FY07-09 proposal 200722400
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Implementation of the Okanogan Subbasin Plan. Initiate a Programmatic and Sequenced set of Key Habitat Restoration and Protection Actions |
| Proposal ID | 200722400 |
| Organization | Colville Confederated Tribes |
| Short description | The integration of science into management, decision-making and recommended actions is an essential task for resource managers. This phased and programmatic plan is the centerpiece for mitigation, recovery and conservation in the Okanogan R & the Province |
| Information transfer | The Colville Tribes are a Charter and founding member of the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP) which hosts an active data management forum. This group coordinates with multiple data initiatives and seeks to standardize all PNW projects including programs in the Columbia Basin. This group is working with the other three PNAMP work groups (fish habitat and effectiveness), their work group leaders and the Steering Committee. Additionally, this group coorinates with BPA, BOR, NOAA and the other PNAMP Charter agencies. They do this in order to refine and standardize data and information transfer protocols. PRISM, PISCSES, DART,the CSMEP APPLICATION, the NOAA Pilot Project DataBase (SSG), Protocol Manager and other regional databases such as SalmonScape and NED. All this is carried out by the Colville tribes staff and representatives in collaboration with the Okanogan Database System its FTP and Public Project Website which are unique to the UC for reporting RME and was designed from consultations from the above efforts. The PNAMP Steering Committee will likely provide, or review and endorse the ultimate recommendation for hosting or creating a regional database and/or portal system for the region. The tribes will be compliant with those recommendations witthin their project resources. The work under this proposal will be paired with the Protocol Manager software application currently under development by the BOR and NOAA Fisheries and the PNAMP data management workgroup. Reports and Methods Manuals from the Okanogan Basin Monitoring and Evaluation Project will serve as source data for the Protocol Manager which can be used to develop standardized data sheets from which to build data structures that can be used across the Basin and the Region. The reports from this effort will be published on the BPA website and distributed through the PNAMP information network. Data and analytical results will also be shared with the Columbia Cascade Province science review and advisory groups, the regions resource managers, and the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board and the public. The results of these actions will provide the basis for future actions, performance, and adaptive management processes at the local, manager, stakeholder and regional level. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Keith Wolf | KWA Ecological Sciences Inc. | kwolf@kwaecoscience.com |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Joe Peone | Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation | joe.peone@colvilletribes.com |
| Keith Wolf | KWA Ecological Sciences Inc. | kwolf@kwaecoscience.com |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Cascade / Okanogan
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Canadian Mainstem Areas | Side Channell, Dike Setbasck and Reconnection. The tributaries in this section of the river (Testalinden, Hester and Wolfcub Creeks) remain dry for most of the year and are considered a challenging but high priority for protection and restoration. This section of the river supports sockeye, Chinook and steelhead. The major use is as a migratory pathway, but some spawning has been documented. This occurs on the occasional pockets of gravel associated with riffles. Elsewhere, the substrate is mostly sand and silt. Productivity for focal fish species is presently limited by the low gradient (design grade between drop structures is 0.05%), silty substrates, a lack of habitat diversity within the channel, denuded banks, and lack of a floodplain. There are, opportunities for restoring pool/riffle habitats and creating greater habitat diversity, particularly in the vicinity of Vertical Drop Structures where there is sufficient drop to provide a design grade compatible with good fish habitat. Water quality is unknown, but fertilizers and herbicides are widely used on surrounding vineyards. Dike roads parallel the river on both sides for the entire length of the river, and as presented in one fo the attachements, dike setback has proved a effective stategy demonstrating habitat and fish responses. Restoration priorities in this AU are mainly to restore floodplain connectivity, restore channel geomorphology, and restore the riparian corridor. The AU above is still in a much more natural condition and represents a highly productive environment for salmon and steelhead. If restored, this AU could be equally productive and extend an interconnected corridor. | ||
| 15 Sites (II) | The exchange of ground and surface water in rivers is commonly viewed as a unidirectional process where ground water seeps into the river through the stream bed. This is true because groundwater dynamics are commonly overlooked as a potential influence on river temperature (applies to cool water for attenuating summer temp and warmer water to attenuate winter icing etc.) (O’Daniel, 2003). “Hyporheic exchange” refers to the two-way exchange of water between a river channel and the underlying alluvial aquifer. Flow pathways occur at multiple spatial scales (Dent et al. 2001), from shallow flow paths in and out of the streambed which may last for seconds or minutes, to flow paths that can travel deep into the alluvial aquifer and may take months or even years to complete. In the Okanogan River, flood-plain gravels are likely particularly transmissive and the magnitude of hyporheic exchange appears to be substantial. High rates of hyporheic exchange are common in gravel-bedded rivers of the Pacific Northwest. For instance, in coarse gravel bedded sections of Lookout Creek, Oregon, Kasahara and Wondzell (2003) estimated the entire stream channel volume exchanges between the channel and alluvial aquifer once every ~100m in headwater (second order) reaches and once every ~1.7 km in mainstem (fifth order) reaches. The same study cited geomorphic complexity (channel bifurcations, sinuosity, pool riffle sequences, gravel bars, etc.) within the river and the volume of the alluvial aquifer as primary drivers of hyporheic exchange. Analysis of the data from the Okanogan river support these conclusions and areas of thermal variation are most pronounced in side channels, gravel bars etc.). This could prove to be one of the most effective stategies for addressing multiple and primary limiting factors and their causal mechanisms. | ||
| 9c: Ninemile, Antoine and Tonasket Creeks (6 reach | 9c: Ninemile, Antoine and Tonasket Creeks (6 reaches combined—high production potential, flow limiting) Hypothesis 9: Protecting water quality (cool) flows in these tributaries will continue to provide input in the mainstem Okanogan River and provide thermal refugia and rearing habitat for steelhead, sockeye and summer/fall Chinook at the following life history stages: a. rearing, and b. active migration. These streams also support spawning and rearing habitat for summer steelhead. | ||
| 9d Siwash, Wanacut and Whitestone Creeks 8 reaches | 9d: Siwash, Wanacut and Whitestone Creeks (8 reaches combined—low production potential) Hypothesis 13: Summer water temperatures in the Okanogan River exceed levels that are known to be stressful to salmonid therefore reducing inputs from small warm tributaries during summer months will benefit water quality in the Okanogan main-stem could enhance water quality in winter months. | ||
| Aeaneas | Water Quantity and Quality Improvements | ||
| Boneparte | Bonaparte: sediment, Flows should be protected Nine Mile: Lack of Knowledge, Sediment, channel stability, flow. Antoine: Lack of Knowledge, Flow, sediment, | ||
| Chilliwilist, takent, Adneas and Johnnson Creeks | 9a: Chilliwist/Talent, Aeneas, and Johnson Creeks (9 reaches combined—good water quality benefits, low production potential) Hypothesis 1: Protecting water quality (cool) flows in these tributaries will continue to provide input in the mainstem Okanogan River and provide thermal refugia and rearing habitat for steelhead, sockeye and summer/fall Chinook at the following life history stages: a. rearing, and b. active migration. | ||
| Driscoll Island | Protection and expantion of existing thermal refugia. Possible channel reconfiguation to more natural | ||
| Inkaneep Creek | Flows should be protected, Water quality, passage, riparian function, bank stability and floodplain connectivity. Some diking and riprapping has artificially confined some of the lower reaches. Two surface diversions were observed; both are entirely unscreened with placement in-line with main flow, and are possibly resulting in considerable juvenile entrainment. Water withdrawal quantity is unknown but believed to be minor. | ||
| Loup Loup | Flows should be protected, Water quality, passage, riparian function, bank stability and floodplain connectivity | ||
| Lower Salmon Creek (below Conconully Dam) | The primary limiting factor for Salmon Creek is the lack of flow in the lower 4.3 miles that creates a barrier to anadromous fish and keeps them from immigrating and emigrating between the available habitat in the middle reach, the Okanogan River and the ocean. Excellent habitat for spawning and rearing is available in the middle reach but unless access to this reach is provided then the value to anadromous fish production is lost. Balancing the multiple uses of water in this drainage is a major challenge. Channel modifications and changes in the irrigation system could help reduce the amount of water needed to provide passage so these are also considered primary limiting factors. The primary species that would benefit from improvements to Salmon Creek is summer steelhead. However, other salmon species would benefit due to the coldwater released from the bottom of Conconully Dam. | ||
| McIntyre Creek | Flows should be protected, Water quality, passage, riparian function, bank stability and floodplain connectivity. Address lower creek low flow obstruction | ||
| NineMile Creek | Sediment, channel stability, flow. Protecting water quality (cool) flows in these tributaries will continue to provide input in the mainstem Okanogan River and provide thermal refugia and rearing habitat for steelhead, sockeye and summer/fall Chinook at the following life history stages: a. rearing, and b. active migration. These streams also support spawning and rearing habitat for summer steelhead. | ||
| Okanogan | This work element will be closely coordinated with the above projects near 15 thermal sinks and sources currently identified as possible sites. Channel reconnection, water lease for sources. Water temperature is a major limiting factor for salmonid reproduction in the Okanogan River and is a critical factor in planning and executing recovery, restoration, protection and rebuilding programs. In 2003, the Colville Tribes Fish and Wildlife Department and KWA Ecological Sciences, Inc. (KWA) conducted a remote-sensing thermal survey of 134 miles of the U.S. portion of the Okanogan River subbasin to collect high quality temperature data along the Okanogan River and its major tributaries. Thermal data (TIR) was collected concurrently with a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and orthophotograpy to help assess ecological connectivity and salmonid habitat. This approach offered a cost-effective approach to collecting high quality data for analysis. Field and aerial surveys began on September 29, 2003 and were completed in June 2005. The project provided for the collection of data for the entire river system as described above. Phase II activities include analysis of data, and development of a list of strategic water quality improvement projects. Other project goals include quantification the amount of available habitat (present and potential) for listed and non-listed Pacific Salmon and steelhead species. In sum (for all these potential actions and locations), the subbasin plan findings conclude that restoration of viable fish and wildlife populations in the Okanogan will require considerable effort and resources on both sides of the geopolitical border. Consequently, this plan stipulates and provides a biological roadmap based on ecosystem principles and focal species’ ecology to guide strategiec actions land easements, habitat restoration and protection etc. for protection | ||
| Okanogan River | Side Channell, Dike Setbasck and Reconnection. feasibility at multiple project locations. Ex: 9c: Ninemile, Antoine and Tonasket Creeks (6 reaches combined—high production potential, flow limiting) | ||
| Omak Creek | Omak Creek represents critical summer steelhead habitat with adult escapement levels averaging around 100 fish over the last three years. Potential habitat below Mission Falls could potentially support three times this number. Currently efforts are underway to expand the available habitat into areas above Mission Fall and this would open an addition 7 miles or more of habitat and increase production considerably if successful. The primary limiting factors are sedimentation, barriers, habitat diversity/quantity and channel stability. Riparian restoration, road decommissioning, improved range management, correcting barriers, and artificial production using locally adapted broodstock are priority actions that would address the limiting factors | ||
| Similkameen River | The Similkameen River provides 75% of the water that flows through the Okanogan River and as the largest tributary exerts a considerable influence on the Okanogan River downstream of the confluence. The expansive watershed that resides mostly in Canada provides the majority of the sediment that exists in the lower Okanogan River therefore any actions that reduce sediment delivery would be considered high priority and beneficial to all downstream reaches. Human development has placed controls on channel migration and braiding. Restoring hydrological processes and restoring floodplain connectivity is critical in this AU along with protecting the population of wild summer/fall Chinook that spawn in this area. Additioally, mine tailings have sourced many deletariious chemiscals and minerals into the stream. This site and work element will also examine water quality in terms fo metals in the water column and in the sediment for future remediation. |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: All Anadromous Fishsecondary: Chinook All Populations
secondary: Chinook Upper Columbia River Spring ESU
secondary: Chinook Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
secondary: Pacific Lamprey
secondary: Sockeye Okanogan River ESU
secondary: Steelhead Upper Columbia River ESU
secondary: Smallmouth Bass
secondary: Cutthroat Trout
secondary: Kokanee
secondary: Mountain Whitefish
Additional: Deer, Elk, Raptors, Rainbow Trout, Cougar
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCSRF - Colville | CCT 04-1 | Habitat Assessment and Restora | The goal of this programmatic proposal is to coordinate and sequence a series of habitat protection and restoration projects consistent with the analyses of priority from the subbasin and recovery plan. Cost effectiveness and timely restoration are additional objective. |
| PCSRF - Colville | CCT 05-1 | Okanogan River and Omak Creek | The Okanogan mainstem, Omak Creek, Salmon Creek, Inkaneep, McIntyree and select tributaries are key to restoration. These areas need a coordinated and sequenced approach to attract cost share opportunities, enable cost effectiveness and manage the timelines for mitigation and conservation of the primary and secondary species listed in this proposal. See other sections for specific locations, actions and strategies. |
| PCSRF - Colville | CCT 05-4 | Upper Columbia Basin Salmon Re | The subbasin and recovery plans outline the protection and restoration projects for the Okanogan subbasin. This proposal intends to implement these strategic (not tactical) projects after a 60+ year long history of inadequate and inequitable mitigation, conservation and enhancement in this system. During recovery planning, the ICBTRT determined that the Okanogan presented the "highest" potential to contribute to productivity in the entire ESU. To date, the Okanogan has has less than half of the actions funded that Methow, and far less that all other subbasins in the Columbia Cascade. A table is provided as an attachment to this proposal documenting this oversight and breach of federal tribal trust responsibility and lack of responsiveness to the public and the multiple analysese validating the actions proposed in this plan. |
| PCSRF - Colville | CCT 05-5 | Omak Creek Steelhead Habitat A | The Okanogan mainstem, Omak Creek, Salmon Creek, Inkaneep, McIntyree and select tributaries are key to restoration. These areas need a coordinated and sequenced approach to attract cost share opportunities, enable cost effectiveness and manage the timelines for mitigation and conservation of the primary and secondary species listed in this proposal. |
| PCSRF - WSRFB | 01-1420 | Omak Creek Road Decommission | The goal of this proposal is to coordinate and sequence a series of habitat protection and restoration projects consistent with the analyses of priority from the subbasin and recovery plan and in coordination with local landowners. Cost effectiveness and timely restoration are additional objective. |
| PCSRF - WSRFB | 04-1717 | Okanogan R.Thermal & Lidar Ima | This remote sensing project is .90 complete and had contributed significantly to assessments and identification of areas for addressing limiting and listing factor in the Okanogan. The goal is to integrate this data set into decisions about where, when and how to implement protection and restoration actions and to put them into the proper sequence with the subbaisn and recovery plans. |
| BPA | 199107100 | Sockeye Salmon Hab & Limnologi | Sockeye are a primary and focal species for habitat protection and restoration programs. The Okanogan sockeye population is the largest and northern uppermost population in the Columbia Basin. However, Okanogan sockeye have been in severe decline for some time. Restoration and protection, done in a strategic and properly sequenced and coordinated manner, is essential to prevent this population from going the way of the Snake River population. |
| BPA | 199506701 | Colville Land Acq | Identification of key land holdings are an essential piece of the subbasin and recovery plans for the Okanogan. This proposal intends to coorinate an assessment of all available or desireable lands for protection and restoration actions. |
| BPA | 200101100 | Habitat Diversity Alluvial Riv | This study is similar to the thermal, LiDAR and Ortho study recently conducted for the Okangaon. This study allowed the project proponents to select from a range of criteria and areas and to make informed critical decisions about where, when and how to implement habitat protection and restoration actions. |
| BPA | 200308500 | Eval Salmon At Chief Joseph Da | The Chief Joesph Hatchery program is in Phase II. A key component of this supplementation program is to site acclimation facilities and to select primary spawning and rearing habitat. This proposal is aimed at a comprehensive approach to selecting the highest priority and propoer sequncing of habitat protection, restoration and selection for siting support facilities for this project including broodstock collection, harvest and acclimation. |
| BPA | 200205100 | Sub Basin Planning | Subbasin and recovery plans have now identified limiting and listing factors. Additionally, these plans identify the primary limiting factors, causal mechanisms and proposed actions. This proposal seeks to implement these actions in a strategic, cost-effective and properly sequenced manner. |
| BPA | 200600100 | Mcintyre Dam Feasibility Study | Productive habitat for Steelhead and Chinook populations as well as resident fish and sockeye are blocked by this dam. The feasibility project will assess the best stragetgy for passage at McIntyre, however, McIntyre Creek, below the dam has tremendous potential or habitat restoration and immediate increase in productivity (survival) and contriubtions to mainstem water quality. Thus, these projects are related. Cost effectiveness and timely restoration are primary objectives in addition to assessing McIntyre Creek restoration within the context of the entire Okanogan subbasin. |
| BPA | 200302300 | Chief Joseph Dam Hatchery | The Chief Joesph Hatchery program is in Phase II. A key component of this supplementation program is to site acclimation facilities and to select primary spawning and rearing habitat. This proposal is aimed at a comprehensive approach to selecting the highest priority and propoer sequncing of habitat protection, restoration and selection for siting support facilities for this project including broodstock collection, harvest and acclimation. |
| Other: UCSRB | [no entry] | Upper Columbia Salmon and Steehead Recovery Plan | There are a number of conservation and watershed planning efforts in varying stages of development and implementation that directly or indirectly protect or improve the viability of naturally produced spring Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout in the Upper Columbia Basin. Described in this action, the UC ESU recovery plan, and the subbasin plan, is the relationship of this plan to other conservation efforts within the Upper Columbia basin. As noted earlier, this plan built upon the foundation established by these efforts and adopted portions of those plans where appropriate. |
| Other: Colville Tribes | [no entry] | Okanogan Subasin Plan | Some of the efforts currently being developed or implemented in the basin include the mid-Columbia HCPs for the operation of Wells, Rocky Reach, and Rock Island dams; Biological Opinions on the mid-Columbia HCPs; the Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion and Remand; Biological Opinion on the operation of Priest Rapids and Wanapum dams; Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) for federal hatcheries; Biological Opinions on the operation of state hatcheries (designed for PUD mitigation); the USFWS Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan; U.S. Forest Service Northwest Forest Plan; Biological Opinions on Federal Actions (USFS/BLM land management activities); Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (Spirit of the Salmon), The Tribal Fish Recovery Plan; Washington State Forest and Fish Agreement; NPCC subbasin plans; Watershed Planning under RCW 90.82; the Lead Entity process under RCW 77.85; local comprehensive and shoreline management plans and their respective regulatory functions, and Natural Resource Conservation Service and County Conservation Districts conservation efforts. |
| [Funding Source left blank] | [no entry] | Okanogan Basin Monititoring and Evaluaiton Program | This EMAP-based, monitoring program will be the key component in establishing status, trend and effectivenss monitoringn and the adaptive management processes required for recovery, mitiation and conservation of Okanogan fish (and some wildlife) populations. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Management Objectives | Plan and implement fish passage; inventory barriers. Assess passage conditions. Address thermal blocks and low flow barriers. Remove and /or modify and screen barriers or improve passage at existing barriers. Prepare and implement screening plan to address ALL unscreened diversions--found to be numerous and substantially undocumented in the Okangoan. Complete survey where lacking information. Assess fish entrainment. Investigate extent of problem. Prepare plan for remedies (e.g. instream flow, flushing flows, hypolimnetic aeration, etc.) Analyze TIR and LiDAR data. Investigate extent of consumption losses. Prepare plan for control Use video and/or radio tagging and trapping to determine where and why losses are taking place. Inventory Chinook and steelhead and develop a management plan Increase LWD, Reconnect to floodplain areas. Increase side channel habitat. Install habitat boulders and artificial log-jams. Improve riparian habitats with the potential to contribute to future LWD recruitment. Create side-channel habitats, islands, spawning channels, and reconnect back channels to increase LWD deposition, channel complexity and riparian areas. Establish baseline for M&E of sediments. Conduct sediment reduction strategies and/or sediment budget an transport studies throughout the Okanogan subbasin especially in the upper portions of the watershed. Increase or maintain artificial production capacity at levels necessary to meet management needs during the time the habitat is imporved to support a higher proportion of natural origin recruits, maintain new and existing acclimation sites, and support existing and new scatter plantings. This program is intended to address mortality associated with degreased growth rates and the associated mortality, due to water quality limiting, factors. Reestablish back channels, re-slope vertical banks, and establish wetland habitats that allow floodplain inundation to occur approximately every 2 years. Conduct a channel migration corridor analysis using existing LiDAR and basin characterization data) data and monitor trends. Protect and re-establish groundwater sources. BMP, enforcement, clean-up of existing land-fill, pesticide dumps etc. Clean up mine tailings | Okanogan | 5. Long-term sustainability. Life history, genetic diversity, and metapopulation organization are ways that fish and wildlife adapt to their habitat. Diversity and population structure are how fish and wildlife species adapt to spatial and temporal enviro |
| Programatic Habitat Restoration and Protection | Human activities acting in concert with natural occurrences (e.g., drought, floods, landslides, fires, debris flows, and ocean cycles) have impacted the abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity of Upper Columbia spring and summer Chinook salmon, steelhead, sockeye, resident fish and habitat associations suppoting wildlife populations resulting in these species being severely impacted and/or listed under the ESA. Fish and wildlife habitats. Fish and wildlife productivity requires a network of complex, interconnected habitats that are created, altered, and maintained by both natural and human processes in terrestrial, freshwater, estuary, and ocean areas. a) The habitat in the Okanogan subbasin should be capable, of supporting self-sustaining, harvestable, and diverse populations of fish and wildlife just as they did historically. b) Physical characteristics of the alluvial valley and floodplains of the Okanogan River have changed ecosystem attributes, and restoring watershed processes, where possible, will require a long-term collaborative commitment to fish and wildlife recovery. c) The Okanogan subbasin is a dynamic system that will continue to change through natural events and human activities. 7. Biological Interactions and Connectivity. Population, abundance, diversity, and the biotic community reflect ecosystem attributes. Co-evolved assemblages of species share requirements for similar ecosystem attributes, and require connectivity among them. a) Sustainable, harvestable and diverse populations of fish and wildlife are dependent upon properly functioning environments and the processes that sustain them. b) Changes to the physical characteristics and connectivity of the Okanogan subbasin have contributed to the changes of native fish and wildlife populations; therefore reconnecting the native ranges of fish (and wildlife) species is critical. Key ecological associations exist between fish and wildlife and between uplland, ripariana and instream habitat. This proposal regognized this ecological imperative but focuses the majority of its work this cycle on instream, riverine, and geomorpholocial issues. Coho salmon and populations of spring Chinook have been temporarily lost from the region. Lasting effects from some of these early activities may still act to limit total fish production in the Upper Columbia Basin, however this program will address many, if not all of these limiting factors if approved and implemented over the coming decade. Threats from many current activities are also present in the Okanogan subbasin. Populations of spring Chinook and steelhead within the Upper Columbia River Basin were first affected by the intensive commercial fisheries in the lower Columbia River. These fisheries began in the latter half of the 1800s and continued into the 1900s and nearly eliminated many salmon and steelhead stocks. Withing and outside the basin, the construction of dams and diversions, some without passage, blocked salmon and steelhead migrations, isolated or possibly fragmented bull trout populations in some high mountain tributaries, and killed upstream and downstream migrating fish. Early hatcheries constructed to mitigate for fish loss dams and loss of spawning and rearing habitat were operated without a clear understanding of population genetics, where fish were transferred without consideration of their actual origin. Although hatcheries were increasing the abundance of stocks, they were probably also decreasing the diversity and productivity of populations they intended to mitigate. Supplementation strategies are now contributing to reforming archaic or overall detremintal hatchery practices, but only as a stop gap to the longer term need to address natural in and out-of basin effects of harvest, hydro and estuary conditions. Concurrent with these historic activities, human population growth within the basin was increasing and land uses, in many cases encouraged and supported by local, state and federal governmental policy, were in some areas impacting, and continue to do so, salmon and trout spawning and rearing habitat. In addition, non-native species were introduced by both public and private interests throughout the region that directly or indirectly affected salmon and trout. These activities acting in concert with natural disturbances decreased the abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity of Chinook salmon, steelhead, and sockeye in the Okanogan Basin. This proposal is intended to implement a set of habitat restoration and protection measures identified in various plans (see attached narrative and habitat matrices and action library) to connect detailed plan elements and correct liminting, listing and VSP problems in a programmatic, sequenced and cost-effective manner. | Okanogan | Ensure long-term persistence of viable populations of anadromous and residnet fish (and supporting wildlife) distributed across their native range. This plan envisions that naturally produced, fish will support net replacement rates of 1:1 or higher. |
| Programmatic for this inclusive proposal | In sum, the subbasin plan findings conclude that restoration of viable fish and wildlife populations in the Okanogan will require considerable effort and resources on both sides of the geopolitical border. Consequently, this multi-year programmatic habitat restoration and protection plan stipulates and provides a biological roadmap based on ecosystem principles and focal species’ ecology to guide actions. The assessments have confirmed the biological immediacy and necessity for recovery of fish and wildlife populations in the Okanogan, while substantiating their significance to the overall ecology and economy of the region. To support implementation of the subbasin plan, a regional support system is now in place where the mitigation, recovery and protection mandates of law are more clearly understood by all parties and with the initial stages of a coordinated public process and technical infrastructure well underway within the subbasin. The Biological Objectives are far too detailed and numersous to fully list in this proposal and narrative, but are fully described in the 2004 Okanogan Subbaisn Management Plan provided as an attachment to this proposal (and unequivocally confirmed in the state and federal recovery plans). Details listed in these sections provide an initital sequencing and prioritization of these actions. Scope The following management plan is designed to identify the most prevalent and persistent factors limiting production, abundance and spatial diversity for fish and wildlife species and outline actions that can reverse and/or eliminate those limitations. This plan delineates limiting factors by the focal species affected and by the spatial extent of impact, such that strategic actions can be implemented over the life of this plan and its future iterations. Finally, specific objectives and strategies are identified so that project proposals can be developed in a collaborative forum, submitted to funding and management entities as prioritized actions, implemented, and ultimately, monitored and adaptively managed. To achieve this, the subbasin planners have identified habitat and biological objectives that will advance the goals for each habitat type and have linked them to the assessment findings. Objectives describe the types of changes within the subbasin needed to achieve the goals, and prioritized themes and specific strategies are proposed that will provide the best chance to realize the subbasin vision described in this plan. Finally, when data are unavailable, the objectives describe the research necessary to make future decisions. | Okanogan | See attached 2004 Okanogna Subbaisn Management Plan |
| Specific Assessment Unit Actions | Detailed Assessment Unit Summary Sheets were developed to guide project proponents in coordinating current or future activities within the entire Okanogan River ecosystem. The Assessment Unit’s geography was chosen because the scientific data suggested similarities relative to habitat conditions among locations. Twenty-one Assessment Units (AU’s) were identified for the Okanogan subbasin. Considerable similarities between how habitat conditions affected the different species existed among the AU’s. In taking the step of dividing the subbasin into these units, it was found that trade-off analysis and multiple iterations of planning was reduced by focusing actions in areas and on habitat attributes that fell within certain feasibility criteria as expressed in the Foundation Principles and the six course-scale filters described below Scientific underpinnings Reach habitat condition analysis tables were used to determine primary and secondary limiting factors within each Assessment Unit. The Subbasin Core Team factored in the results of assessments on focal species and across all reaches in each assessment unit. In general, a survival factor was considered a primary limiting factor if there was high or extreme impacts to key life stages. Exceptions included some reaches where sediment load or temperature only had a high impact to spawning or egg incubation. Additionally, a survival factor was considered a primary limiting factor if there was small to moderate impacts across most (9-12) life stages, thereby producing a cumulative impact that could be just as severe as high and extreme influences to fewer life stages. Secondary limiting factors generally had small to moderate impacts to several (5-8) life stages. An exception occurred with the survival factor “food”; when there was small to moderate impacts to two or three juvenile life stages in most of the reaches of a particular assessment unit, it was considered a secondary limiting factor. In most reaches and assessment units, the break between primary and secondary limiting factors was obvious. In some cases where EDT results were not as obvious, other assessment processes and information, such as the Limiting Factors Reports, RTT reports, professional opinion, and local knowledge were then factored into the decision. The assessment provided a functional tool for addressing habitat needs but did not provide information that was needed to address research, hatchery production, regulatory needs, or political realities. Therefore, it was necessary to incorporate these items using a less robust method of expert opinion. Using a combination of approaches that covered the entire spectrum of natural resource management strategies allowed the flexibility needed to complete a more comprehensive plan than would be possible by focusing on the assessment and habitat issues alone. Finally, the working hypotheses in these summaries are the “testable” part of the science equation. The strategies themselves provide the metrics for testing and form the most appropriate foundation for the monitoring and evaluation program. | Okanogan | see AU summary sheets for each of 21 Assessment Units |
| Subbasin Protection and Restoration Themes | The citizens of the state, local stakeholders, recreationists, Okanogan County and the members of the Colville Confederated Tribes have significant interest in conservation, recovery and restoration of fish and wildlife populations, habitats and ecosystems in the Okanogan subbasin. All parties have worked together to fashion this Management Plan, and all parties have vested interests in seeing it implemented in an effective and timely manner. Tribal governments, state and federal agencies, key stakeholders and local governments have now committed to work together to ensure that adequate resources are brought to bear on the factors limiting mitigation, conservation, enhancement and recovery identified in the subbasin and recovery plan and in this programmatic proposal to begin implementation. Moreover, these entities have affirmed to monitor the progress (or lack thereof) of this plan and to adaptively manage the plan elements for maximum effect and benefit at the minimum cost to the region. Habitat perturbations and institutional failings have greatly limited the recreational angling opportunity in Okanogan County communities along the Okanogan River. With spring Chinook temporarily extinct, steelhead listed as an endangered species, and summer Chinook and sockeye populations limited in other than high survival years, recreational angling opportunities in the subbasin have been closed or restricted in most years. The significant economic contribution of recreational fisheries to the local economy has been nearly altogether lost in this equation. In sum, the subbasin plan findings conclude that restoration of viable fish and wildlife populations in the Okanogan will require considerable effort and resources on both sides of the geopolitical border. Consequently, this plan stipulates and provides a biological roadmap based on ecosystem principles and species’ ecology to guide actions. The assessments have confirmed the biological immediacy and necessity for recovery of fish and wildlife populations in the Okanogan, while substantiating their significance to the overall ecology and economy of the region. To support implementation of the subbasin plan, a regional support system is now in place where the mitigation, recovery and protection mandates of law are more clearly understood by all parties and with the initial stages of a coordinated public process and technical infrastructure well underway within the subbasin. | Okanogan | Fish and wildlife habitats. Fish and wildlife productivity requires a network of complex, interconnected habitats that are created, altered, and maintained by both natural and human processes in terrestrial, freshwater, estuary, and ocean areas. |
| Use of Habitat Matrices coupled with AU Sumaries | This habitat restoration and protection plan is based on the well-established fact that spring.summer Chinook, steelhead, sockeys and bull trout, like other salmonids, have specific habitat requirements that vary across life stages. This fact is consistent with ecological theory and is supported by numerous independent studies (e.g., see reviews in Bjornn and Reiser 1991; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Spence et al. 1996; 62 CFR 43937; 64 CFR 14308; 63 CFR 31647). Any land or water management action or natural event that changes habitat conditions beyond the tolerance of the species results in lower life-stage survival and abundance of the species. In some cases, the range of tolerance for some species is quite narrow and relatively small changes in the habitat can have large effects on species survival. For example, bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing occurs within a narrow range of water temperatures (Goetz 1989; Rieman and McIntyre 1993; 40 CFR 41162). Activities or natural events that increase water temperatures (>15°C) reduce the distribution and abundance of juvenile bull trout. The following objectives for habitat restoration apply to all streams that currently support or may support (in a restored condition) spring Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout in the Upper Columbia Basin. These objectives are consistent with subbasin plans, watershed plans, the Biological Strategy, HCPs, and relicensing agreements and are intended to reduce threats to the habitat needs of the listed species. These objectives may be modified in response to monitoring, research, and adaptive management. These objectives will be implemented within natural, social, and economic constraints. Short-Term Objectives • Protect existing areas where high ecological integrity and natural ecosystem processes persist. • Restore connectivity (access) throughout the historic range where feasible and practical for each listed species. • Where appropriate, establish, restore, and protect stream flows (within the natural hydrologic regime and existing water rights) suitable for spawning, rearing, and migration (based on current research and modeling). • Protect and restore water quality where feasible and practical within natural constraints. • Increase habitat diversity in the short term by adding instream structures (e.g., LWD, rocks, etc.) where appropriate. • Protect and restore riparian habitat along spawning and rearing streams and identify long-term opportunities for riparian habitat enhancement. • Protect and restore floodplain function and reconnection, off-channel habitat, and channel migration processes where appropriate and identify long-term opportunities for enhancing these conditions. • Restore natural sediment delivery processes by improving road network, restoring natural floodplain connectivity, riparian health, natural bank erosion, and wood recruitment. • Replace nutrients in tributaries that formerly were provided by salmon returning from the sea. • Reduce the abundance and distribution of exotic species that compete and interbreed with or prey on listed species in spawning, rearing, and migration areas. Long-Term Objectives • Protect areas with high ecological integrity and natural ecosystem processes. • Maintain connectivity through the range of the listed species where feasible and practical. • Maintain suitable stream flows (within natural hydrologic regimes and existing water rights) for spawning, rearing, and migration. • Protect and restore water quality where feasible and practical within natural constraints. • Protect and restore off-channel and riparian habitat. • Increase habitat diversity by rebuilding, maintaining, and adding instream structures (e.g., LWD, rocks, etc.) where long-term channel form and function efforts are not feasible. • Reduce sediment recruitment where feasible and practical within natural constraints. • Reduce the abundance and distribution of exotic species that compete and interbreed with or prey on listed species in spawning, rearing, and migration areas. Administrative/Institutional Objectives • Maximize restoration efficiency by concentrating habitat actions in currently productive areas with significant scope for improvement and areas where listed species will benefit. • Develop incentive and collaborative programs with local stakeholders and land owners to enhance and restore habitat within productive areas. • Ensure compliance with Federal, State, and local regulatory mechanisms designed to conserve fishery resources, maintain water quality, and protect aquatic habitat. • Counties will continue to consider recovery needs of salmon and trout in comprehensive land-use planning processes. • Provide information to the public on the importance of “healthy” streams and the potential effects of land and water management activities on the habitat requirements of listed species. • Until recovery is achieved, improve or streamline the permitting process for conducting research and monitoring on ESA-listed species and for implementing restoration actions. • Develop, maintain, and provide a comprehensive inventory of habitat projects and their costs and benefits (effectiveness) to the public annually. Research and Monitoring Objectives • Monitor the effectiveness of each “class” of habitat actions implemented in the Upper Columbia Basin on listed species and community structure. • Accurately monitor trends in VSP parameters (including smolts/redd) at the population and subpopulation scale. • Assess stream flows (within the natural hydrologic regime and existing water rights) suitable for spawning, rearing, and migration (based on current research and modeling). • Implement current monitoring protocols and continue to develop standardized monitoring methods. • Examine relationships between habitat and biological (including VSP) parameters at coarse (landscape) and fine (stream segment) scales. • Update, revise, and refine watershed and salmonid performance assessment tools (e.g., EDT) to adaptively manage the implementation and prioritization strategy. • Examine the effects of exotics species on listed species. • Assess abundance and consumption rates of exotic fish that feed on listed species. • Conduct channel migration studies within each subbasin to identify priority locations for protection and restoration. • Examine fluvial geomorphic processes within each subbasin to assess how these processes affect habitat creation and loss. • Inventory and assess fish passage barriers and screens within each subbasin. • Conduct hydrologic assessments to better understand water balance and surface/groundwater relations within the subbasins. This plan recognizes two general types of habitat recovery actions: restoration and protection. As noted earlier, this plan defines habitat restoration as a process that involves management decisions and actions that enhance the rate of recovery of habitat conditions (after Davis et al. 1984). The goal is to reestablish the ability of the ecosystem to maintain its function and organization without continued human intervention. It does not mandate or even suggest returning to an historical condition (often identified as an hypothesized prior state). In fact, restoration to a previous condition may not be possible (NRC 1992, 1996). Habitat protection, on the other hand, includes the use of management decisions and actions to safeguard ecosystem function and required habitat features of listed species. Protection includes all actions (not just regulatory) that protect habitat conditions. This plan considered two forms of protection: no-net-impact and passive restoration. No-net-impact protection means that (1) activities that can harm stream and riparian structure and function will not occur, or (2) activities that harm stream and riparian habitat are mitigated by restoring and protecting an “equal or greater” amount of habitat. This type of protection is generally applied to areas where increased development is likely to occur. The second type of protection, passive restoration, addresses areas that are already protected under state and federal ownership. This also includes landowners that voluntarily protect stream and riparian conditions on their properties. Under this form of protection, habitat conditions improve as management actions are designed to maintain or improve habitat forming processes. | Okanogan | Identification of specific management stragegies are part of the Okangoan Stragegic plan. The plan identified “classes” of restoration actions that addressed each objective and linked directly to “primary” limiting factors/threat. Matrices are attached. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coordination | Other Direct Costs and Local Coodination with project cost share partners | Coodination with project partners, Canada and regional Boards and entities | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2010 | $25,000 |
|
Biological objectives Management Objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Coordination | Match Biological Objectives (detailed projects) with Work Elements | This task will require no funding. It will be done fully as "in-kind" by the Colville Tribes, their contractors, the UCSRB, Lead Entities, the UCSRB Implementation Team and a host of local stakeholders. Annual meeting will be held to report progress, analysis and invite comments and alternative approaches. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2008 | $31,700 |
|
Biological objectives Management Objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | Implementation of Subbasin and Recovery Plan Habitat and Restoration Actions. | This work element is designed to manage for cost effectiveness, mobilize economies-of-scale, secure cost-share agreements, and ensure consistency with anlayses and direction outlinedd in these plans to make informed sequencing decisions. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2008 | $35,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Enhance Floodplain | Side Channel and Floodplain Restoration Multiple sites at City of Okanogan, Riverside and two additional sites under review. Dike setbacks at sites near Riverside and Lower Okanogan near Chilliwist and Talent Creeks. | Actions in this class generally apply to the productivity and abundance VSP parameters and address limiting and causal factors such as loss of channel sinuosity and length, decreased habitat refugia and diversity, loss of hyporheic function associated with floodplains, increased bed scour by concentrating river energy, loss of bank stability, losses of habitat quantity and quality from agriculture and livestock activities, increased sediment input above natural levels, elevated temperature, depressed invertebrate production, and loss of natural LWD recruitment. Actions in this class also generally apply to the productivity, abundance, diversity, and structure VSP parameters. These actions address limiting factors and causal factors such as channel incision, increased temperature, poor water quality, loss of natural stream channel and habitat complexity, sinuosity, stream length, unnatural width to depth ratios, embeddedness, unstable banks, increased fine sediments, loss of pool and riffle formation, and spawning gravel and LWD recruitment. 1.Create diverse channel patterns to enhance water circulation through floodplain gravels. 2.Use dike setbacks, removal, breaching, sloping, and/or channel reconnection to connect the channel with the floodplain. 3.Increase flood-prone areas to reduce lateral scour and flow volume in main channel and protect or improve existing spawning habitats. 4.Restore and reconnect wetlands and floodplains to the riverine system where appropriate. 5.Reconnect floodplain (off-channel) habitats where appropriate. 6.Decommission or relocate roads, low-priority dikes, bridges, and culverts to enhance floodplain connectivity. 7.Use setback levees and flood walls to recharge floodplain habitats. 8. Restore and/or reconnect side-channel habitats, islands, spawning channels, and reconnect back channels to increase LWD deposition, channel complexity, and riparian areas. 9. Re-slope vertical banks and establish wetland habitats by connecting the floodplain with the channel. 10. Identify, protect, and re-establish ground-water sources. 11. Provide stream flows that water side channels and off-channel habitats. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2008 | $600,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics * # of acres treated: Area of hyporechic function recovered. Temp/WQ |
||||
| Realign, Connect, and/or Create Channel | Obstruction Restoration at 33 (per year) unscreened diversions, additional at Loup Loup Creek and one on Ninemile and McIntyre Creek and other seleted (see project location section) | Actions in this class generally apply to the diversity, structure, and abundance VSP parameters. Removing barriers addresses limiting and causal factors such as loss of habitat quantity, habitat fragmentation, decreased habitat refugia and diversity, and increased density-dependent mortality from concentrating populations into small habitat units. 1. Design and construct road culverts and screens consistent with the newest standards and guidelines. 2. Remove, modify, or replace dams, culverts, and diversions that prevent or restrict access to salmon or trout habitat and/or cause loss of habitat connectivity. 3. Address fish passage and screening concerns, as much as possible, in other restoration and protection efforts. Ensure effective operation and maintenance of culverts and other instream structures. 4. Develop tributary channels as bypass habitat around dams. 5. Convert to low-head, run-of-the-river projects. 6. Establish and provide fish passage flows (eliminate low flow barriers). 7. Reduce flow fluctuations (associated with power generation, flood control, etc.) to allow passage through shallow-water habitats. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2008 | $375,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics * # of stream miles before treatment: Connectivity, screening, acccess * # of stream miles treated, including off-channels, after realignment: BACI and/or reference streams |
||||
| Plant Vegetation | Riparian Restoration at six sites along middle Okanogan River (see AU Matrix for locations) | Actions in this class generally apply to the productivity and abundance VSP parameters and address limiting and causal factors such as loss of bank stability, impacts from agriculture and livestock, increased sediment input above natural levels, elevated temperatures, depressed invertebrate production, and loss of natural LWD recruitment. 1. Plant trees and shrubs to provide shade, especially those in close proximity to streams, stream banks, and gravel/boulder bars. 2. Restore riparian buffers using incentive mechanisms provided in shoreline master programs and farm conservation plans and programs to avoid or minimize removal of native vegetation. 3. Replace invasive or non-native vegetation with native vegetation. 4. Maintain or improve fencing or fish friendly stream crossing structures to prevent livestock access to riparian zones and streams. 5. Provide alternative sites for stock watering. 6. Maintain or decommission roads and trails in riparian areas. 7. Connect off-channel habitats to improve floodplain and wetlands processes and functions. 8. Replant degraded riparian zones by reestablishing native vegetation. 9. Selectively thin, remove, and prune non-native and invasive vegetation. 10. Improve riparian conditions by increasing filtration capacity through vegetation planting, CREP enrollment, selected livestock fencing, and similar practices, including intermittent streams that contribute to priority areas. 11. Implement the most economical and effective treatment methods to control noxious weeds, including the encouragement of biological control methods where feasible and appropriate. 12. Establish stream flow requirements (within the natural hydrologic regime and existing water rights) using empirical data to protect and maintain riparian habitat. 13. Apply best management practices (BMPs) to agricultural and grazing practices where they are proven to restore functional riparian condition. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2008 | $135,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics * # of riparian miles treated: RME will assess both the extent and effectiveness * # of acres of planted: Restoration v. protection |
