Chelan Fish Channel Habitat Study Events since mid 2012 Seasonal Spill events Kayak flows Variable pump operations 2014 gravel enhancement Since the last PHABSIM study in early 2013, There has been 3 spill events, Recreational kayak flows, Changes in the spawning flow regime Major gravel enhancement in 2014. How has habitat in the Chelan Channel change?

Overall, Habitat at spawning flow increased 49%-72% Increases in overall Habitat Flow Chinook Steelhead @250 cfs 61.61% 72% @300 cfs 48.9% 69.5% Increases in % usable Habitat @250 cfs 3.4% 6% @300 cfs 2.4% 5% However, the transect data yields more of an Eastwood theme.

The Good Some good areas made better There is the Good. Some already good areas were made better. In transect 3, substrate improved except on the right edge. Depth was the limiting factor at higher flow causing the steep drop in SH habitat.

The Good Some good areas made better In transect 5, substrate improved except on right side. Both depth and velocity were the limiting factors at higher flows causing the steep drop in habitat.

The Good Some poor areas improved Some poorer areas were made good. Transect 1 had an overall improved substrate. Velocity was limiting at higher flows.

The Good Some poor areas improved Transect 7 had limited substrate improvement. Depth and velocity limiting at higher flows.

The Good Some poor areas improved Transect 7 showed improved substrate in center, worse on left side. Velocity was limiting at higher flows.

The Bad Some good areas made worse However, some originally good areas were made worse. Overall substrate similarly limited, but shifted to the right. Velocity was limiting at higher flows.

The Bad Some good areas made worse Transect 12 had an overall worse substrate. Depth and velocity continued to be limiting at higher flows.

The Ugly Substrate has improved, but is mostly unsuitable 2013 PHABSIM 2014 PHABSIM And the Ugly This is a busy graph showing the substrate suitability at each measured point along each transect. For our purpose, think of the amount of black and purple areas as bad and blue and green areas as marginal. Overall substrate improved from 37.5% to 41.4%, but this means that over 58 percent of the channel is not usable for spawning. This is an overall improvement, but shows that almost of the channel has marginal to unsuitable substrate.

The Ugly Depth and Velocity are still limiting 2014 PHABSIM – 4 pumps 2014 PHABSIM – 5 pumps This is a similar graph looking at only depth and velocity. The 4 pump operation was successful at providing more habitat (32.2 vs 27.8%), but that means that over 67% of the channel is not usable for spawning.

The Ugly Overall Habitat is even more limiting 2014 PHABSIM – 4 pumps 2014 PHABSIM – 5 pumps When depth, velocity and substrate is combines, habitat is even more limiting. Overall, there was an increase from 13.5 to 16 percent usable habitat under a 4 pump operation, but just look at the sheer amount of black purple and blue areas. About 84% of the channel is unusable for spawning.

Analysis Conclusions Gravel enhancement worked! Reduced spawning flow made more suitable habitat! Additional gravel enhancement would improve areas with suitable depth and velocity. Gravel moves through the system therefore continual gravel enhancement would be needed. Depth and velocities are still too high for much of the channel. Why is this? After analyzing the 2014 PHABSIM model, I think we can safely make the following conclusions: Gravel enhancement worked! Reduced spawning flow made more suitable habitat! Additional gravel enhancement would improve areas with suitable depth and velocity. Gravel moves through the system therefore continual gravel enhancement would be needed. Even with reduced stream flow, depths and velocities are still too high for much of the channel. Why are we still having a problem with depth and velocity?

One answer is that the channel does not look like what was planned FROM CHAPTER 7, pg 30 & 31: CHELAN RIVER BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (October 8 2003) 2014 PHABSIM 3.1.2 Sub-reach 4.2 1. Create wider (100’ avg.)/flatter channel 2. Use large boulder placement 3. Add sinuosity of ~1.2 4. Move channel away from road 5. Add/move gravel to channel 3.1.3 Sub-reach 4.3 1. Continue 100’ channel width 4. Add/move gravel to channel  3.1.4 Sub-reach 4.4 5. Align the downstream end of Reach 4… One answer is that the channel does not look like what was planned FROM CHAPTER 7, pg 30 & 31: CHELAN RIVER BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (October 8 2003) A 100 ft channel width was desired throughout the reach. The existing channel has an average width of 74 ft.

Next Steps for Potential Habitat Improvement Additional and continuous gravel enhancement Increase overall stream width to the original plan specifications of 100’ Increase channel width in select ideal spawning areas to 100’ Model habitat under a 3 pump operation Any other Ideas? Here are some Next Steps I like to discuss at the next meeting to Potentially improve the habitat channel Additional and continuous gravel enhancement Increase overall stream width to the original plan specifications of 100’ Increase channel width in select ideal spawning areas to 100’ Model habitat under a 3 pump operation Any other Ideas?