FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29012
Contents
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 |
|---|---|
| 29012 Narrative | Narrative |
| 29012 Sponsor Response to ISRP | Response |
| 29012 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Letter from T. Fitzsimmons (WA Dept of Ecology) and J. Koenings (WDFW) to F. Cassidy and T. Karier (NPCC) RE: State of Washington project proposals for the Columbia Cascade and Lower Columbia Provinces | Correspondence |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Replace Rockview Diversion with Groundwater Withdrawal and Restore Instream Habitat |
| Proposal ID | 29012 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Connie Iten |
| Mailing address | WDFW, PO Box 753 Omak, WA 98841 |
| Phone / email | 5098263123 / itencri@dfw.wa.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | Dennis Beich |
| Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Methow |
| Short description | Remove Rockview diversion, transfer surface waterwithdrawal to groundwater withdrawal , and enhance associated stream channel and riparian habitat |
| Target species | Summer chinook, summer steelhead |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.544 | -120.323 | Rockview Diversion is located on the Big Valley Unit of the Methow Wildlife Area on the Methow River below the Weeman Bridge at Methow RM 60.6, approximately 8 miles northwest of the town of Winthrop |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Action 149 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 149 | NMFS | BOR shall initiate programs in three priority subbasins (identified in the Basinwide Recovery Strategy) per year over 5 years, in coordination with NMFS, FWS, the states and others, to address all flow, passage, and screening problems in each subbasin over 10 years. The Corps shall implement demonstration projects to improve habitat in subbasins where water-diversion-related problems could cause take of listed species. Under the NWPPC program, BPA addresses passage, screening, and flow problems, where they are not the responsibility of others. BPA expects to expand on these measures in coordination with the NWPPC process to complement BOR actions described in the action above. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1998 | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) Salmonid Screening, Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Division's (SSHEAR) Beaver Creek Fish Passage and Screening Inventory, provides information on all barriers to fish migration. |
| 1998 | Methow River Barkley screen replacement |
| 1999 | Beaver Creek fish screen replaced RM 6.2 |
| 1999 | Eightmile Creek screen replacement |
| 2000 | IAC Biodiversity Project |
| 2000 | Wolf Creek Stream Restoration and Conservation Project |
| 2000 | Replace screens on Skyline Ditch on the Chewuch River |
| 2001 | McKinney Mtn. Methow River rescreening |
| 2001 | Early Winters Creek point of diversion changes negotiated and completed. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199802500 | Early Winters Creek Habitat Restoration | Restore access to and quality of important stream habitat |
| 26015 | Methow Basin Screening. This project provides fish screen facilities upgrades, and new fish screen construction, on Methow River Basin irrigation diversions | Restore access to and quality of important stream habitat |
| 23024 | Hancock Springs Passage and Habitat Restoration | Restore access to and quality of important stream habitat |
| 199802900 | Goat Creek Instream Habitat Restoration | Restore access to and quality of important stream habitat |
| 200106300 | Methow Basin Screening | Restore access to and quality of important stream habitat |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Develop restoration plan for Methow River habitat at site of Rockview diversion | a. Feasibility study | 1 | $40,000 | Yes |
| b. Engineering and design of habitat improvements | 1 | $30,000 | Yes | |
| c. NEPA/ESA and other review and permits | 1 | $8,000 | Yes | |
| d. Develop monitoring design | 1 | $6,600 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Restore Methow River aquatic and riparian habitat at site of Rockview Diversion | a. Remove screen and restore screen site, remove check dam and restore stream channel | 1 | $0 | Yes |
| b. Excavate by-pass channel to appropriate elevations | 1 | $0 | Yes | |
| c. Install instream structures | 1 | $0 | Yes | |
| d. Install and purchase native plants | 1 | $0 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Restore Methow River aquatic and riparian habitat at site of Rockview Diversion (a. Remove screen and restore screen site, remove check dam and restore stream channel) | 2004 | 2004 | $20,000 |
| 1. (b.Excavate by-pass channel to appropriate elevations) | 2004 | 2004 | $15,000 |
| 1. (c. Install instream structures) | 2004 | 2004 | $4,500 |
| 1. (d. Install and purchase native plants) | 2004 | 2004 | $10,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 |
|---|
| $49,500 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Maintain functionality of Rockview diversion site habitat restoration work | a. Implement any necessary corrective actions (e.g. additional excavation or rock/LWD placement as elevations are established) | 2 | $0 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Maintain functionality of Rockview diversion site habitat restoration work | 2004 | 2005 | $15,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| $7,500 | $7,500 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Determine pre-project use of site | a. Capture, mark and determine species distribution/abundance, growth and survival rates of juvenile salmonids using the existing diversion channel prior to project | 1 | $30,048 | |
| 2. Monitor juvenile use of restored channel | a. Capture, mark and determine species distribution/abundance, growth and survival rates of juvenile salmonids using the connected and enhanced side channel habitat after project completion | 2 | $0 | |
| 3. Monitor environmental and ecological indices to assess ecosystem level changes | a. Measure water quality parameters, changes in distribution and abundance of invertebrates, fish, amphibians, pre and post project | 3 | $27,306 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2. Monitor juvenile use of restored channel (a. Capture, mark and determine species distribution/abundance, growth and survival rates of juvenile salmonids using the connected and enhanced side channel habaitat after project completion ) | 2004 | 2005 | $45,000 |
| 3. Monitor environmental and ecological indices to assess ecosystem level changes (a. Measure water quality parameters, changes in distribution and abundance of invertebrates, fish, amphibians, pre and post project) | 2004 | 2005 | $45,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| $45,000 | $45,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: .5 Fish biologist 2 | $25,400 |
| Fringe | @30% | $7,600 |
| Supplies | $8,000 | |
| Travel | $3,700 | |
| Indirect | @25.2 | $9,254 |
| NEPA | $8,000 | |
| Subcontractor | Feasibility, design and engineering | $80,000 |
| $141,954 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $141,954 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $141,954 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
Response needed. Fundable if an adequate response is given that describes their restoration methods and monitoring and evaluation plan in greater detail and includes HEP wildlife credits.This project is to remove an existing water diversion and screen on the Methow River at the Big Valley Ranch Unit (WDFW's Methow Wildlife Area) and restore the stream channel and associated side channel. It will take 3 years. The current screen and bypass do not meet established fish-protection criteria. The project is located in the "gaining" reach of the Methow River downstream of the zone that becomes dewatered in the fall. WDFW has acquired the Big Valley Ranch, whose water source is the Rockview Diversion Dam. WDFW proposes to remove the dam and provide water for irrigating the wildlife area by sinking wells, which are funded separately. The irrigation ditch would be abandoned. The removal of structures (with offsite disposal) and restoration of the diversion/screen/bypass site to a functioning side channel will benefit several fish species that are endangered, threatened, or of concern (as listed in the proposal). There would be monitoring and evaluation of fish distribution/abundance, growth and survival before and after the work.
This is a concise, well-written proposal, which generally meets the ISRP review criteria. The project is well justified by a thorough background discussion and specific references to the Subbasin Summary, FWP, BiOp, Upper Columbia Regional Technical Team and Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board. There would likely be benefits to fish, principally in the form of unrestricted movement and availability of side-channel habitat for rearing and over wintering. There should also be benefits to wildlife, although these were not mentioned. The proposal discusses 21 related projects. The objectives and tasks are listed (however, no methods are presented other than standard words about standard environmental engineering). Existing support structure of WDFW will be used (general statements are given about what that consists of). Relevant references are given. Staff resumes are minimal, but acceptable. The proposal is persuasive that the work is valuable and timely.
Several questions remain that need to be answered in a response. The objectives, tasks, and methods section does not contain any methods for review. The response should describe the restoration methods in greater detail. The proposal provides a skeleton of an adequate monitoring and evaluation plan but the response should fill in the details on sampling methods, planned data analysis, etc. The response needs to include a HEP analysis for increased value of the site to wildlife, and identification of mitigation credit to BPA from the restoration (see proposal #199609400 for an example of an ongoing project).
Comment:
Concept seems highly likely to succeed. The budget has been reduced by $40,000 to reflect eliminating the feasibility study portion of the proposal. Mark recapture techniques are likely to result in permitting difficulties and using snorkel surveys would be more appropriate and reduce costs. An additional $10,000 has been removed from the budget to reflect a modified sampling procedure. NMFS has identified this as a BiOp project.Comment:
Fundable. The response was helpful in clarifying the ISRP's concerns.This project is to remove an existing water diversion and screen on the Methow River at the Big Valley Ranch Unit (WDFW's Methow Wildlife Area) and restore the stream channel and associated side channel. It will take 3 years. The current screen and bypass do not meet established fish-protection criteria. The project is located in the "gaining" reach of the Methow River downstream of the zone that becomes dewatered in the fall. WDFW has acquired the Big Valley Ranch, whose water source is the Rockview Diversion Dam. WDFW proposes to remove the dam and provide water for irrigating the wildlife area by sinking wells, which are funded separately. The irrigation ditch would be abandoned. The removal of structures (with offsite disposal) and restoration of the diversion/screen/bypass site to a functioning side channel will benefit several fish species that are endangered, threatened, or of concern (as listed in the proposal). There would be monitoring and evaluation of fish distribution/abundance, growth and survival before and after the work.
This is a concise, well-written proposal, which generally meets the ISRP review criteria. The project is well justified by a thorough background discussion and specific references to the Subbasin Summary, FWP, BiOp, Upper Columbia Regional Technical Team and Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board. There would likely be benefits to fish, principally in the form of unrestricted movement and availability of side-channel habitat for rearing and over wintering. There should also be benefits to wildlife, although these were not mentioned. The proposal discusses 21 related projects. The objectives and tasks are listed (however, no methods are presented other than standard words about standard environmental engineering). Existing support structure of WDFW will be used (general statements are given about what that consists of). Relevant references are given. Staff resumes are minimal, but acceptable. The proposal is persuasive that the work is valuable and timely. Nonetheless, the ISRP had questions about restoration methods, monitoring, and wildlife habitat.
The response provided requested information on restoration methods, although the ISRP realizes that specification of the exact methods must await funding and enlistment of the consultants and the WDFW Environmental Restoration Engineer. The methods provided in the response are really goals for restoration, which are appropriate. The ISRP's monitoring question was adequately answered. Use of the EPA EMAP approach is laudable. The ISRP agrees that use of HEP for evaluating benefits to wildlife habitat and identification of mitigation credits for BPA can logically come after funding is received and during the initial tasks. The response provided assurance that this analysis will be done. The planned approaches are appropriate.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUPotential increase in rearing survival. Project would restore stream flow to small tributary. Increase off-channel habitat in Methow.
Comments
Straightforward project with good benefit. Should explore BOR participation.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Recommend deferral to Subbasin Planning. This kind of activity could support RPA 149.Comment: