FY07-09 proposal 200723700
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | UPA Project - Elbow Coulee Floodplain Restoration |
| Proposal ID | 200723700 |
| Organization | Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation |
| Short description | This project would eliminate a dike; open an existing side channel and floodplain; reconnect a wetland; and use large woody debris and boulders to split flows. These would increase habitat complexity and create more dynamic habitats for listed salmonids. |
| Information transfer | This is not a research project and does not include information transfer; however, the Bureau of Reclamation will be the repository for project Completion Reports for those Methow River subbasin projects for which it provides technical assistance. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Brandon Tuck | Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation | btuck@pn.usbr.gov |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Drew Baird | Bureau of Reclamation | dbaird@do.usbr.gov |
| Linda Hermeston | llhermeston@bpa.gov | |
| Chris Johnson | Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation | msrf@communitynet.org |
| Greg Knott | Bureau of Reclamation | gknott@pn.usbr.gov |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Cascade / Methow
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 48 22 40.6 | 120 13 41.5 | Twisp River | Primary side channel exit near RM 6.45 |
| 48 22 40.6 | 120 13 54.1 | Twisp River | Dike |
| 48 22 42.9 | 120 13 46 | Twisp River | Beaver pond access channel |
| 48 22 41 | 120 13 54.8 | Twisp River | Primary side channel entrance near RM 6.65 |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Chinook Upper Columbia River Spring ESUprimary: Steelhead Upper Columbia River ESU
secondary: Coho Unspecified Population
secondary: Westslope Cutthroat
secondary: Bull Trout
Additional: American Beaver, Lewis' Woodpecker, Willow Flycatcher, Red-eyed Vireo, Yellow-breasted Chat
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| Other: Bureau of Reclamation | | Methow In-channel Habitat Restoration Plan Study | The Methow In-channel Habitat Restoration Plan Study is in place to identify the current stability of the fluvial system and its future needs. This identification will enable the planning, design, and implementation of cost-effective, viable and sustainable restoration activities that are compatible with the channel’s geomorphology. Reclamation is engaging in this study to meet the metric goals of the Federal Columbia River Power System’s biological opinion. The resulting plan will describe the existing anthropogenic river constraints; sediment transport characteristics; possible restoration project locations; a reach by reach prioritization based on the amount of existing disturbance of natural riverine and floodplain processes; the biological importance of the reach for ESA-listed salmonids; the sustainability of restoration projects within the riverine system; and a preliminary cost estimate for each restoration reach/project. The plan’s “near-term priority (2007)” for the Methow River subbasin includes restoring 5 miles of complexity, protecting 4 miles of riparian habitat, and enhancing 5 miles of riparian habitat. The “long-term priority (2010)” includes restoring 10 miles of complexity, protecting 12 miles of riparian habitat, and enhancing 12 miles of riparian habitat. The purpose is to improve tributary spawning and rearing habitat for endangered fish species. This project is being implemented to help meet the metric goals for complexity and riparian habitat. |
| Other: MSRF | | Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation | The MSRF purchased land on the right (south) bank of the lower Twisp River, at river mile 1.9, to provide riparian protections to the area. MSRF granted a deed restriction to IAC to remove development rights from these properties. The MSRF diversion and a side channel and pond complex are on this land. For the past 3 years, the MSRF has been working to provide year-round surface water flow into and through the isolated side channel and pond complex and to restore habitat. The goals are to provide rearing areas, improved acclimation ponds, increased flood plain width for bank storage, over-wintering refugia, new winter-rearing habitat, fish resting areas, increased flood plain wetland and riparian habitat, and improved potential for groundwater recharge 6 miles downstream from the Elbow Coulee Project area. |
| Other: Bureau of Reclamation | | Hottell Headgate Project | On the opposite bank from the Elbow Coulee Floodplain Restoration site, Twisp River irrigators divert water through a headgate and fish screen structure. Reclamation worked with these irrigators to improve their fish passage and diversion structures by installing a new headgate and rock-lined wasteway channel to regulate stream velocity at a previously unregulated intake canal. The new structures now prevent high spring freshet flows from overtopping the canal’s fish screen and subsequently entrapping fish in the irrigation canal. |
| Other: | | Aspen Meadows Diversion Dam Project | Upstream from the Elbow Coulee Floodplain Restoration site, Little Bridge Creek irrigators diverted water from the Aspen Meadows Diversion dam, a dam that impeded fish passage during lower flows. Reclamation worked with these irrigators to remove the diversion dam, relocate the point of diversion, replace the irrigation diversion, construct a roughened channel, realign the canal, and replace the existing fish screen. Little Bridge Creek enters the Twisp River about 2 miles upstream from the UPA Elbow Coulee Floodplain Restoration Project; this project is about 2 miles upstream from the confluence of Little Bridge Creek and the Twisp River. |
| Other: MVID | | MVID West Diversion and Headworks Project and Chain of Lakes Project | At RM 3.9 on the Twisp River, the Methow Valley Irrigation District plans to construct a permanent roughened channel and a new concrete headworks. These structures will reduce the need for annual riverbed modifications, provide reliable fish passage at the site, and maintain a reliable water surface for the proposed Chain of Lakes Project. The Chain of Lakes Project will provide off-channel fish habitat. |
| Other: SRFB | 00-1677 | Methow Conservancy Conservation Easements | Beginning in 2001, the Methow Conservancy received funding from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (project ID # 00-1677) to acquire conservation easements along the Twisp River in areas that were prioritized as pristine habitat for fish and wildlife. The Methow Conservancy has protected more than 4,800 acres and 12.8 miles of critical riparian shoreline habitat along the Methow River and its tributaries. The Conservancy has acquired several conservation easements in the Twisp River watershed. Habitat restoration projects such as the Chain of Lakes project are more likely to be successful over time in conjunction with added protections that conservation easements provide. |
| Other: NFWF | | Libby-Hansler Well Conversion | In the past, the Libby-Hansler Irrigation Diversion diverted about 1.5 to 2.0 cfs from the Twisp River at the top of the Jennings project site. In 2005, MSRF received funding from National Fish and Wildlife Foundation under the Community Salmon Fund process to assist landowners in chnaging from the historic surface water diversion to ground water wells. Reclamation provided technical assistance and to the five landowners serviced by the Libby-Hansler diversion to convert the irrigation water from surface water to groundwater wells. This conversion provided fish benefits by eliminating technical problems with the old fish screen and eliminating the need for instream work to maintain the diversion’s effectiveness. |
| Other: Forest Service | | Respect the River Program | The Forest Service’s annual and ongoing “Respect the River Program” is designed to reduce recreation impacts on riparian areas inhabited by Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout, specifically in the Twisp River and Little Bridge Creek. MSRF partnered with US Forest Service in 2005 to extend the program benefits to project sites on Twisp River and Chewuch River. |
| Other: Forest Service | | Fish Passage on National Forest Lands | The Forest Service has been restoring fish passage at road crossings and irrigation diversions on National Forest lands on tributaries to the Twisp River. Fish passage has been restored on Buttermilk Creek, Little Bridge Creek, War Creek, and Williams Creek. There are at least two additional passage issues to address: one on lower Little Bridge Creek, and one on Reynolds Creek. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accomplish Objectives | This objective includes those activities that support the administrative tasks associated with the project. These tasks help ensure the biological objectives are accomplished without adversely affecting other river geomorphological processes in the river. | Methow | |
| Increase and Improve Riparian Habitat | The loss of riparian habitat and floodplain connectivity severely diminishes large wood recruitment to the river (Morris 2005). Large wood in the channel provides cover for fish, slows water velocities, creates pool and off-channel fish habitat, provides nutrients for invertebrate populations, and gathers spawning gravels. Intact riparian areas provide stream shading to the river, which decreases summer maximum temperatures. <p>Key features of the project include planting 2 acres of conifers, increasing the water availability to the existing riparian growth in 2,550 feet of side channels and beaver pond areas to improve riparian habitat, and using rootwads and engineered log jams to increase future large wood recruitment to the Twisp River. <p>The method to achieve the above objective is to breach the manmade dike on the left side of the river to open access to a now abandoned side channel and add natural river materials, such as logs and boulders, downstream at both the entrance and exit of the proposed side channel to increase roughness and habitat complexity in the main stem of the Twisp River. | Methow | Restore and reconnect wetlands, floodplains, side channels and other off-channel habitat; add large woody debris and place in-channel engineered log jams. |
| Increase Rearing Habitat | A primary objective of this project is to provide rearing habitat and high flow refugia for summer steelhead, spring Chinook salmon, and bull trout. All three species are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The proposed project is designed to primarily provide beneficial habitat for juvenile fish of these focal fish species. The project may also benefit Coho salmon, a focal species that the Yakama Nation is reintroduced into the Methow River subbasin. <p>Key features of the project include the creation and reconnection of 2,550 feet of lower gradient side channels and beaver ponds that connect the stream to the floodplain and provide smaller velocity channels that are shaded and protect steelhead redds and juveniles to provide optimum rearing habitat for all the focal fish species. This will also enhance the habitat complexity in 4,750 feet of the main stem of the Twisp River. The goal of all of these projects is to reintroduce and use natural stream processes to ultimately restore fish habitat. <p> The methods to achieve the objective of increasing rearing habitat for juvenile steelhead, spring Chinook salmon, and bull trout is to breach the manmade dike on the left side of the river to open access to a now abandoned side channel.<p> | Methow | Increase habitat diversity (riparian function, LWD, etc.) to increase survival of listed species at various life stages. |
| Increase Spawning Habitat | A secondary objective of the project is to potentially provide spawning habitat for summer steelhead and spring Chinook salmon within the reopened side channels and the main stem. Currently, the active channel can be characterized as an incised, armored, boulder-dominated meandering river with a limited amount of steep riffle-pool sequences, but high levels of pocket pool habitat created by boulders and one deep holding pool created by a bedrock outcrop. The incised, high-energy main channel is transporting spawning gravels downstream. Forest Service biologists observed very little spawning habitat for spring Chinook salmon or steelhead in a November 2005 0.9-mile habitat survey. Two Chinook salmon redds were observed in this stream segment (both were near the end of the surveyed stream segment where gravels had accumulated in and just below a deep bedrock pool).<p> Key features of the project include diverting some of the flow into the side channel to reduce water velocities, allowing the accumulation of spawning gravel in the side channel. This may provide up to 1,000 feet of spawning habitat for summer steelhead in the primary side channel. There may be a small increase in spawning substrate for steelhead and spring Chinook in the main channel after the project is completed. <p>The method to achieve the objective of increased spawning habitat for steelhead and spring Chinook is to breach the manmade dike on the left side of the river and split the flow between the channels.<p> | Methow | Increase survival fish in the egg incubation and fry colonization life stages by reducing bed scour to appropriate proper functioning conditions and increase the accumulation of spawning gravels in the project area. |
| Pre- and Post-Project Monitoring and Evaluation | Pre- and post-project monitoring and evaluation program to track the progress of the project objectives over time. | Methow | Monitoring and evaluation program that is consistent with PNAMP protocols. |
| Reduce Brook Trout Populations | Eastern brook trout are an introduced species that is present throughout the subbasin. Introduced brook trout threaten bull trout through hybridization, competition, and possibly predation. Brook trout are currently present in side channel and ponds in the vicinity of the Elbow Coulee project site. Reestablishing access for native fish to previously disconnected off-channel habitat should increase competition with brook trout by providing additional rearing and potential spawning habitat for native species. Brook trout may not retain dominance where native fish have access to habitat.<p> The method to achieve the objective is to construct a 300-foot-long channel and remove a berm to connect a wetland beaver pond with the proposed side channel. Prior to this connection, seine netting and selective fishing in the pond area will remove some brook trout. <p> | Methow | Reduce unacceptable predation on salmonids by exotic and native piscivores. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manage and Administer Projects | Project Management and Administration (MSRF) | MSRF’s work to manage ground efforts or to manage subcontractors, administrative work in support of Bonneville Power Administration's programmatic requirements such as metric reporting, financial reporting, development of Statements of Work. MSRF’s full-time Project Manager will provide outreach, project coordination, solicitation and management of grants, compliance documentation, construction bid and administration, construction oversight, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation will be provided throughout the project. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $9,430 |
|
Biological objectives Accomplish Objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Status Report | Progress and Status Reports (MSRF) | Prepare and submit annual reports; non-annual reports required or produced for a contract such as as-built drawings and completion reports detailing the deliverables for each work element in the project; and either monthly or quarterly, the status of milestones and deliverables in each contract and the Pisces report. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $4,565 |
|
Biological objectives Accomplish Objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Remove or Relocate Non-predaceous Animals | Remove Brook Trout from the Beaver Pond Wetlands Areas | Prior to work to reconnect the channel, workers will use seine nets and hook and line to remove the non-native brook trout; this will allow increase the baseline competitive edge for the salmonids after the area is reconnected with live stream flows. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2007 | $5,000 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce Brook Trout Populations |
Metrics |
||||
| Enhance Floodplain | Remove a Dike to Enhance the Floodplain | Remove a dike to restore floodplain functionality, and the enhancement of the floodplain through the addition of large wood debris. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2007 | $33,635 |
|
Biological objectives Increase and Improve Riparian Habitat Increase Rearing Habitat Increase Spawning Habitat |
Metrics * # of acres treated: acres (6.2) |
||||
| Realign, Connect, and/or Create Channel | Reconnect the Side Channel | After dike removal, historic side channels will be slightly enlarged to accomodate increased flows. The open side channels and off-channel habitats will improve the functionality of existing channels. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2007 | $4,416 |
|
Biological objectives Increase Rearing Habitat Increase Spawning Habitat Reduce Brook Trout Populations |
Metrics * # of stream miles before treatment: miles (0.6) * # of stream miles treated, including off-channels, after realignment: miles (1.1) |
||||
| Enhance Floodplain | Install a Log Jam and Large Woody Debris | Install a log jam across the side channel entrance to act as a debris filter. Install woody debris on the downstream side to increase localized velocities and to keep the entrance from silting in. Install a wood sill across the side channel bed to act as grade control. Install a log jam at the side channel's exit to help dissipate energy. Install log cribs on opposite bank to reduce bank erosion and flooding potential to adjacent landowner. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2007 | $14,260 |
|
Biological objectives Increase Rearing Habitat Increase Spawning Habitat |
Metrics * # of acres treated: acres (0.02) |
||||
| Increase Instream Habitat Complexity | Increase Complexity | Add natural materials instream (rootwads and boulders) to create habitat features and improve channel morphology to reduce downcutting caused by dike. The added structures change the hydraulic conditions and may eventually cause channel realignment - a favorable outcome in terms of the desired future condition of unhindered channel migration producing new habitat; they also protect the aesthetic and visual quality of the site. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2007 | $11,112 |
|
Biological objectives Increase Rearing Habitat Increase Spawning Habitat |
Metrics * # of structures installed: Install 6 to 8 rootwads * # of structures installed: Install unearthed large boulders instream |
||||
| Create, Restore, and/or Enhance Wetland | Enhance a Wetland | Reconnect a wetland spring by removing a dike and recontouring and excavating the channel. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2007 | $13,599 |
|
Biological objectives Increase and Improve Riparian Habitat Reduce Brook Trout Populations |
Metrics * # of acres treated: acres (1.5) |
||||
| Upland Erosion and Sedimentation Control | Stabilize a Bank | Install large boulders lining the toe, rootwads, and a log crib wall to protect the bank opposite the primary side channel's exit to the main stem. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2007 | $24,345 |
|
Biological objectives Increase and Improve Riparian Habitat |
Metrics * # of acres treated: acres (0.05) |
||||
| Plant Vegetation | Revegetation | Install riparian or upland plants (including Douglas fir and ponderosa pine) for erosion control, roughness recruitment, shading, native habitat restoration, and forage enhancement. This work element will provide a possible source of woody debris to the river that is currently void of that material. | 3/1/2007 | 5/31/2009 | $5,000 |
|
Biological objectives Increase and Improve Riparian Habitat |
Metrics * # of acres of planted: acres (1.9) |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Pre-project and Post-project Habitat and Fish Monitoring | Monitor the effectiveness of the project over a 3 year period through photo point monitoring, stream habitat surveys, fish distribution surveys, assessment of brook trout densities, the analysis of redd surveys, and river morphology surveys and analysis. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2010 | $5,000 |
|
Biological objectives Increase Rearing Habitat Increase Spawning Habitat Pre- and Post-Project Monitoring and Evaluation |
Metrics |
||||
| Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage | Adaptive Management Plan (MSRF) | Apply adaptive management principles to ensure the project’s continued success using observations resulting from project monitoring. This could include planting additional vegetation, replacing or relocating rootwads and debris piles, and performing additional earthwork. | 12/1/2006 | 9/30/2010 | $5,000 |
|
Biological objectives Accomplish Objectives Increase and Improve Riparian Habitat Increase Rearing Habitat Increase Spawning Habitat Reduce Brook Trout Populations |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Clearing and grubbing, excavation, site recontouring | $51,077 | $0 | $0 |
| Personnel | Qualified personnel for brook trout removal operations for 3 days | $5,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Personnel | Labor for monitoring incl. report preparation | $5,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Supplies | Trees with root wads delivered onsite | $10,400 | $0 | $0 |
| Supplies | Large boulder haul and placement | $8,508 | $0 | $0 |
| Personnel | Labor for reveg incl.replanting | $2,000 | $1,000 | $500 |
| Other | Adaptive management incl. labor and supplies | $0 | $0 | $5,000 |
| Supplies | Revegetation materials | $1,000 | $500 | $0 |
| Other | Install log jams and cribs on both banks | $20,270 | $0 | $0 |
| Other | Install large boulders | $11,112 | $0 | $0 |
| Personnel | Project Manager MSRF | $5,395 | $1,000 | $1,500 |
| Travel | Travel MSRF | $300 | $300 | $300 |
| Supplies | MSRF | $100 | $100 | $100 |
| Personnel | Contract Administrator and Grant Reporting MSRF | $2,500 | $900 | $1,500 |
| Totals | $122,662 | $3,800 | $8,900 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $135,362 |
| Total work element budget: | $135,362 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bureau of Reclamation | Survey and Design | $65,000 | $0 | $0 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| Bureau of Reclamation | Construction Technical support | $20,000 | $0 | $0 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| Bureau of Reclamation | Permitting Technical Support for Federal, State , and Local Permits | $15,000 | $0 | $0 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| Totals | $100,000 | $0 | $0 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $2,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $2,000 |
Comments: Post-construction monitoring |
Future O&M costs: MSRF will complete a post construction monitoring report one year following completion of this project
Termination date: 09/30/10
Comments: MSRF will complete a post construction monitoring report one year following completion of this project
Final deliverables: MSRF will complete a post construction monitoring report one year following completion of this project
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $45,120 | $45,120 | $45,120 | $135,360 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: The ISRP is not requesting a response, but the proposal would be improved by addressing the following comments: This project would be worthwhile provided that the connection to the mainstem performs as desired. There seems to be some potential for the channel entrance to fill with sediment due to the planned log structures and these concerns need to be addressed prior to funding. Also, some additional attention to the brook trout problem is needed. Reconnecting a habitat containing brook trout with the mainstem may have negative impacts on native fishes. A thorough consideration of the potential impacts of brook trout and methods for controlling them prior to reconnecting the off-channel habitats should be included in the proposal. Technical and scientific background: The background information provided ranges from a very pertinent discussion of the desired outcomes of the project and its history to very general information about floodplains, channel development and sediment dynamics, only tangentially related to the proposed effort. For example, this section includes a rather lengthy attempt to determine whether or not diversion of flow from the main channel of the Twisp River to the floodplain channel will reduce mainstem stream power sufficiently to enable additional deposition to occur. Encouraging deposition in the mainstem is, at best, a secondary outcome of this project (in fact, it is not even listed as one of the project objectives). The main benefit is the increase in floodplain habitat. Nonetheless, the necessary information to justify this project is included. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The proposal does a good job of linking its objectives to the Methow subbasin plan and the revised 2004 BiOp. The provision of floodplain habitat in this section of the Twisp River was identified as an important restoration action in the subbasin plan. Relationships to other projects: There are a number of other planned projects on the Twisp that may interact with this project, including several other restoration projects in the vicinity of Elbow Coulee. Passage improvements at road crossings higher in the drainage might lead to increased production of juvenile fishes that could benefit from the floodplain habitat. The proposal discusses these efforts and describes how this project fits into the overall plan to improve spawning and rearing conditions, as well as off-channel wetlands, in the lower Twisp River. This project is well aligned with other ongoing or proposed efforts in the subbasin. Objectives: The project objectives are generally appropriate. However, there are some questions about a few of the goals. Some of the currently isolated, floodplain habitats contain brook trout. The proposal suggests that the native fishes accessing these habitats after reconnection will outcompete the brook trout. There is no support in the literature for this contention. In fact, brook trout have been consistently found to be superior competitors when found with bull trout and juvenile Chinook salmon. The outcome of attracting juvenile native fishes to brook trout infested floodplain habitats may actually be detrimental; competitive pressures may offset any benefit associated with the higher quality habitat. A more aggressive approach to reducing or eliminating brook trout prior to reconnecting the floodplain habitats to the mainstem should be included in the project. There also should be some discussion in the proposal of the potential for stranding anadromous fishes in the floodplain habitats. It would appear that this potential problem is less of an issue for this project than the similar Fender Mill floodplain project because connection of the off-channel habitats are intended to be maintained at relatively low flows. However, some attention to the possibility of this occurring with siltation of the channel entrance or exit and how this problem would be addressed should be included in the proposal. Tasks (work elements) and methods: There are a few proposed work elements that deserve further development in the proposal. The floodplain channel connections to the mainstem include several log structures to control siltation and ensure diversion of water into the secondary channel. These log