FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 200000200

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
200000200 Narrative	Narrative
200000200 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
200000200 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Final Phase of the Chumstick Culvert Replacement and Habitat Restoration Enhancement
Proposal ID	200000200
Organization	Chelan County Conservation District (Chelan Co.)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Peggy Entzel
Mailing address	301 Yakima Street, Room 307 Wenatchee, WA 98801
Phone / email	5096640265 / peggy-entzel@wa.nacdnet.org
Manager authorizing this project	Joel Teeley
Review cycle	Columbia Cascade
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Cascade / Wenatchee
Short description	Restore salmon and steelhead passage in Chumstick Creek.
Target species	Spring Chinook Salmon, steelhead, Cutthroat trout, bull trout and Coho salmon

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
		11683 209 Chumstick Highway, Leavenworth, WA
		12089 209 Chumstick Highway, Leavenworth, WA
		12500 209 Chumstick Highway, Leavenworth, WA
		13119 209 Chumstick Highway, Leavenworth, WA
		13235 209 Chumstick Highway, Leavenworth, WA
		13415 209 Chumstick Highway, Leavenworth, WA
		15121 209 Chumstick Highway, Leavenworth, WA
		15131 209 Chumstick Highway, Leavenworth, WA
		15195 209 Chumstick Highway, Leavenworth, WA
		15950 209 Chumstick Highway, Leavenworth, WA
		16000 209 Chusmtick Highway, Leavenworth, WA
		16022 209 Chumstick Highway, Leavenworth, WA
47.71	-120.6	Chumstick Creek

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
149
150

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.
BPA	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
2000	Barrier removal and restoration of instream habitat resulting in 1.1 miles of salmon habitat. All subsequent miles are from this point up stream.
2000	Barrier removal and restoration of instream habitat resulting in 0.3 additional miles of salmon habitat.
2000	Barrier removal and restoration of instream habitat resulting in 0.2 additional miles of salmon habitat.
2000	Barrier removal and restoration of instream habitat resulting in 0.1 additional miles of salmon habitat.
2000	Barrier removal and restoration of instream habitat resulting in 0.7 additional miles of salmon habitat.
2000	Barrier removal and restoration of instream habitat resulting in 0.1 additional miles of salmon habitat.
2000	Barrier removal and restoration of instream habitat resulting in 0.2 additional miles of salmon habitat.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
200000200	Remove migrational barriers and restore instream and riparian habitat on Chumstick Creek	Removes barriers downstream of this proposed project.
199902300	Chumstick Creek North Road Culvert Replacement	Plans to replace partial barrier downstream of this project

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost
1. Plan and design 12 barrier removal/stream restoration projects.	a. Identify sites and secure landowner agreements	1	$1,600
	b. Survey sites	1	$500
	c. Design projects		$0
	d. Complete and submit all permits	1	$300
	e. Follow-up on permits	1	$500

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
	0	0	$0

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. Implement construction of projects designed in Section 4.	a. Develop bid packets for all projects	1	$1,800
	b. Solicit bids and award project	1	$1,800
	c. Develop contract with successful bidder	1	$600
	d. Implement construction contract	2	$6,800
	e. Construction	2	$280,000	Yes
2. Complete Riparian Plantings	a. Riparian plantings	2	$1,850

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Implement construction contract	2004	2004	$142,900
2. Riparian plantings	2004	2004	$850

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2004
$143,750

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1. Administer Grant and report Progress	a. Administration and reporting	5	$31,000
2. Maintain sites and replant, etc. as needed	a. Maintain sites and replant as needed	4	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Administer Grant and report Progress	2004	2007	$13,400
2. Maintain sites and replant, etc. as needed	2004	2007	$2,400

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$9,500	$2,100	$2,100	$2,100

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost
1. Monitor and evaluate project success	a. Develop and implement a monitoring plan.	4	$0
	a. Compile data and summarize	4	$0
2. Information transfer and education	a. Develop format for workshops for local landowners, work groups and school children.	4	$0
	b.Develop and implement an acceptable method of information transfer to BPA and other agencies.	4	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Monitor and evaluate project success	2004	2007	$2,400

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$600	$600	$600	$600

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2003 cost
Personnel		$33,917
Fringe		$6,783
Supplies		$5,000
Travel		$1,050
Indirect		$0
NEPA	NEPA is completed	$0
Subcontractor		$280,000
		$326,750

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 cost	$326,750
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2003 budget request	$326,750
FY 2003 forecast from 2002	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
NRCS	Engineering, project design, permit assistance, administration	$39,300	in-kind
USFWS	Permit assistance, project design	$6,900	in-kind
USFWS	Cost-share	$30,000	cash

Other budget explanation

Original funding for this project would compliment and build upon previous funding provided by the BPA and USFWS that replaced 7 barrier culverts with 6 bridges and 1 culvert. One more culvert will be replaced with a bridge in 2002.

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2002-2)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

A response is needed. It is commendable that the Chelan County Conservation District has taken the lead among a number of entities, particularly the Chumstick Community Watershed Alliance, Trout Unlimited and several governmental agencies, involved in this attempt to rehabilitate a degraded stream and its surroundings. The drainage area of Chumstick Creek is said to be 78 square miles. Flows in August and September are about 2 cfs, according to the proposal. The proposal focuses on 23 culverts that block upstream migration of salmon and steelhead. The 2 cfs of flow is apparently measured at RM 0.3 where the first of the culverts is present. That culvert has been replaced, as the ISRP saw during our site visit in October. Seven other culverts were replaced during phase 1 of the project, which was funded by BPA to the extent of $176,000 (page 14 of the proposal). As a result, 2.7 miles of Chumstick Creek were opened up to salmon and steelhead. The proposal identifies an additional 12 barriers to be removed in the next phase.

The low numbers of fish likely to benefit from this project make its priority low. More details should be provided on the specific benefits to fish that might be expected from removal of these culverts. How far upstream might chinook migrate, for example? The stream flow in Chumstick Creek certainly becomes inadequate for salmon at some point upstream. How far upstream is that with respect to the culverts that might be removed? What are the ecosystem effects of removing these blocks? The proposal should include a description of a plan for monitoring and evaluating the effects of culvert replacement - at least to the extent of outlining a plan for determining whether fish successfully pass, and what species do pass

The proposal lists some anadromous fish species that supposedly will benefit. However, no source of the information is provided. While, the species do occur in the Wenatchee River and supposedly would benefit to some degree, the proposal should discuss the extent to which each species might benefit. See proposal 29010 as an example, wherein estimates of additional spawning area and rearing area are provided.

Natural questions are: Where are these culverts located? Is there sufficient flow to support salmonids at the uppermost culvert?

The response should address the option to not to replace culverts upstream of the point where stream flow is no longer sufficient to support reasonable numbers of anadromous salmonids. (1 cfs?).

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

Critical to realize upstream benefits. Should not be further delayed. The Chumstick Creek will potentially become a valuable coho stream. WA SRFB has approved funding of $273,100 for 2002 contingent on the completion of the North Road culvert project. Designs are currently being finalized for that project. The budget has been modified to reflect the project sponsors additional needs from BPA to complete two additional culvert replacements. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-11)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Fundable. The ISRP's basic concerns were addressed in the response, i.e. culvert replacement is at least confined to the area where there is year-round flow. However, the low flow volume is marginal (~ 1 cfs at the upper end) and potential benefits to fish uncertain, but probably not large. The small numbers of fish likely to benefit from this project make its priority low.

It is commendable that the Chelan County Conservation District has taken the lead among a number of entities, particularly the Chumstick Community Watershed Alliance, Trout Unlimited and several governmental agencies, involved in this attempt to rehabilitate a degraded stream and its surroundings. The drainage area of Chumstick Creek is said to be 78 square miles. Flows in August and September are about 2 cfs, according to the proposal. The proposal focuses on 23 culverts that block upstream migration of salmon and steelhead. The 2 cfs of flow is apparently measured at RM 0.3 where the first of the culverts is present. That culvert has been replaced, as the ISRP saw during our site visit in October. Seven other culverts were replaced during phase 1 of the project, which was funded by BPA to the extent of $176,000 (page 14 of the proposal). As a result, 2.7 miles of Chumstick Creek were opened up to salmon and steelhead. The proposal identifies an additional 12 barriers to be removed in the next phase.

Some important unknowns remain in this proposal. With respect to the ISRP comment that the proposal should discuss the extent to which each species might benefit, the sponsors responded that the type of survey that would be required to estimate the amount of additional spawning and rearing area that might be made available by culvert replacement is not available. The response indicates that flows of around 1 cfs occur in the late summer/fall at the upper end of the proposed culvert replacement reach. This volume of water suggests that opportunity for increase in salmonid use of the stream is not high. Furthermore, the land use practices existing in the watershed suggest that available habitat may be marginal in its capacity to support juvenile salmonids, and that suitable gravel for spawning may be scarce. These factors should be addressed in a holistic watershed improvement plan that includes the passage problem as well as the problem of stream degradation.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Potentially increase spawning and survival by restoring passage to portions of the Chumstick Creek watershed (Wenatchee Subbasin)

Comments
While Chumstick Creek suffers a myriad of water quality, quantity, and physical habitat problems, it presents seasonally favorable conditions, and could provide important overwintering habitat. Further, regional efforts to improve habitat (e.g., CREP) may substantially improve habitat conditions over the long term. Replacing problem culverts now will allow at least seasonal use of most of the watershed and allow fish to access the remaining good quality habitats in the watershed.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
A

Date:
Jul 26, 2002

Comment:

(Note: In addition, we may want to say something to the effect that WDFW is overdue in providing the last two semi-annual reports April - Sept 2001 and Oct - March 2002.)

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment:

[Project omitted from NWPPC Recommendations Document. Personal Communication with M. Fritsch, 11/5/02: "This project did not make the funding list, but was placed in the option package for additional funds (if identified) by the managers."]

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Delete project, should be concluded. Appears in table above..

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment: