FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29036

Additional documents

TitleType
29036 Narrative Narrative
29036 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleAli Long Rearing Channel Habitat Improvements- Upper Methow River
Proposal ID29036
OrganizationYakama Nation (YN)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJoel Hubble
Mailing addressP.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone / email5098656262 / hubble@yakama.com
Manager authorizing this projectLynn Hatcher
Review cycleColumbia Cascade
Province / SubbasinColumbia Cascade / Methow
Short descriptionReconnect a historic side channel in the upper Methow River, and addition of inchannel structure as needed to increase channel complexity.
Target speciesSpring Chinook, Steelhead, Bulltrout and resident rainbow trout.
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
48.6173 -120.4539 SE Sec 15, T 36N R18 E, Approximately rm 69 on the Methow R.
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
150
152

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
NMFS Action 150 NMFS In subbasins with listed salmon and steelhead, BPA shall fund protection of currently productive non-Federal habitat, especially if at risk of being degraded, in accordance with criteria and priorities BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001.
NMFS Action 152 NMFS The Action Agencies shall coordinate their efforts and support offsite habitat enhancement measures undertaken by other Federal agencies, states, Tribes, and local governments by the following:

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
23012 Arrowleaf/Methow River Conservation Project Proposed project is located within the Arrowleaf property.
23024 Hancock Springs Passage and Habitat Restoration Improvements No direct linkage, however, the proposed project is located approximately 11 river miles downstream and has similar objects to provide additional off-channel rearing habitat.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Conduct a geomorphologic-hydrological assessment of the immediate reach. a. Locate the survey transects and survey the side channel and adjacent mainstem. b. Prepare written procedures and engineering prints for removal of the inlet plug and outlet dike, and locations for LWD placement. 1 $20,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Reconnect the side channel a. Remove gravel plug at the inlet b. Remove the dike at the outlet. 1 $7,500 Yes
2. Increase channel complexity. c. Purchase and install LWD root-wads as needed (up to 50 pieces). 1 $20,000 Yes
3. Educate the public to the biological significance of side channel habitat for fish and wildlife. a. Install interpretive signage along the entire length of the side channel, which parallels the Methow Valley trail. $6,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Adaptive revisions to accommodate site reactions to improvements a. Make modifications (as needed) to either the inlet or outlet to adjust seasonal flows. b. Make modifications (as needed) to instream structures. 4 $0 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Adaptive revisions to accommodate site reactions to improvements 4 7 $5,000
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$1,250$1,250$1,250$1,250

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Assess the use of the side channel and adjacent main channel by all fish species. a. Conduct monthly snorkel surveys of the side channel and adjacent mainstem. b. Conduct spawner surveys for spring chinook, steelhead and bulltrout. 5 $5,000
2. Assess changes in channel formation. a. Resurvey the side channel and adjacent main channel. b. Describe in pictorial and written format changes to these channels. c. If needed, described recommendations to improve channel function in either the side channel or main channel $0 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Assess the use of the side channel and adjacent main channel by all fish species. 4 7 $20,000
2. Assess changes in channel formation (assess in FY 04 and FY 07). 4 7 $12,000
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$11,000$5,000$5,000$11,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2003 cost
Personnel FTE: biologist & technician-48 hours (9 trips x 8 hrs) $3,000
Fringe 21.5% $645
Supplies 2 snorkeling outfits, 50 root wads ($300 x 50) $17,000
Travel $0
Indirect 19.5% $1,100
NEPA $15,000
Subcontractor reach survey (20K) & backhoe operator (15K) $35,000
Other interpretive signage (subcontracted to MDRF) $6,000
$77,745
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost$77,745
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2003 budget request$77,745
FY 2003 forecast from 2002$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required
Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

Not Fundable. No response is needed. The proposal is to reconnect a side channel of the Methow River at RM 69 to the main stream. The intent is to open up the channel as rearing habitat for salmonids. However, it is acknowledged that it is difficult to describe the importance this area might have because it is located within that portion of the Methow River that is frequently dewatered in the fall and winter. We note that proposal #29018 provides a map of the Methow River showing this reach as a "losing reach", where there is a net loss of water. Under the circumstances it would seem to be unwise to proceed with the current proposal to enlarge the area of the stream, when there is the possibility that it might lead to higher losses of water. The action proposed should probably better wait for the results of #29018 before proceeding with this idea.

Do not fund until the hydrology of the Methow Basin is better understood, so that predictions of effects of such actions on net stream flow might be possible. Rather than increasing habitat for rearing of juvenile salmonids, the project might result in increasing the number of juveniles that are stranded when the area dewaters.


Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

Concern about dewatering in some years. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Not Fundable. A response was not needed. The proposal is to reconnect a side channel of the Methow River at RM 69 to the main stream. The intent is to open up the channel as rearing habitat for salmonids. However, it is acknowledged that it is difficult to describe the importance this area might have because it is located within that portion of the Methow River that is frequently dewatered in the fall and winter. We note that proposal #29018 provides a map of the Methow River showing this reach as a "losing reach", where there is a net loss of water. Under the circumstances it would seem to be unwise to proceed with the current proposal to enlarge the area of the stream, when there is the possibility that it might lead to higher losses of water. The action proposed should probably wait for the results of #29018 before proceeding with this idea.

Do not fund until the hydrology of the Methow Basin is better understood, so that predictions of effects of such actions on net stream flow might be possible. Rather than increasing habitat for rearing of juvenile salmonids, the project might result in increasing the number of juveniles that are stranded when the area dewaters.


Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Project would reconnect and improve habitat within Methow River side channel. Potential increase in spawning and rearing survival.

Comments
Removal of alluvium at inlet may have unintended consequences to channel behavior. Suggest project be winnowed to just include dike removal and allow passive recovery and the exercise of natural fluvial processes. Proposal 29018 provides a map of the Methow River showing this reach as a "losing reach", where there is a net loss of water. Survival benefits from increased habitat access may be compromised if water is limited.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes


Recommendation:
C
Date:
Jul 26, 2002

Comment:

Recommend deferral to Subbasin Planning
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: