The original project proposal had included larger LWD structures in the side channel on the north side of the work area. Unfortunately, Sauk River channel changes upstream cut-off direct tributary inflow to that channel. The side channel serves as overflow during high flow events only now. The sponsor hired an engineer to design a project under the new conditions. Here is a summary from their design report: The following key observations should influence the selection and design of structures that would be most appropriate for placement in the project side channel: · The side channel is likely to continue to experience deposition until the river migrates or avulses back through its location again in the future. · Substrates in the side channel are generally too fine, and the environment too depositional, to be suitable for spawning habitat. · Scour pools created by log structures are likely to fill in with sediments as floods recede. · The amount of summer habitat that may be usable is likely to be small, thus the key habitat function appears to be high flow off-channel refuge habitat. Accordingly, there does not appear to be sufficient justification to install large, expensive engineered log structures in the project side channel. Small, inexpensive structures minimize (i) risking loss of function, and (ii) cost of financial investment and opportunity cost (i.e., where the money could have been used more productively elsewhere in the event of structure loss). As result of the site conditions changing after the grant was funded, and using their design engineer’s recommendations, the Skagit Fisheries Enhancement Group treated a smaller area (0.25 miles vs. 0.85 miles), with smaller structures in the side channel. Their original cost estimate for the instream structures was $32,600 and they spent $9,143 on the smaller structures. Thus, they used the balance of $23,457 on extra riparian plantings on the three properties (treated 0.15 miles vs. 0.10 miles) (planted 30 acres vs. 18 acres), and additional invasive species removal (30 acres vs. 14 acres).