FY07-09 proposal 200721400

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Cascade / Methow

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs:

Termination date: 9/30/2010
Comments: Reclamation will remain involved in this project through one full cycle of high and low flows in the event the structures require adjustment to perform as the design intended.

Final deliverables: MSRF will provide a closing report to document objectives achieved through implementation of this project

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: Generally, this seemed a worthwhile project. However, the ISRP believes a response is needed to address several points not fully described in the proposal. In order to establish the potential benefit of this project, more information on the importance of this river segment as a spawning site for spring Chinook and/or summer steelhead is required. Also, some discussion of the extent and type of habitat that will be created with an intermittent connection to the mainstem - based on two-year flood events - is needed. Since the secondary channels will only be connected to the mainstem during two-year events, it is not clear how much habitat for juvenile rearing and winter refuge will actually be created in phase 1. There also is some uncertainty regarding the approach being taken to brook trout at the project area. Reconnecting habitat infested with brook trout to the mainstem has the potential to adversely affect the benefits of the project. Technical and scientific background: The background information on the project is generally complete. The significance of the project location is well established; it is noted as an area for restoration in the subbasin plan and is adjacent to a previously implemented floodplain restoration effort. However, the background section spends considerable space attempting to support the hypothesis that reconnecting the side channels will reduce sediment transport capacity in the mainstem sufficiently to impact substrate composition. The speculation is made that the reduced transport capacity will lead to improved spawning habitat in the mainstem. Numerous approaches are used to assess the potential change in transport. None of these approaches provide very convincing evidence that the change in transport would be sufficient enough to cause a biologically significant alteration in substrate composition. The amount of effort expended on what is really a very minor element of the project objectives detracted some from the effectiveness of this section. In contrast, not enough discussion of the potential benefits of increased off-channel habitat is provided. Some information on the utilization of off-channel habitat at the Hancock Springs project by juvenile Chinook and steelhead would provide some indication of the likely response by the focal species to this type of project at Fender Mills. Also, some quantification of the availability of off-channel habitat within the subbasin would help provide some context for the significance of this effort. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The proposal does an adequate job of linking its objectives to regional programs. The description of its relationship to the Habitat Improvement BiOp was the most complete. The project type and its location are supported by the subbasin plan for the Methow. Relationships to other projects: The Hancock Springs and the Big Valley Ranch restoration efforts are important complements to this project, as indicated in the proposal. The relationship between the Fender Mill project and some of the other projects mentioned in the proposal are less clear, other than they all occur in the Methow Subbasin. However, the proximity and compatibility of the restoration efforts in the Big Valley Ranch -Weeman Bridge section of the river indicates that this project will add to the overall effectiveness of this effort. These are the kinds of landscape-based projects that lead to large-scale improvements over time. Objectives: Most of the objectives are appropriate and correspond well with issues identified in the subbasin plan although more specific objectives related to expected (desired) biological response would have enhanced this section of the proposal. There were several objectives that were puzzling. The objective to increase competitive pressure on brook trout by providing native species access to the off-channel sites is unlikely to succeed. Both juvenile Chinook and bull trout have been shown to be very poor competitors with brook trout. The story is less clear for steelhead. Nonetheless, hoping that introducing native fishes to habitat currently occupied by brook trout will deal with the negative impacts of this introduced species is not supported in the literature. In fact, it is not impossible that by attracting native fishes to habitats infested with brook trout, survival and productivity might actually be impaired. Connecting a source of brook trout with the mainstem also could have negative impacts on native fishes rearing in the river. The brook trout are not a trivial issue and more consideration should be given to dealing with them prior to reconnecting the side channels and beaver pond. Aggressive electrofishing or even chemical control should at least be considered as possible options. Seining and angling will remove relatively few of the brook trout. There is no discussion of stranding of fish overwintering in the reconnected channels. If these channels will only be directly connected to the mainstem during flows with 2 year or longer return intervals, it would seem that egress from these habitats in the spring could be a problem. Tasks (work elements) and methods: The construction methods are fully described and appropriate. The methods for brook trout control will not be effective, as noted above and should be improved. More details about restoring native vegetation would have been helpful, including some discussion of removing invasive non-native plants, if present. Monitoring and evaluation: Monitoring includes photopoints, as well as fish population surveys (snorkeling, seining, and electrofishing), redd counts (by WDFW), and river geomorphology studies. The monitoring plan was reasonably comprehensive, although some of the monitoring elements were not certain to be done. In addition, some of the monitoring elements are described only briefly. A few elements seem to be lacking. For example, there is an objective for riparian planting of 80% survival after 23 years. But vegetation monitoring, beyond photopoints, is not included in the RM&E section. Facilities, equipment, and personnel seem reasonable for the job. In fact, the long list of participants provided at the end of the proposal raised some question as to who was going to do what. It didn't seem as though this project was large enough to provide something for everyone to do. Information transfer: 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 on file with the Bureau of Reclamation. Given that there is a significant amount of monitoring involved in this project and that there should be something to be learned from some of the construction methods, a greater effort to communicate results should be undertaken. Benefits to focal and non-focal species: Results should be positive, assuming that the fish use the connected habitat, are not frequently stranded, and positive benefits are not offset by brook trout. The relationship of this project with other floodplain restoration in the area increases the potential for positive effects. Non-focal species are also likely to benefit, including those that can inhabit the three acres of new wetland that will be created.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: The project sponsors have provided a thorough and convincing response to the ISRP's questions. The clarification that the outlet of the Fender Mill side channel is perennially connected to the mainstem Methow addresses our concern about the possibility of juvenile stranding. The response that brook trout already spawn in the main Methow River and are free to move back and forth between the mainstem and the complex of side channels and ponds reduces our concern that the project could serve as a source of brook trout. Both the issues of monitoring and the relationship of this project to others nearby are adequately addressed. The inclusion of a more comprehensive outreach effort not only addresses an ISRP concern but should provide benefits for those planning to implement similar projects elsewhere in the basin. We also appreciate the overall emphasis on restoring natural channel processes and floodplain functions in a reach that is heavily used by salmon and steelhead. The sponsors are complimented for the completeness and professionalism of their response to the ISRP comments.