FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29018

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

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

The proposal lays out an excellent scientific study, focused on primary data collection. No groundwater model is proposed. The study is well justified in terms of the technical aspects of surface-ground water exchanges and the objectives for fish and habitat laid out in the Methow Subbasin Summary. The relevant RPAs in the BiOp are cited. The proposal notes the similar ongoing USGS study and the network of stream gaging stations operated by USGS (some funded by BPA). Other fish protection work in the basin is cited collectively. Clear objectives are laid out, with defined tasks and discussion of methods. Facilities and equipment are available. Some appropriate scientific references are given, and good resumes are provided for key staff. The project is, of itself, of a monitoring nature and no follow-up is planned as part of this study. Understanding the complex hydraulics of this area will provide a good basis of understanding for taking actions to benefit fish. The proposal meets most of the ISRP evaluation criteria. The work is of high priority for resolving immediate disputes in the area. The project offers to provide information (thus approach to management for salmon) on the effects of irrigation on stream flow in the Methow Basin.

However, some questions remain that should be answered in a response. The proponents need to describe the procedures used for selection of study sites. Probabilistic sampling procedures would allow statistical inferences to be made to the study areas. Subjective ad-hoc procedures such as indicated in the following quotes from the proposal are not amendable to scientific review: "The hydraulic gradient will be measured at selected locations in the rivers using in-stream piezometers (pipes driven into the river bed) (Geist and others, 1998)","During each seepage run, discharge measurements will be made approximately every 2 to 10 km....","Water temperature will be measured continuously at selected points in the Methow, Twisp, and Chewuch Rivers, with an emphasis on gaining reaches or other areas with strong thermal gradients..." A formal design that samples the whole area would seem to give a better characterization of the water exchanges than focus on subjectively selected sites. Specific references to methods should be given. It is not sufficient to say that "Discharge measurements will be made according to USGS protocol, which includes quality assurance/quality control procedures,..." The criteria to be used for salmon habitat suitability need to be clarified. The presentation clarified some of these points but they need to be elaborated upon in a response. Specifically, stream gages they need are being operated but they will also use their own gages and other sources of data. Sampling for sites is not probabilistic but stratified. The flow gradient determines where temperature gages go. Diversions and recharge is not very substantial relative to the total flow in the Methow (this needs to be explained seasonally). Salmon need downwelling for spawning (then why are they spawning in an upwelling reach?). Is this apparent inconsistency a matter of scale?

Comment:

Comment:

This is a project to identify the locations of ground-water and surface-water exchanges in the Methow, Twisp, and Chewuch Rivers, to quantify the exchange rates and their seasonal patterns, and to assess the influence of these exchanges on fish habitat, especially for spring chinook salmon. Numerous other listed species also occur in the area. The study area is hydraulically complex, with reaches that alternately lose water to the ground and gain it again as the water traverses the river reaches. In some reaches the surface flows go dry in the fall and winter, thus affecting fish habitats and connectivity. The proposers are already doing similar research in the general vicinity (mainstem Methow and Twisp rivers), although that hydraulic work is not specifically tied to assessment of fish habitat. The proposal does not dwell on it, but the water flows in the Methow valley are intensely controversial, with irrigation withdrawals (both surface and groundwater) under high levels of scrutiny and current regulatory action. The main product would be maps of upwelling and downwelling, perennial flow, water temperatures in summer and winter (because these are dominated by the groundwater-surface water interchanges), and a preliminary assessment of potential sources of recharge for the shallow groundwater. These patterns of water exchange would be analyzed in the context of the seasonal life-history requirements of spring chinook salmon and other species.

The proposal lays out an excellent scientific study, focused on primary data collection. No groundwater model is proposed. The study is well justified in terms of the technical aspects of surface-ground water exchanges and the objectives for fish and habitat laid out in the Methow Subbasin Summary. The relevant RPAs in the BiOp are cited. The proposal notes the similar ongoing USGS study and the network of stream gaging stations operated by USGS (some funded by BPA). Other fish protection work in the basin is cited collectively. Clear objectives are laid out, with defined tasks and discussion of methods. Facilities and equipment are available. Some appropriate scientific references are given, and good resumes are provided for key staff. The project is, of itself, of a monitoring nature and no follow-up is planned as part of this study. Understanding the complex hydraulics of this area will provide a good basis of understanding for taking actions to benefit fish. The initial proposal met most of the ISRP evaluation criteria. The work is of high priority for resolving immediate disputes in the area. The project offers to provide information (thus approach to management for salmon) on the effects of irrigation on stream flow in the Methow Basin. However, some questions were raised by the ISRP's preliminary review.

The response was thorough and answered the ISRP's questions. The ISRP agrees with the selection of spring chinook salmon as the focal species/stock even though other species are present. This choice is logical when the amount of effort must be limited. Inclusion of other species/stocks by way of discussion of results will be acceptable. The logic for selection of study sites was clarified in the response. Although a fully probabilistic design is desirable for several reasons, attention must also be given to the natural reach divisions. The proposed design seems acceptable. Appropriate references are cited for salmon habitat suitability. The table of gages is a useful addition. The clarification of relationships of the current proposal to ongoing studies of diversion and recharge is useful for putting this proposal in context of other work. We agree that the questions about salmon spawning in upwelling or downwelling regions and of scale for spawning are the crux of this study. Useful additional references are cited.

Comment:

Comments
The impacts of water conservation projects to ground water volume/hyporheic flow have long been debated in the Methow. Such impacts are likely to vary substantially between sites. Accordingly, the scope of this proposal may not be broad enough to guide project planning throughout the Methow Basin. Such analysis may be more appropriate as an element of an individual project proposal. Further, in that most of the conservation projects under consideration in the Methow are aimed at resolving severe flow problems, it is doubtful that any negative environmental impacts to aquifer recharge would outweigh the benefits of resolving the instream flow problem.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

Comment: