View and print project details including project summary, purpose, associations to Biological Opinions,
and area. To learn more about any of the project properties, hold your mouse cursor over the field label.
The UPA Wenatchee Access projects are proposed by the Chelan County Natural Resource Department and are part of a regional commitment by Chelan County to initiate long-term habitat protection and restoration efforts within the Wenatchee River subbasin for ESA-listed species. The UPA Wenatchee Subbasin Access Programmatic (Wenatchee Access) projects will be located in the Wenatchee subbasin and will benefit Upper Columbia steelhead, spring Chinook and bull trout.
ISRP comments for this complexity proposal include:
This proposal does not adequately justify the actions proposed in terms of specific benefits to fish and wildlife and description of methods and, thus, does not meet the ISRP review criteria. This proposal could have made a stronger case for replacing the culverts in question if it summarized what species would benefit from the passage improvements for each watershed, and estimated how many miles of stream would potentially be made available after road crossings were fixed. This work would replace 43 culverts in the Wenatchee subbasin. Only one of those culverts - Mill Creek in the Peshastin watershed - is described. The Mill Creek culvert is located near the mouth of the stream and is claimed to block steelhead spawning migrations and possibly other anadromous or adfluvial salmonids, although steelhead is the only species apart from westslope cutthroat that occurs in Mill Creek according to the distribution maps supplied with the proposal. No details about the other 42 culverts are given, however the map in attachment B shows they are located in clusters on Derby, Brender, Ruby, and East Fork Mission Creeks.
This proposal should have provided information about habitat conditions upstream from the fish barriers in these streams so that replacing the problem culverts would be better justified. The proposal should have also described what structures will replace the culverts and how fish passage at all life history stages will be assured. Will modular bridges be used, bottomless arch culverts, low-water crossings (crossings that are inundated at high flow), or other types of road crossing structures? The narrative says that the Upper Columbia River Regional Technical Team's prioritization scheme will influence the order of repairing the crossings, but details are not provided. If some streams have a higher priority for passage improvements than others, the rationale should be given. It is unlikely that Level 1 monitoring will reveal whether the fish passage improvements achieve their desired objective unless actual stream surveys are carried out post-replacement.
This contract will address the ISRP comments by providing a final version of the Upper Columbia River Regional Technical Team’s (UCRTT) prioritization scheme. This document describes habitat conditions upstream from the fish barriers and the rationale behind the ranking. Structures that will replace the culverts will be described as well as how fish passage at all life stages will be assured. In addition, a monitoring plan will be created for each site that is designed for construction.
The Chelan County Natural Resource Department contacted the UCRTT regarding finalizing the draft culvert prioritization framework (UCRTT 2006). On January 9, 2008 they agreed to finalize the prioritization framework. The final barrier prioritization framework will be posted to PISCES when it becomes available.
The existing fish passage barrier culverts will be replaced by modular bridges or (ALAN ANYTHING ELSE?). Hardened fords or low-water crossings will not be used to replace the culverts. Using modular bridges or (ALAN ANYTHING ELSE?) will ensure that fish passage will be possible for all life stages during all times of the year.
The number of projects that will be designed will depend upon the results of the UCRTT final barrier prioritization and the final BPA budget. The alternatives analysis will suggest potential actions that could occur at each site and a preferred alternative will be chosen based on biological benefits and landowner input. The feasibility analysis will involve contacting the landowners and determining their willingness to have a project at that location. Landowner Agreements will be obtained from willing landowners. Sites that do not have complete landowner willingness will be considered less feasible than ones with complete support by all landowners. The preferred alternative for each of the feasible barrier culvert sites will be identified and the project that ranks the highest will be designed for construction in 2009. More access projects will be designed in 2009 for construction in 2010.
This proposal does not adequately justify the actions proposed in terms of specific benefits to fish and wildlife and description of methods and, thus, does not meet the ISRP review criteria. This proposal could have made a stronger case for replacing the culverts in question if it summarized what species would benefit from the passage improvements for each watershed, and estimated how many miles of stream would potentially be made available after road crossings were fixed. This work would replace 43 culverts in the Wenatchee subbasin. Only one of those culverts - Mill Creek in the Peshastin watershed - is described. The Mill Creek culvert is located near the mouth of the stream and is claimed to block steelhead spawning migrations and possibly other anadromous or adfluvial salmonids, although steelhead is the only species apart from westslope cutthroat that occurs in Mill Creek according to the distribution maps supplied with the proposal. No details about the other 42 culverts are given, however the map in attachment B shows they are located in clusters on Derby, Brender, Ruby, and East Fork Mission Creeks.
This proposal should have provided information about habitat conditions upstream from the fish barriers in these streams so that replacing the problem culverts would be better justified. The proposal should have also described what structures will replace the culverts and how fish passage at all life history stages will be assured. Will modular bridges be used, bottomless arch culverts, low-water crossings (crossings that are inundated at high flow), or other types of road crossing structures? The narrative says that the Upper Columbia River Regional Technical Team's prioritization scheme will influence the order of repairing the crossings, but details are not provided. If some streams have a higher priority for passage improvements than others, the rationale should be given. It is unlikely that Level 1 monitoring will reveal whether the fish passage improvements achieve their desired objective unless actual stream surveys are carried out post-replacement.
This project Merged To 2007-400-00 effective on 1/23/2008
Relationship Description: All work & budgets from projects 2007-042-00/Wenatchee Passage; 2007-085-00/Nason Creek Oxbow; and 2007-283-00/Wenatchee Access are combined into 2007-400-00. Original decision (4/26/07) was EXPENSE, combined they fit BPA's CAPITAL criteria. This decision made based on low capital projections.
Help
Mitigation work
Reporting
Funding
Search
Log in
Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?)