||||
| Conduct Pre-Acquisition Activities | Prepare sequencing and landowner plans for habitat improvent program | This basic work element will be used to work direcly with landowners, stakeholders and local planning groups to identify opportunities, design elements, agreements, monitoring and proper sequencing (strategic) action implementation | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2008 | $35,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Acquire Water Instream | Water Quantity Restoration at Boneparte, Omak, Tonasket and Salmon Creek | tions in this class generally apply to the productivity, abundance, diversity and structure VSP parameters. Restoration actions will address limiting and causal factors such as blocked and/or impeded fish passage, loss of habitat quantity and quality, increased temperature, and benthic macroinvertebrate production. 1. Buy or lease water rights that would not impact agriculture production, implement water conservation, reconnect river channels. 2. Develop and enforce minimum in-stream flows for aquatic resources within the natural hydrologic regime and existing water rights. 3. Develop programs that assist water users and promote the efficient use of water. 4. Implement activities that promote water storage and groundwater recharge that collectively add to existing in-stream flows. 5. Put or keep water in the streams using innovative tools, such as water banking; lease or purchase senior water rights; trust water donation; water conservation and reuse; and water storage and groundwater recharge that are within the natural hydrologic regime and existing water rights. 6. Manage stormwater and reduce the extent of impervious surfaces. 7. Regulate reservoir pool levels to improve salmonid migration rates and minimize competitor and predator effects. 8. Use drawdown to create flow and turbidity conditions conducive to salmonid migration. 9. Restore perennial vegetation in upland cultivated and non-cultivated areas with native species and reforestation. 10. Educate the public on existing land use and instream work regulations (e.g. critical area ordinances, HPA requirements, DSL requirements, etc.) that limit riparian area development. 11. Improve watershed function by increasing upland water infiltration, road decommissioning, reducing soil compaction, seeding activities, increasing native vegetation cover, and CRP participation. 12. Investigate feasibility of water storage in coordination with federal, tribal, state, and local governments and stakeholders. 13. Implement shallow aquifer recharge programs. 14. Encourage beaver re-population. 15. Protect and restore springs, seeps, and wetlands that function as water storage during spring flows and provide recharge during summer drought periods. 16. Minimize surface water withdrawals through implementation of irrigation efficiencies, quantify legal withdrawals, identify and eliminate illegal withdrawals, lease of water rights, and purchase of water rights that do not impact agriculture production, with the exception of illegal withdrawals. 17. Pursue opportunities to convert surface water uses to well supplies and explore feasibility of changing surface water point of diversion from tributaries to the Columbia River. 18. Improve municipal stormwater management to minimize peak flow levels. 19. Pursue use of constructed wetlands in appropriate areas for peak flow management, infiltration, and stormwater retention. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2008 | $195,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics * # of acres treated: Instream flow increases especially in 9 tribs * # of miles of total stream reach improvement, including primary and secondary reaches: In conjunction with other WE, address WQ esp. temp * Amount of water secured: For use in pre-modeling effects of increased flow |
||||
| Upland Erosion and Sedimentation Control | Water Quality Restoration on Tonasket and Boneparte, Omak and Salmon Creeks | Actions in this class generally apply to VSP parameters of productivity and abundance, and to a lesser degree, diversity. Water quality includes factors and pollutants such as chemicals, metals, temperature, Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), and nutrients. Predation by exotic species can be decreased with improved water quality and benthic macroinvertebrate community structure can be recovered to natural levels, improving survival and growth of salmonids. 1. Reduce Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) by reducing nutrient inflow into lakes and streams. 2. Re-establish groundwater sources. 3. Implement existing water-quality plans. 4. Clean-up mine tailings. 5. Remove and properly dispose of arsenic contaminated sediments. 6. Use State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) to prevent, minimize, or mitigate both immediate and long-term impacts. 7. Establish and protect riparian buffers. 8. Assess the value of vegetation removal. 9. Implement Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that address temperature (as a pollutant). 10. Use incentives and technical assistance, such as Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). 11. Implement education programs. 12. Implement best management farm practices. 13. Implement nonpoint source control techniques for urban areas. 14. Manage development, road construction, logging, and intensive farming in areas with high likelihood of occurrence of mass wasting (unstable slopes) and/or erosion. 15. Restore geomorphic features such as connectivity with floodplain gravels, pool-riffle sequences, meander bends, backwaters, and side channels. 16. Improve the extent, structure, and function of riparian buffers to increase their filtration capacity through increasing the density, maturity, and appropriate species composition of woody vegetation, understory vegetation planting, CREP enrollment, selected livestock fencing, and similar practices. 17. Identify jurisdictions with inadequate land use regulations and work to strengthen existing or pass new regulations that better protect the structure and function of riparian areas and wetlands. 18. Protect riparian vegetation to improve water quality through promotion of livestock BMPs such as alternative grazing rotations and the installation of alternative forms of water for livestock 19. Restore perennial vegetation in upland cultivated and non-cultivated areas with native species and reforestation. 20. Minimize surface water withdrawals (increases stream flow) through implementation of irrigation efficiencies, quantify legal withdrawals, identify and eliminate illegal withdrawals, lease of water rights and purchase of water rights that would not impact agriculture production. 21. Improve upland water infiltration through road decommissioning, reduced soil compaction, direct seeding activities, increasing native vegetation cover, and CRP participation. 22. Continue development and implementation of TMDLs and other watershed scale efforts to remedy local factors negatively influencing temperature regimes. 23. Conduct appropriate shade restoration activities where streamside shading has been reduced by anthropogenic activities (temperature attenuation). 24. Protect wetland and riparian habitats. 25. Enhance the extent and function of wetlands and wet meadows. 26. Manage sources of high-temperature inputs to surface waters. 27. Implement upland BMPs, including activities such as sediment basins on intermittent streams. 28. Monitor hatchery and other NPDES (point sources) for effluent, nutrients, contaminants, and pathogens and correct as needed. 29. Construct detention and infiltration ponds to capture runoff from roads, development, farms, and irrigation return flows. 30. Reduce hazardous fuels and materials. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2008 | $295,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics * # of acres treated: Improments in WQ paramemeters/monitoring |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | RME adaptive management and effectiveness monitoring for all or subsampled projects | The following objectives for habitat restoration apply to all streams that currently support or may support (in a restored condition) spring Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout in the OkanonganBasin. These objectives are consistent with subbasin plans, the Biological Strategy, HCPs, and relicensing agreements and are intended to reduce threats to the habitat needs of the listed species. These objectives may be modified in response to monitoring, research, and adaptive management. These objectives will be implemented within natural, social, and economic constraints. Short-Term Objectives • Protect existing areas where high ecological integrity and natural ecosystem processes persist. • Restore connectivity (access) throughout the historic range where feasible and practical for each listed species. • Where appropriate, establish, restore, and protect stream flows (within the natural hydrologic regime and existing water rights) suitable for spawning, rearing, and migration (based on current research and modeling). • Protect and restore water quality where feasible and practical within natural constraints. • Increase habitat diversity in the short term by adding instream structures (e.g., LWD, rocks, etc.) where appropriate. • Protect and restore riparian habitat along spawning and rearing streams and identify long-term opportunities for riparian habitat enhancement. • Protect and restore floodplain function and reconnection, off-channel habitat, and channel migration processes where appropriate and identify long-term opportunities for enhancing these conditions. • Restore natural sediment delivery processes by improving road network, restoring natural floodplain connectivity, riparian health, natural bank erosion, and wood recruitment. • Replace nutrients in tributaries that formerly were provided by salmon returning from the sea. • Reduce the abundance and distribution of exotic species that compete and interbreed with or prey on listed species in spawning, rearing, and migration areas. Long-Term Objectives • Protect areas with high ecological integrity and natural ecosystem processes. • Maintain connectivity through the range of the listed species where feasible and practical. • Maintain suitable stream flows (within natural hydrologic regimes and existing water rights) for spawning, rearing, and migration. • Protect and restore water quality where feasible and practical within natural constraints. • Protect and restore off-channel and riparian habitat. • Increase habitat diversity by rebuilding, maintaining, and adding instream structures (e.g., LWD, rocks, etc.) where long-term channel form and function efforts are not feasible. • Reduce sediment recruitment where feasible and practical within natural constraints. • Reduce the abundance and distribution of exotic species that compete and interbreed with or prey on listed species in spawning, rearing, and migration areas. Administrative/Institutional Objectives • Maximize restoration efficiency by concentrating habitat actions in currently productive areas with significant scope for improvement and areas where listed species will benefit (Category 1 and 2 areas described in Section 5.5.5). • Develop incentive and collaborative programs with local stakeholders and land owners to enhance and restore habitat within productive areas. • Ensure compliance with Federal, State, and local regulatory mechanisms designed to conserve fishery resources, maintain water quality, and protect aquatic habitat. • Counties will continue to consider recovery needs of salmon and trout in comprehensive land-use planning processes. • Provide information to the public on the importance of “healthy” streams and the potential effects of land and water management activities on the habitat requirements of listed species. • Until recovery is achieved, improve or streamline the permitting process for conducting research and monitoring on ESA-listed species and for implementing restoration actions. • Develop, maintain, and provide a comprehensive inventory of habitat projects and their costs and benefits (effectiveness) to the public annually. Research and Monitoring Objectives • Monitor the effectiveness of each “class” of habitat action implemented in the Upper Columbia Basin on listed species and community structure. Research and Monitoring Objectives • Monitor the effectiveness of each “class” of habitat action implemented in the Okanogan on listed species and community structure. • Accurately monitor trends in VSP parameters (including smolts/redd) at the population and subpopulation scale. • Assess stream flows (within the natural hydrologic regime and existing water rights) suitable for spawning, rearing, and migration (based on current research and modeling). • Implement current monitoring protocols and continue to develop standardized monitoring methods. • Examine relationships between habitat and biological (including VSP) parameters at coarse (landscape) and fine (stream segment) scales. • Update, revise, and refine watershed and salmonid performance assessment tools to adaptively manage the implementation and prioritization strategy. • Examine the effects of exotics species on listed species. • Assess abundance and consumption rates of exotic fish that feed on listed species. • Conduct channel migration studies within each subbasin to identify priority locations for protection and restoration. • Examine fluvial geomorphic processes within each subbasin to assess how these processes affect habitat creation and loss. • Inventory and assess fish passage barriers and screens within each subbasin. • Conduct hydrologic assessments to better understand water balance and surface/groundwater relations within the subbasins. The status and trend of spring Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout and their habitats will be monitored throughout the Upper Columbia Basin following the guidelines in the Upper Columbia Monitoring Strategy (Hillman, et. al 2004) and the Okanogan Monitoring and Evaluation Project (OBMEP) and the Chief Joseph Hatchery Program RME . Within the Okanogan subbasin, status/trend sampling sites have been selected according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) design, which is a spatially balanced, site-selection process developed for aquatic systems and recommended within the Upper Columbia Monitoring Strategy and the OBMEP program. This approach has been used successfully within the Wenatchee and Okanogan subbasins (under the Upper Columbia Monitoring Strategy) and in the Okanogan subbasin (under the Okanogan Basin Monitoring and Evaluation Program). The Upper Columbia Monitoring Strategy describes in detail the approach, indicators, and protocols needed to assess status and trends of listed fish species and their habitats in the Upper Columbia Basin. This strategy will be updated annually as new information becomes available. 8.3.3 Effectiveness Monitoring Not all recovery actions recommended in this plan need to be monitored for effectiveness. Othree replicates of each habitat restoration “class” implemented within each subbasin is needed to assess effectiveness. To the extent possible, effectiveness of recovery actions will be monitored using the Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) design with stratified random sampling. The Okanogan Monitoring Strategy describes in detail the approach, indicators, and protocols needed to assess effectiveness of habitat restoration classes. Hatchery actions will be monitored according to the Draft Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the Chief Joe Hatchery Programs (Wolf and Wagner 2003). It is critically important to coordinate these effectiveness monitoring programs with status/trend monitoring and effectiveness monitoring within the Hydro sector. 8.3.4 Research As noted earlier, unknown aspects of environmental conditions vital to salmonid survival are termed “critical uncertainties.” In this plan, critical uncertainties are a major focus of research. Critical uncertainty research targets specific issues that constrain effective recovery plan implementation. This includes evaluations of cause-and-effect relationships between fish, limiting factors, and actions that address specific threats related to limiting factors. Listed below are research actions that are needed to assess the effects of the uncertainties on recovery of listed fish species in the Upper Columbia Basin. Research actions address both in-basin and out-of-basin factors and are not all inclusive. Because the indicators and protocols recommended in this plan are from the Upper Columbia and Okanogan-specific Monitoring Strategy, this plan will incorporate the data dictionary and infrastructure being developed for that program. The data management program (Protcol Manger) being developed by the Bureau of Reclamation, Spatial Dynamics, Inc., and Commonthread, Inc., with input from State, Federal, and Tribal agencies and consultants and the existing database in the Okanogan (teh only UC RME database in the UC to date). The data dictionary is a data management tool that provides a comprehensive conceptual framework based on the monitoring indicators and data collection protocols. The data dictionary will also include a geodatabase (incorporating an ArcHydro Geodatabase Model) that will host GIS work (landscape classification information). The data dictionary will be used to develop field forms that crews will fill out during data collection. Data are compiled, analyzed, and reported using protocols developed by the resrouce managers, tribal consultatn team and will be managed eventually by the UC Implementation Team. The protocols will allow easy access by the public, but data entry will be limited to authorized individuals identified by the Implementation Team. 8.3.6 Adaptive Management Adaptive management has been defined in Washington State law as “reliance on scientific methods to test the results of actions taken so that the management and related policy can be changed promptly and appropriately” (RCW 79.09.020). It is described as a cycle occurring in four stages: identification of information needs; information acquisition and assessment (monitoring); evaluation and decision-making; and continued or revised implementation of management actions. Adaptive management is captured in the sequence: “hypothesis statement,” “monitor,” “evaluate,” and “respond.” This plan has identified information needs and suitable monitoring programs. Evaluation will occur at three levels 1. Scientific Evaluation—An evaluation of available information by independent scientists to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the actions. 2. Public Evaluation—An evaluation of available information by the public to assess socio-economic factors such as benefits and costs. 3. Decision-Making Evaluation—An evaluation of available information by decision-makers, who determine what alternatives and management actions are needed when “triggers” are reached. The purpose for evaluation is to interpret information gathered from monitoring and research, assess deviations from targets or anticipated results (hypothesis), and recommend changes in policies or management actions where appropriate. Input from both independent scientists, stakeholders, and the general public are required. These groups will annually provide feedback to decision makers (UCSRB based on recommendations from the Implementation Team and resource managment entities), who have the responsibility to change policies or management actions. 8.3.7 Check-In Schedule The Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board with NOAA Fisheries, regional resrouce managers (stat and tribes) and the USFWS will conduct mid-point evaluations, or “check-ins” in years 1, 3, 5, 8, 12, and every fourth year thereafter, following implementation. The first Check-In Report, submitted one year after the plan is implemented, will primarily address progress made towards obtaining funding, initiating studies, developing priorities, and other programmatic issues. To the extent possible, it will also provide updates to adult fish returns (spawners), abundance and abundance trends, and juvenile fish survival (including smolts/redd estimates). Later reports will detail research and monitoring results. If necessary, these results will be used to “adaptively” modify and prioritize the implementation schedule. It is important that the public and the agencies have confidence in the recommended recovery actions and in the science that supports the actions. Accordingly, Colville Tribes working with the UCSRB Implementation Team and science workgroups, will obtain independent scientific review of its 3-, 5-, 8-, and 12-year evaluation reports. Beyond the 12-year check-in, independent scientific review will be under the discretion of the regional resoruce managers and the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board and the Implementation Team. 8.3.8 Consistency with Other Monitoring Programs An important aspect of this recovery plan is that it uses existing monitoring programs to evaluate the status/trend and effectiveness of recovery actions within the Upper Columbia Basin. Specifically, this plan incorporates by reference the Upper Columbia Monitoring Strategy (Hillman 2004), the Okanogan Basin Monitoring and Evaluation Program, PNAMP, CSMEP, the Fed. Caucus, the WA. State Monitoring Forum and the Draft Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for PUD Hatchery Programs. These programs in sum address status/trend and effectiveness monitoring of habitat actions, while others addresses status/trend and effectiveness of hatchery actions. The PUDs currently have monitoring programs identified in their HCPs and Biological Opinions to address hydroproject actions. Actions implemented in areas downstream from the ESUs will be addressed within the Action Agencies/NOAA Fisheries RME Program for the FCRPS Biological Opinion. This plan encourages these programs to continue. The development of other regional monitoring programs may result in modifications to the monitoring programs used in the Upper Columbia Basin. These other programs, in various states of development, include the Collaborative, Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Project (CSMEP), and the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP), the Fed. Caucus, NOAA and the WA. State Monitoring Forum, NPCC and the ISRP. As these programs develop more fully, they will provide guidance on valid sampling and statistical designs, measuring protocols, and data management. This information may be used to refine and improve the existing monitoring and evaluation programs in the Upper Columbia Basin. The intent is to make monitoring and evaluation programs more consistent throughout the Columbia Basin and Pacific Northwest. 