Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Ali Long Rearing Channel Habitat Improvements- Upper Methow River |
| Proposal ID | 29036 |
| Organization | Yakama Nation (YN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Joel Hubble |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 |
| Phone / email | 5098656262 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Lynn Hatcher |
| Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Methow |
| Short description | Reconnect a historic side channel in the upper Methow River, and addition of inchannel structure as needed to increase channel complexity. |
| Target species | Spring Chinook, Steelhead, Bulltrout and resident rainbow trout. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 48.6173 |
-120.4539 |
SE Sec 15, T 36N R18 E, Approximately rm 69 on the Methow R. |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
| 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
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 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
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 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
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
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. 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
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 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
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. Adaptive revisions to accommodate site reactions to improvements |
4 |
7 |
$5,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|
| $1,250 | $1,250 | $1,250 | $1,250 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 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
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated 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 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|
| $11,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | $11,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash 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: