< Back to list of FY 2007-2009 projects

200600100 - Mcintyre Dam Feasibility Study

Sponsor: Colville Confederated Tribes

Budgets: FY07: $1,565,050 | FY08: $428,385 | FY09: $72,360

Short description: Providing fish passage at McIntyre Dam will allow anadromous salmon access historic habitats and improve the conditions experienced by fish moving downstream through the dam. The irrigation flume will also be screened to prevent fish entrainment.

view full proposal

Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Expense

Recommended budgets: FY07: $0 | FY08: $0 | FY09: $0

Comment: Tier 2. Fund at a level consistent with ISRP comments, as funds become available.

ISRP final recommendation: Fundable

Comment:

Summary: This is an important project that should be funded. It was a pleasure to review this well-prepared, straightforward proposal. It should be given highest possible priority for funding as the project will likely have highly significant benefits to fish and wildlife that will persist. The M and E plan should be strengthened by better describing the study design to be used for the proposed assessment of the effectiveness of passage improvements. Generally monitoring in the basin should be covered by the Colville's project 200302200. Technical and scientific background: This is a concise, well-written technical and scientific background. More background information on the fish and wildlife that might benefit from salmon passage in this area would be useful. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: This project is a high priority in the Okanogan Subbasin Plan - described “as the largest natural increase to salmon and steelhead production for a low-cost improvement within the entire Okanogan River sub-basin.” Relationships to other projects: There are a number of ongoing related projects funded by BPA, Douglas County PUD, Grant County PUD, and others. Project history: The project began in 2005. This section could have been expanded with more details. Objectives: Objectives are clearly stated (facilitate upstream and downstream fish migration, screening of irrigation canal) Tasks (work elements) and methods: These are brief, and could have included more detail. We particularly appreciated the discussion of the question whether provision for adult passage will be necessary. The decision depends upon observations of their behavior at the new overflow spill gates to be installed. Monitoring and evaluation: There is a provision for pre-project monitoring, and there will be post-project monitoring - but detailed methods are not provided. We are concerned there might not be a scientifically sound study design sufficient to measure "before and after" effects. Facilities, Equipment, and Personnel: An impressive number of agencies and entities are involved in this project, each of which has its particular expertise and equipment. The project might benefit from advice from a senior-level biostatistician to oversee the M&E experimental design/statistical analysis procedures. Information Transfer: The plans seem appropriate for this type of project. The matter of long-term storage of data is not discussed and should be. Data obtained in the monitoring effort could be useful in the future for other purposes.

State/province recommendation:

Review group:

Recommended budgets: FY07: (n/a) | FY08: (n/a) | FY09: (n/a)

Comment: