." Are the sponsors claiming that historical data do include such a range?

The proposal mentions that there is considerable loss of surface flow to the underlying alluvial aquifer. Does this mean the stream dewaters? Is the loss going to hyporheic flow that would affect water temperatures in an upwelling zone downstream (as seen in other locations)?

The proposed exercise is very conceptual at this point in time, and the proposal needs to demonstrate a utility that cannot be addressed without this work. It is unclear why it is appropriate to extrapolate from a small creek like Omak Creek to a larger system like the Okanogan River? How would the larger application be tested for veracity? In summary, there are many concerns with this proposal that did not seem resolvable with a response by the proponents.

Comment:

Comments
Proposal does not make a case that a temperature model is needed for Omak Creek. It may be more useful to inventory water withdrawals and riparian conditions and then assess the extent to which improvements in either or both could improve water quality in Omak Creek.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

Comment: