FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29032

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
29032 Narrative	Narrative
29032 Sponsor Response to ISRP	Response
Lisa Dally Wilson Resume	Narrative Attachment
Chris Pitre Resume	Narrative Attachment
Paul Wagner Resume	Narrative Attachment
Keith Wolf Resume	Narrative Attachment
29032 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Okanogan Basin Water Strategy Development and Pilot Projects
Proposal ID	29032
Organization	Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation/Okanogan County (CCT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Joe Peone
Mailing address	P.O. Box 150 Nespelam, WA
Phone / email	5096342110 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	Joe Peone
Review cycle	Columbia Cascade
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Cascade / Okanogan
Short description	At the local level, identify, formulate, and implement reasonable and feasible water strategies to increase instream flow within three selected pilot project tributaries of the Okanogan basin
Target species	Priority will be placed on restoring streamflows for spring and summer chinook salmon, Upper Columbia ESU summer steelhead, sockeye

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
49.0033	-119.6772	Northernmost Okanogan Basin (at US/Canadian Border)
48.0808	-119.704	Southernmost Okanogan Basin
48.54	-119.49	Okanogan River

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Action 151

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 151	NMFS	BPA shall, in coordination with NMFS, experiment with innovative ways to increase tributary flows by, for example, establishing a water brokerage. BPA will begin these experiments as soon as possible and submit a report evaluating their efficacy at the end of 5 years.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
	New project

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
0	CURE: Conjunctive Use and River Enhancement Demonstrate the benefits between and/or impacts from direct augmentation of upper Methow River streamflow using groundwater from the prolific Upper Methow Valley Aquifer.	CURE is one type of water strategy for the Okanogan
198347700	Enloe Dam passage	provides information on flow and aquatic habitat that could be incorporated into data needs of the Water Strategy
20000010	Improvement of habitat and fish passage Omak Creek
0	EDT Application for the Upper Columbia	Habitat assessed through EDT analysis in the Okanogan basin will complement the informational needs of the water strategy

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
Objective 1. Administer and direct contract	a) 1.0 FTE w/overhead and fringe;b) Contract administration 0.1 FTE	Ongoing	$61,420
	Miscellaneous: suppies, travel,etc	Ongoing	$12,500
Objective 2: Program coordinator directs collection, summary and development of a database of water rights and water use data for the Okanogan tributaries.	a. Compile and review water rights data	1	$10,000	Yes
	b. Compile and review water use data	1	$20,000	Yes
	c. Collect water use information from water resource managers and biologists and government agencies working in the basin	1	$5,000	Yes
	d. Analyze water rights and use for each tributary .	1	$25,000	Yes
	e. Develop a database of the information collected in Tasks 1-4.	1	$10,000	Yes
Objective 3: Program coordinator directs development of pilot project selection criteria and identification of three tributaries for the implementation of water strategies to serve as pilot projects.	a. Develop criteria for pilot project selection	1	$5,000	Yes
	b. Discuss flo w regimes with water resource managers, biologists, and government agencies working in the basin	1	$3,000	Yes
	c. Review biological data, water use and rights information data (collected in Objective 1, sociological data concerning stakeholder information for selection of pilot projects based on criteria developed in Objective 2, Task 1.	1	$25,000	Yes
	d. Hold a workshop for water users in top ranking tributaries based on criteria in tasks 1 –3 to provide information on data collected in Objective 1 and to assess interest in participation	1	$10,000	Yes
	e. Select pilot project tributaries	1	$5,000	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
Objective 1: Adminster contract and direct tasks	2003	2007	$150,000
Objective 2: Program coordinator directs collection, summary and development of a database of water rights and water use data for the Okanogan tributaries. .	2003	2004	$70,000
Objective 3: Program coordinator directs development of pilot project selection criteria and identification of three tributaries for the implementation of water strategies to serve as pilot projects.	2003	2004	$48,000

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$61,420	$61,420	$61,420	$61,420

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost
Objective 4. Program coordinator identifies stakeholders and develops a stakeholder forum for each pilot project tributary	a. Identify other stakeholder interests beyond those identified in Objective 3. Task 3. including, recreational, ecological, local, state, federal, tribal agencies, and other interests in the tributary to assess interest in participation.	1	$0
	b. Establish a multi-stakeholder group for each pilot tributary with appropriate representation of all interests identified in Task 1 above	1	$0
	c. Facilitate monthly meetings of stakeholder group	Ongoing	$0
Objective 5. Stakeholder group reviews water strategies for applicability and feasibility in the pilot tributary.	a. Collect information on and review water strategies in each pilot tributary. Water strategies that will be considered include: water conservation strategies, acquisition (purchase and/or lease) and transfer of water	2	$0
	b. Coordinate with Deschutes Resources Conservancy (DRC) on lessons learned from implementation of Deschutes Water Exhange	1	$0
	c.Coordinate with Washington Water Trust on implementing applicable water strategies.	2	$0
	d. Identify which market strategies are reasonable and feasible for each pilot tributary based on stakeholder consensus	2	$0
	e. Identify which water strategies can be implemented immediately and which need framework/foundation development	2	$0
	f. Identify additional funding needs for implementation	2	$0
	g. Identify additional funding/cost share sources for implementation	2	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
Objective 4. Program coordinator identifies stakeholders and develops a stakeholder forum for each pilot project tributary	2004	2007	$20,000
Objective 5. Stakeholder group reviews water strategies for applicability and feasibility in the pilot tributary.	2004	2006	$43,000

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$38,000	$25,000	$5,000	$5,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
Objective 6. Stakeholder group will develop and implement an action plan for consensus based water strategies for each of the three tributaries.	a. Develop water conservation strategies (if selected as a reasonable strategy)	Ongoing	$0
	b. Begin Purchase/Lease/Transfer of Water (if selected as a reasonable and feasible strategy)	Ongoing	$0
	c. Develop Water Leasing Program Framework (if selected as a reasonable and feasible strategy)	Ongoing	$0
	d. Develop Water Market Framework (if selected as a reasonable and feasible strategy)	Ongoing	$0	Yes
	e. Develop Compensatory Water Mitigation Bank framework (if selected as reasonable and feasible strategy)	Ongoing	$0	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
Objective 6. Stakeholder group will develop and implement an action plan for consensus based water strategies for each of the three tributaries.	2005	2007	$750,000

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$100,000	$300,000	$350,000

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
Personnel	FTE: 1.0 +200 hours	$37,000
Fringe	42.3%	$15,540
Supplies		$5,000
Travel		$2,500
Indirect	24%	$8,880
Capital		$0
NEPA		$5,000
Subcontractor		$118,000
		$191,920

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 cost	$191,920
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2003 budget request	$191,920
FY 2003 forecast from 2002	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Reason for change in scope

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
Colville Tribes	office, office supplies	$5,000	in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2002-2)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

A response is needed to clarify relationship to proposal #29001 and intended follow-up actions.

This is a planning project to help correct the main habitat problems of the Okanogan basin: low flows and high temperatures. The project would work at the local level to identify, formulate, and implement reasonable and feasible water strategies to increase instream flow within three selected pilot project tributaries of the Okanogan basin. Water rights and uses would be inventoried in a database (updating existing databases), selection criteria for pilot projects would be developed and three pilot projects on tributaries would be selected where low instream flows make salmonid habitat problematic and where water use is significant and there are willing stakeholder participants. A multi-stakeholder forum would be established for each pilot project to obtain consensus strategies. Water conservation, land acquisition, water right acquisition for instream use, establishment of a formal water market, and a compensatory wetland mitigation bank are some of the strategies to be explored locally. An action plan would be developed for each pilot tributary.

The proposal was well done, and the presentation answered the ISRP team's questions about the subcontractor (Golder) and the source of the required stream flows (limiting factors analysis, a Washington state process). The project seems to meet the ISRP review criteria. The rationale for the work is well laid out on the basis of the BiOp, Subbasin Summary, Council's FWP, the Salmon Recovery Board, and the CCT's Integrated Resource Management Plan. There is a comprehensive listing of related projects and proposals. The objectives are not especially well written, but the intent is clear. Tasks are good. There is a worthy goal and needed planning (and follow-through with actions). Monitoring is not relevant to this proposal (until actions are to be implemented), although pre-implementation, baseline monitoring might be considered where pilot actions are likely.

There are questions about the proposal that require a response. The first is the detailed relationship of this proposal to proposal number 29001, which seems to be proposing much the same work by the CCT. The difference may be the scale (the western CCT reservation in 29001 and selected pilot watersheds in this proposal). Clarification would help. A second point is the intended follow-up. The planning leaves implementation of the pilots' action plans up in the air. Some further development of the ideas to an intended (future?) implementation phase would be helpful for ISRP review.

By way of information, the ISRP team suggests that the proponents look at the proposal #25074, Deschutes Water Exchange - see especially preliminary ISRP review. Do some of the comments and 7 questions apply here? See http://www.cbfwa.org/files/province/plateau/projects/25074.htm#reviews.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

Project sponsor has indicated that Objective 3c can be reduced by $25,000 for 2003. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-11)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Fundable. This is a planning project to help correct the main habitat problems of the Okanogan basin: low flows and high temperatures. The project would work at the local level to identify, formulate, and implement reasonable and feasible water strategies to increase instream flow within three selected pilot project tributaries of the Okanogan basin. Water rights and uses would be inventoried in a database (updating existing databases), selection criteria for pilot projects would be developed and three pilot projects on tributaries would be selected where low instream flows make salmonid habitat problematic and where water use is significant and there are willing stakeholder participants. A multi-stakeholder forum would be established for each pilot project to obtain consensus strategies. Water conservation, land acquisition, water right acquisition for instream use, establishment of a formal water market, and a compensatory wetland mitigation bank are some of the strategies to be explored locally. An action plan would be developed for each pilot tributary.

The response addressed the ISRP's questions about relationships to proposal 29001, implementation, and the general issues related to water brokering from its review of proposal 25074. The ISRP still has uneasiness about the many overlaps with 29001 and the somewhat vague nature of this project, which may be symptomatic of work that is more social action than hard research, analysis, or implementation. The vagueness of the project may be necessary, however, to get meaningful dialogue on water conservation and use. However, the work proposed in 29001 might be lumped as a specific task in the broader planning effort of 29032.

There are clear overlaps with proposal 29001, which the response details. There is a common goal, the projects will use coordinated management, use one database (developed in proposal 29001), share information and use coordinated effectiveness monitoring once implementation is undertaken. Implementation will differ, however. Proposal 29001 is specifically for the western Colville Reservation, whereas 29032 covers all of the Okanogan basin in the U.S., with respective differences in stakeholders. Proposal 29001 focuses on water rights related to the 1872 treaty and is specifically implemented by water acquisition/transfer to a water fund, whereas all strategies are open for 29032. The response offered thoughtful comments on water brokering raised by the ISRP in review of another project.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Indirect benefit. It could lead to increased survival if project results in the development of strategies to increase stream flows in three Okanogan Basin tributaries.

Comments
Well written proposal. Relationship to # 29001 could be better explained. Tributary flow improvement will be an essential element of steelhead recovery in the Okanogan.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
C

Date:
Jul 26, 2002

Comment:

Recommend deferral to Subbasin Planning or submission to Regional Water Entity

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: