FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 200000100

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

Reason for change in estimated budget

Efforts have been focused on reducing the amount of sediment in the stream channel. The main sediment source are roads. Previously the restoration effort was focused on livestock management. That emphasis continues with an additional effort to decommission roads particularly in the upper area of the watershed.

Reason for change in scope

There is no change in scope. The focus has been to incoporate land management practices to reduce deleterious effects upon fish habitat.

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Over the past 4 years funding has been received from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board, Jobs-for-the-Environment, Jobs-in-the-Woods, the Watershed Protection and Flood Act - Public Law-566, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Bureau of Indian Affairs - Fire Suppression Funds and in-kind services by the Colville Tribe Fish and Wildlife staff to analyze and implement restoration efforts needed to improve the health of the Omak Creek watershed.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

This is a continuation proposal for straightforward and conventional tributary habitat improvements, including culvert replacement, stream channel modification, cattle fencing, and road decommissioning in Omak Creek, a tributary stream of the Okanogan River in Okanogan County, Washington. The main benefit would be to summer steelhead (listed as endangered). The project was initiated by a 1995 Omak Creek Watershed Plan/Environmental Assessment prepared by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. The watershed analysis identified several limiting factors, which this project is seeking to correct. Work began under non-BPA funding through NRCS (PL 83-556); BPA funded work began in 2000. The principal focus of past work has been on removing two barriers, one a long culvert that required relocation of the creek channel and installation of a modern culvert, and the other an impassable debris pile (called Mission Falls) that remained after railroad construction in the 1920s. A poor job of stream realignment at the old culvert needs to be corrected. Based on recent watershed analyses, there is a new focus on road decommissioning, as the roads contribute large amounts of sediment to the stream.

This is a good, straightforward proposal that meets the ISRP review criteria. There would be benefit to Fish and Wildlife from passage improvements and habitat rehabilitation, although the numbers of fish that used the stream historically and the numbers anticipated to return after rehabilitation are not clear. Conventional restoration techniques are used. Results to date were given. There is good background and justification, with clear justification by citation of the FWP and BiOp; the watershed analysis is the most relevant justification. Objectives, tasks, and methods are provided and are appropriate. Monitoring is built into the work. There has been good progress to date (although past stream relocation work needs correction, based on monitoring). There is good cost share (about 1/3), and the relationships to other projects are adequately described. Facilities and equipment seem appropriate, and there were good staff resumes. There was a good reference list.

Some questions remain that need to be answered in a response. The main one concerns the potential fish benefit. How many returning fish could this restoration project expect to attain? How many used it historically? During the oral presentation, project sponsor suggested that after stream restoration occurred, as many as 200 adult summer steelhead might return to Omak Creek; however, the proposal does not indicate the number of adult steelhead returns that are expected. Is the estimate of 200 adult steelhead returning correct? How does this potential stack up against other restoration efforts/proposals, such as Salmon Creek, Okanagan River, etc.? This perspective should be available now that the work has been underway. Questions by the reviewers during the presentation suggested that there is only anecdotal evidence, which suggests fewer fish than Salmon Creek, and that Omak Creek is not likely a spring Chinook creek. Steelhead may have more potential in Omak than Salmon Creek. These points need to be elaborated upon in order to get a sense of the relative benefits to fish for costs incurred. Second, there is a large increase in budget compared to projections in 2002, primarily to accommodate additional attention to road decommissioning. We do not question the need for the roadwork, but suggest that the matter be given attention for fiscal reasons. Some listed accomplishments are incomplete (e.g., number of miles of fencing installed). The degree to which past work needs to be redone, and the lessons learned from this bad experience with a contractor are not fully explained (although the presentation helped) and seem relevant to estimating future success.

Comment:

Comment:

This is a good, straightforward proposal that meets the ISRP review criteria. There would be benefit to fish and wildlife from passage improvements and habitat rehabilitation, although the numbers of fish that used the stream historically and the numbers anticipated to return after rehabilitation are not clear. Conventional restoration techniques are used. Results to date were given. There is good background and justification, with clear justification by citation of the FWP and BiOp; the watershed analysis is the most relevant justification. Objectives, tasks, and methods are provided and are appropriate. Monitoring is built into the work. There has been good progress to date (although past stream relocation work needs correction, based on monitoring). There is good cost share (about 1/3), and the relationships to other projects are adequately described. Facilities and equipment seem appropriate, and there were good staff resumes. There was a good reference list.

The response provided answers to the ISRP's questions, to the extent that information is available to do so. Earlier watershed assessment estimated the capacity of the creek for steelhead at approximately 200 adults, roughly the same as projected for Salmon Creek. The comparison with Salmon Creek (Project # 199604200) is useful, both in terms of miles of habitat and the habitat's quality. The reasons for new attention to road decommissioning are clear, although the additional funding will need discussion by those responsible for budgets. Accomplishments missing from the proposal (an apparent typographical error in the proposal) were explained satisfactorily. The lessons from the channel relocation were interesting and should be useful for more than this project.

Comment:

Comments
Tributary passage improvements and habitat restoration are essential for steelhead recovery in the Okanogan River Basin. The mainstem, excepting areas of thermal refugia, is too warm to support steelhead through the summer.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website