< Back to list of FY 2007-2009 projects

200721400 - UPA Project - Fender Mill Floodplain Restoration - Phase 1

Sponsor: Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation

Budgets: FY07: $127,141 | FY08: $12,630 | FY09: $17,100

Short description: Restore natural channel process, reestablish side channel rearing habitat, restore-improve riparian forest habitat, add wood complexes in main stem, install rock structure to keep majority of flow in main stem, breach existing levee, connect side channels.

view full proposal

Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Expense

Recommended budgets: FY07: $0 | FY08: $0 | FY09: $0

Comment: Tier 2. Fund at a level consistent with ISRP comments, as funds become available.

ISRP final recommendation: Fundable

Comment:

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.

Response loop edit

See the sponsor's revised proposal from the response loop. You'll be taken to CBFWA's proposal system in Section 10 where most sponsors uploaded revised narratives or other responses to the ISRP comments.

State/province recommendation: Washington

Review group: Washington list

Recommended budgets: FY07: (n/a) | FY08: (n/a) | FY09: (n/a)

Comment: See Washington guidance