1. Spoonful farms side channel preliminary design
Mid-Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group
SRFB Proposal #

4. Project objectives
To gain an understanding of groundwater and surface water interactions through topographical survey, groundwater monitoring, and flood modeling on riparian acres on Spoonful Farm by the summer of 2019; and
To design treatments to increase the frequency of side channel connection and floodplain inundation by the fall of 2019.

11. TAG/CC Question, Request, or Comment
Response: Where / how is the comment addressed in the final application
Clarify water rights and potential use to augment flows in any new side channel.
Private right: 1 cfs for 250 acre-feet/year
Cascade Irrigation District: 10gpm for 67 acres
April 15 – October 15 
Groundwater data would be valuable.
Currently being collected. 
Unclear how long it is since existing channels were regularly activated.
 One channel is currently active, though the frequency of its connection with the river is unknown.
Why would one expect side channel to be sustainable here (inside of a meander bend)? Appears that old side channels have filled in with floodplain deposits and new channels would seem to be subject to same process.
This could be addressed in two ways: 1) aiming just for a groundwater channel with no surface inlet, or 2) designing for scouring flows at 5 yr floods (or so). Side channels up- and downstream of this location show a similar distribution. 
If sponsor is interested in a groundwater-fed channel, provide an estimate of depth to groundwater (would be easy to ballpark based on river stage) and approximate volume of excavation required and resultant cost.
Groundwater depths will be available after CWU’s work (next week), and can be incorporated into the final proposal. 
In general, the proposal seems underdeveloped. Seems like a lot of money to basically ask someone to come up with an idea for what to do at site.
Please share your ideas for budgeting and proposal strengthening at this early stage of project development. – we are eager to develop this project further. 

13. SRFB Technical Review Panel Question, Request, or Comment
Response: Where / how is the comment addressed in the final application?
How will you evaluate sufficiency of groundwater?
The reviewers’ suggestions to implement a groundwater pump test and one year of well monitoring will be incorporated into the proposal.
What other considerations will drive channel location and configuration (e.g. flow-through versus blind channels)? Data collection tasks are mentioned in the objectives but are not included in the scope of work. Each data collection or analysis task should be listed as a separate item in the scope of work and cost estimate.
Channel location will aim to minimize excavation while maximizing sustainability. 
Provide additional detail in the scope of work. Include task, responsible party, deliverable, and schedule The proposal would be even stronger if the preferred alternative was developed to a preliminary design level.
The project will result in preliminary design, and will provide the preliminary design deliverables listed in Manual 18: preliminary design report, drawings, and cost estimate. 
The project offers the possibility of side channel rearing habitat immediately adjacent to the Yakima River. The sponsor has done an excellent job cultivating interest and shepherding the energy of very enthusiastic landowners! The partnership with Central Washington University will also bring expertise that can add value to the project.
We are excited by the possibility of more rearing habitat, and of enhancing existing rearing habitat. 

14. Cost
SRFB Request
Match
Groundwater monitoring
$ ,000 $
Technical work group meetings, field data collection, technical memo
$ ,000
Identify conceptual alternatives, filter, create drawings
Site surveys for topography not avaialble from LIDAR, bathymetry
$ ,000
Project management and bookkeeping
$ ,840
Modeling
$ ,000
Cultural resource literature review and field surveys
$ ,000
$ ,000
$ ,840
$ ,840
$ ,000
This just in! USFWS Partners funding will also support, the project, leaving a SRFB request of $25,000.