FY07-09 proposal 200726100

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleHabitat effectiveness survey of existing, historical, and potential beaver habitat in the Upper Columbia Basin, Methow Subbasin
Proposal ID200726100
OrganizationPacific Biodiversity Institute
Short descriptionThe first phase of this project is a survey of existing and historical beaver habitat accompanied by an evaluation of existing habitat effectiveness models.
Information transferA database and GIS information will be compiled and prepared for dissemination. A final report will be prepared and published. The final report, database and GIS information will be and distributed both on CD-ROM and on our web site.
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Form submitter
George Wooten Methow Valley Citizens Council gwooten@okanogan1.com
All assigned contacts
Peter Morrison Pacific Biodiversity Institute peter@pacificbio.org

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Cascade / Methow

Methow Watershed

Section 3. Focal species

primary: Steelhead Upper Columbia River ESU
secondary: Chinook Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
secondary: Bull Trout
secondary: All Wildlife
Additional: American beaver

Section 4. Past accomplishments


Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Funding sourceRelated IDRelated titleRelationship

Section 6. Biological objectives

Biological objectivesFull descriptionAssociated subbasin planStrategy
Data Gaps assess current versus historical beaver abundance Methow [Strategy left blank]
Natural Factors Limiting Fish Production improve overall spawning and rearing habitat Methow increase the number of beaver
Recommendation improve beaver populations in the subwatershed Methow assessment of the loss of beaver activity in the Chewuch subwatershed in general, Eightmile Creek in particular, to determine the extent of loss of maintenance of channel function, and water and sediment storage

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Work element nameWork element titleDescriptionStart dateEnd dateEst budget
Submit/Acquire Data Assess current versus historical beaver abundance and distribution Assess current versus historical beaver abundance and distribution 3/1/2007 11/30/2007 $79,240
Biological objectives
Data Gaps

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget
Personnel [blank] $79,240 $0 $0
Totals $79,240 $0 $0
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: $79,240
Total work element budget: $79,240
Cost sharing
Funding source/orgItem or service providedFY 07 est value ($)FY 08 est value ($)FY 09 est value ($)Cash or in-kind?Status
Forest Service beaver transplant facility $5,000 $0 $0 In-Kind Under Development
WDFW beaver transplant facility $0 $10,000 $5,000 In-Kind Under Development
Totals $5,000 $10,000 $5,000

Section 9. Project future

FY 2010 estimated budget: $0
FY 2011 estimated budget: $0

Future O&M costs:

Termination date:

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Revised Proposal 200726100 - Habitat effectiveness survey of existing, historical, and potential beaver habitat in the Upper Columbia Basin, Methow Subbasin Jul 2006

Reviews and recommendations

FY07 budget FY08 budget FY09 budget Total budget Type Category Recommendation
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0 $0 $0 $0 Expense ProvinceExpense Do Not Fund
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0 $0 $0 $0 Basinwide
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0 $0 $0 $0 ProvinceExpense
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0 $0 $0 $0 ProvinceExpense


Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This proposal presents an alternative to ‘heavy-handed on site management activities’, by re-introducing beaver back into river systems. The ISRP applauds the authors for their inclusion of historic information including an attempt to reintroduce the species back into the system in the 1930s. The earlier reintroduction attempt failed, but the authors believe the re-introductions were not placed at logical locations. The authors want to begin with the existing habitat effectiveness model, but use specific data collected from the study area to refine beaver habitat characteristics in the model. The ISRP agrees that this is a worthwhile concept but seek a response that provides more detail on the specific types of habitat and stream data (and the metrics) that will be collected and how the data will be specifically analyzed in phase 1 and phase 2. The ISRP assumes use and non-use sites will be the backbone of the overall analyses, but need more details in a response.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: This project is a potential step in beaver reintroduction as a management technique for improving anadromous fish habitat. Specifics about inputs for the beaver model were presented as requested (including a data sheet) and a considerable amount of recent literature cited. The fact that they would be utilizing information from other ongoing beaver studies in the region is a plus for the project. However, some of the details are not clear about how habitat suitability for beaver will be analyzed or how factors limiting successful colonization by beaver will be determined; i.e., sites now unused by beavers include both suitable and unsuitable sites, and how will these two categories be separated? We remain uncertain if the approach/model will be adequate (but there a few guarantees anywhere) but think it should be given a try. The approach is creative and not heavy-handed!