8.3.9 Coordination Many entities have been or will be implementing recovery actions within the Okanogan subbasin. It is critical that these programs be coordinated to reduce redundancy, increase efficiency, and minimize costs. Monitoring programs implemented within the Upper Columbia region include: • Upper Columbia Monitoring Strategy, • Okanogan Basin Monitoring and Evaluation Program, • Action Agencies/NOAA Fisheries RME Program, • Draft Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for PUD Hatchery Programs, • Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board Program, • HCPs Monitoring Programs, • Coho Reintroduction Monitoring Program, • PACFISH/INFISH Monitoring Program, • Pacific Northwest Interagency Regional Monitoring Program, Chief Joesph Hatchery RME and OBMEP • USFWS, USGS, and BOR monitoring programs, and • WDFW and Department of Ecology monitoring programs. In 2004, the Upper Columbia Salmon Reocrey Boar technical staffs and its monitoring subcommittee began the process of coordinating monitoring activities in the Upper Columbia Basin. These groups holds annual meetings with entities conducting monitoring activities within the Upper Columbia Basin with the purpose of coordinating activities and sharing information. The UCSRB and the regional resources managers are working to enhance coordination between the Upper Columbia Monitoring Strategy, the Okanogan Basin Monitoring and Evaluation Program, and other monitoring programs in the Upper Columbia Basin. These efforts have been beneficial and this plan encourages the process established by these groups to continue. 8.4 Implementation Schedule Recovery of listed species is a long process that requires sacrifice, patience, and courage. Because limited resources do not allow all actions to be implemented immediately, it is important to sequence actions according to their importance to recovery. This section of the plan describes a method for sequencing actions. Because of a lack of information, many details of the schedule remain undefined. For example, information is lacking on identification of response triggers, identification of milestones, and designation of management responses to triggering events. Nonetheless, general features of the implementation schedule can be described including the approach to prioritization of actions. 8.4.1 Sequence of Actions This habitat restoration program intends to identify the essential recovery actions that need to be implemented within the Okanogan subbasin. As noted earlier, resources are not currently available to implement all the recovery actions in the near term. Therefore, it is important to sequence or prioritize actions within and between all sectors. In this section, the plan identifies a general framework for sequencing recovery actions within the Okanogan basin in coorination with the other subbasins in the Columbia Cascade Province and the UC ESU. The framework categorizes projects or actions based on multiple objectives and characteristics. It also establishes a general model for selecting and implementing actions that will lead to recovery, conservatino and mitigation of listed and unlisted species in the Okanogan subbaisn. The approach is based on biological effectiveness and socio-economic feasibility. The Okanogan Habitat Restoration framework may evolve as new information from RME becomes available. The following links provide direct access to analytical protocols, statistical tests and evaluatin techniques that will be used in the reporting element of this program: http://www.iac.wa.gov/monitoring/default.htm http://www.iac.wa.gov/Documents/SRFB/Monitoring/MC-2_Instream_Habitat_Projects.pdf http://www.iac.wa.gov/Documents/SRFB/Monitoring/MC-10_Habitat_Protection_Projects.pdf http://www.iac.wa.gov/Documents/SRFB/Monitoring/MC-6_Channel_Connectivity_Projects.pdf Additional PNAMP and CSMEP methods and analysis documents are attached to this proposal demonstrating the range of analysis that will be conducted depending upon the habitat treatment. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2008 | $75,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Tribal staff and contractors | $147,385 | $275,000 | $271,000 |
| Supplies | Engineering Components | $104,000 | $360,000 | $460,000 |
| Fringe Benefits | Tribal staff and contractors | $32,120 | $40,205 | $44,390 |
| Travel | Tribal staff and contractors | $3,000 | $3,700 | $4,200 |
| Overhead | Other Direct Costs and standard OH | $10,200 | $21,600 | $24,900 |
| Totals | $296,705 | $700,505 | $804,490 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $1,801,700 |
| Total work element budget: | $1,801,700 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| City of Tonasket | Review | $1,000 | $1,200 | $1,500 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| Okanogan Valley Land Trust | Habitat Protection Public Assistance | $1,000 | $1,200 | $1,500 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| PCSRF | Cash | $38,650 | $67,890 | $77,959 | Cash | Under Review |
| UCSRB | Review and Coordination with Province and ESU | $2,000 | $2,500 | $3,400 | Cash | Under Review |
| Upper Col. RFEG | Public Outreach and Site Consultation | $2,000 | $2,500 | $3,400 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| Totals | $44,650 | $75,290 | $87,759 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $485,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $485,000 |
Comments: Based upon results of the FY 07-09 process. If delayed, costs will likely be signifiantly (4-7 percent) higher in outyears |
Future O&M costs: Estimated to be very minimal. Screening, culverts and RME will likely require a base level of O&M, but again, this is estimated to be less than .02 percent of the total program annually. Habitat Restoration and Protection projects are intended to restore normative conditions and not reguire engineered O&M.
Termination date: 2012
Comments: Dependent upon results from RME, status and trend information and most importatntly in-tributary productivity (success) results. Metrics, indicators, variables and methods for this assessment are in place currently in the Okanogan and being monitored in the RME program with two years of "year zero" data (recommended by statistical design for BACI etc.) to perform effectiveness monitoring on select project categories. The Adaptive Management Plan and Goals of the subbasin and recovery plans, federal trust responsibility status etc. will dictate final termination dates and processes. Many examples of the methods and program exist as attachments to this proposal and in the Okanogan Basin Monitoring and Evaluation Project No. 20030220
Final deliverables: A set of ~17-21 habitat protection and restoration projects, RME, results, annual reports including information on population status, trend and action effectiveness on project categories and/or select sample projects (monitoring will not be preformed on all projects as per NPCC, BPA, PNAMP, CSMEP, EMAP etc. recommendations. Database (system in place) transfer deliverables, analysis reports, methods and conclusions. Analysis of progress or attainment of mitigation responsibilities and total program success or failure with recommendations for future actions or modifications to strategies.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Fund Pending Available Funds |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: This is a proposal to fund the Colville Confederated Tribes to implement restoration and protection actions in the Okanogan Subbasin Plan. The implementation of this plan is a high priority. This proposal may require clarifications and adjustments by the sponsor in consultation with the Council and BPA. The broad scope of the proposal made it difficult for the ISRP to assess the potential impact of particular Assessment Unit (AU) Actions, or their combined effect. The proponents might have made some effort to rank the likely relative magnitudes of effects on fish and wildlife of particular AU actions. That would help determine which of the proposed AU Actions might be most worth saving in the event that budgets are reduced. The proposal narrative would have been improved by inclusion of Tasks (work elements) and methods provided on the administrative forms. A short summary of monitoring and evaluation (M&E), which are to be covered by Colville project 200302200, should be included in the final proposal narrative or statement of work. Resumes are provided for only two of the proposed key personnel. No FTEs are provided. The majority of the work will be performed by contractors under the supervision of the project proponents. The administrative form provides details on an excellent plan for information transfer, but this is mentioned only in a very general way in the proposal narrative. The proposal narrative would have been improved by a discussion of potential adverse effects and precautions regarding non-focal species.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: This is a proposal to fund the Colville Confederated Tribes to implement restoration and protection actions in the Okanogan Subbasin Plan. The implementation of this plan is a high priority. This proposal may require clarifications and adjustments by the sponsor in consultation with the Council and BPA. The broad scope of the proposal made it difficult for the ISRP to assess the potential impact of particular Assessment Unit (AU) Actions, or their combined effect. The proponents might have made some effort to rank the likely relative magnitudes of effects on fish and wildlife of particular AU actions. That would help determine which of the proposed AU Actions might be most worth saving in the event that budgets are reduced. The proposal narrative would have been improved by inclusion of Tasks (work elements) and methods provided on the administrative forms. A short summary of monitoring and evaluation (M&E), which are to be covered by Colville project 200302200, should be included in the final proposal narrative or statement of work. Resumes are provided for only two of the proposed key personnel. No FTEs are provided. The majority of the work will be performed by contractors under the supervision of the project proponents. The administrative form provides details on an excellent plan for information transfer, but this is mentioned only in a very general way in the proposal narrative. The proposal narrative would have been improved by a discussion of potential adverse effects and precautions regarding non-focal species.