structures, especially at the entrance, would seem to promote siltation rather than prevent it. The debris filter structure in the secondary channel near the upstream connection will collect finer wood and, ultimately, form a partial blockage for flow. The blockage will reduce flow velocities and encourage deposition. The proposal does indicate that maintenance of the channel connections is expected but the current design would seem to exacerbate maintenance concerns. The secondary channel design, especially at the upstream connection, should be reconsidered to deal with this issue. Is it possible that the floodplain springs can provide sufficient flow to keep the floodplain channel watered? If so, a low-flow connection to the mainstem at the upstream end of the channel may not be necessary to achieve the objective of providing access for fish to the floodplain habitats. This option would avoid problems with sediment deposition closing the channel connection to the floodplain. The plan to reduce brook trout populations by seining and angling will not be sufficient to deal with the issue of competitive impacts on native fishes. A more thorough attempt to reduce brook trout populations prior to reconnection of floodplain habitats with the mainstem should be attempted. Electroshocking, or even chemical treatment, might be options. Choosing Douglas fir and ponderosa pine as the species to plant on the floodplain seems unusual. These species do not do well in wet conditions and are not typical overstory species on floodplains. Monitoring and evaluation: The monitoring and evaluation component of the proposal is only briefly described. However, most of the primary elements to assess the success of the project are included. Photopoints will be established and fish populations will be surveyed within, above, and below the project area. WDFW will survey salmon and steelhead redds. However, very little detail on measurement protocols or the timing of measurements is provided. There is no indication of how survival of riparian plantings will be monitored. Some of the monitoring will apparently be done by cooperators, so the proposal did not provide complete certainty that it would be accomplished. Facilities, equipment, and personnel appear to be sufficient for the project. The proposal lists 19 people who will be involved in the project but provides no indication of who will be responsible for what part. In total, the qualifications of the project participants are quite impressive. But without matching the person to the job they will perform, the adequacy of skills is hard to judge. Information transfer: This element is not well addressed. Given the potential of this project to serve as an important demonstration site, it was disappointing that plans did not include more than just annual progress reports. But there is no mechanism specified to enable the transfer of knowledge generated by the implementation and monitoring of this project to other restoration practitioners in the basin. Benefits to focal and non-focal species: Assuming the project performs as planned (see concerns above about some of the objectives and work elements) the project should benefit the focal species as long as the floodplain remains reconnected. This is especially so, given the integrated nature of the restoration efforts planned on the Methow and Twisp. Non-focal species are also likely to benefit, including those that can inhabit the 1.5 acres of newly connected wetland.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: The ISRP is not requesting a response, but the proposal would be improved by addressing the following comments: This project would be worthwhile provided that the connection to the mainstem performs as desired. There seems to be some potential for the channel entrance to fill with sediment due to the planned log structures and these concerns need to be addressed prior to funding. Also, some additional attention to the brook trout problem is needed. Reconnecting a habitat containing brook trout with the mainstem may have negative impacts on native fishes. A thorough consideration of the potential impacts of brook trout and methods for controlling them prior to reconnecting the off-channel habitats should be included in the proposal. Technical and scientific background: The background information provided ranges from a very pertinent discussion of the desired outcomes of the project and its history to very general information about floodplains, channel development and sediment dynamics, only tangentially related to the proposed effort. For example, this section includes a rather lengthy attempt to determine whether or not diversion of flow from the main channel of the Twisp River to the floodplain channel will reduce mainstem stream power sufficiently to enable additional deposition to occur. Encouraging deposition in the mainstem is, at best, a secondary outcome of this project (in fact, it is not even listed as one of the project objectives). The main benefit is the increase in floodplain habitat. Nonetheless, the necessary information to justify this project is included. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The proposal does a good job of linking its objectives to the Methow subbasin plan and the revised 2004 BiOp. The provision of floodplain habitat in this section of the Twisp River was identified as an important restoration action in the subbasin plan. Relationships to other projects: There are a number of other planned projects on the Twisp that may interact with this project, including several other restoration projects in the vicinity of Elbow Coulee. Passage improvements at road crossings higher in the drainage might lead to increased production of juvenile fishes that could benefit from the floodplain habitat. The proposal discusses these efforts and describes how this project fits into the overall plan to improve spawning and rearing conditions, as well as off-channel wetlands, in the lower Twisp River. This project is well aligned with other ongoing or proposed efforts in the subbasin. Objectives: The project objectives are generally appropriate. However, there are some questions about a few of the goals. Some of the currently isolated, floodplain habitats contain brook trout. The proposal suggests that the native fishes accessing these habitats after reconnection will out-compete the brook trout. There is no support in the literature for this contention. In fact, brook trout have been consistently found to be superior competitors when found with bull trout and juvenile Chinook salmon. The outcome of attracting juvenile native fishes to brook trout infested floodplain habitats may actually be detrimental; competitive pressures may offset any benefit associated with the higher quality habitat. A more aggressive approach to reducing or eliminating brook trout prior to reconnecting the floodplain habitats to the mainstem should be included in the project. There also should be some discussion in the proposal of the potential for stranding anadromous fishes in the floodplain habitats. It would appear that this potential problem is less of an issue for this project than the similar Fender Mill floodplain project because connection of the off-channel habitats are intended to be maintained at relatively low flows. However, some attention to the possibility of this occurring with siltation of the channel entrance or exit and how this problem would be addressed should be included in the proposal. Tasks (work elements) and methods: There are a few proposed work elements that deserve further development in the proposal. The floodplain channel connections to the mainstem include several log structures to control siltation and ensure diversion of water into the secondary channel. These log structures, especially at the entrance, would seem to promote siltation rather than prevent it. The debris filter structure in the secondary channel near the upstream connection will collect finer wood and, ultimately, form a partial blockage for flow. The blockage will reduce flow velocities and encourage deposition. The proposal does indicate that maintenance of the channel connections is expected but the current design would seem to exacerbate maintenance concerns. The secondary channel design, especially at the upstream connection, should be reconsidered to deal with this issue. Is it possible that the floodplain springs can provide sufficient flow to keep the floodplain channel watered? If so, a low-flow connection to the mainstem at the upstream end of the channel may not be necessary to achieve the objective of providing access for fish to the floodplain habitats. This option would avoid problems with sediment deposition closing the channel connection to the floodplain. The plan to reduce brook trout populations by seining and angling will not be sufficient to deal with the issue of competitive impacts on native fishes. A more thorough attempt to reduce brook trout populations prior to reconnection of floodplain habitats with the mainstem should be attempted. Electroshocking, or even chemical treatment, might be options. Choosing Douglas fir and ponderosa pine as the species to plant on the floodplain seems unusual. These species do not do well in wet conditions and are not typical overstory species on floodplains. Monitoring and evaluation: The monitoring and evaluation component of the proposal is only briefly described. However, most of the primary elements to assess the success of the project are included. Photopoints will be established and fish populations will be surveyed within, above, and below the project area. WDFW will survey salmon and steelhead redds. However, very little detail on measurement protocols or the timing of measurements is provided. There is no indication of how survival of riparian plantings will be monitored. Some of the monitoring will apparently be done by cooperators, so the proposal did not provide complete certainty that it would be accomplished. Facilities, equipment, and personnel appear to be sufficient for the project. The proposal lists 19 people who will be involved in the project but provides no indication of who will be responsible for what part. In total, the qualifications of the project participants are quite impressive. But without matching the person to the job they will perform, the adequacy of skills is hard to judge. Information transfer: This element is not well addressed. Given the potential of this project to serve as an important demonstration site, it was disappointing that plans did not include more than just annual progress reports. But there is no mechanism specified to enable the transfer of knowledge generated by the implementation and monitoring of this project to other restoration practitioners in the basin. Benefits to focal and non-focal species: Assuming the project performs as planned (see concerns above about some of the objectives and work elements) the project should benefit the focal species as long as the floodplain remains reconnected. This is especially so, given the integrated nature of the restoration efforts planned on the Methow and Twisp. Non-focal species are also likely to benefit, including those that can inhabit the 1.5 acres of newly connected wetland.