FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 199401805

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleContinued Coordination and Implementation of Asotin Creek Watershed Projects
Proposal ID199401805
OrganizationAsotin County Conservation District (ACCD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameBradley J. Johnson
Mailing address720 Sixth St., Ste B Clarkston, WA 99403
Phone / email5097588012 / brad-johnson@wa.nacdnet.org
Manager authorizing this projectBradley J. Johnson
Review cycleBlue Mountain
Province / SubbasinBlue Mountain / Asotin
Short descriptionCoordinate, assess, protect, restore and monitor holistically based fish habitat cost-share programs in Asotin Creek watershed. Continue "grass-root" public and agency cooperation and collaboration for identified priority projects benefiting ESA species
Target speciesSpecies most actively targeted in the Asotin Creek watershed are ESA Snake River summer steelhead, spring chinook salmon, and bull trout. Native populations of rainbow / redband trout will also benefit from habitat projects.
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
46.375 -117 Lower Asotin Creek watershed - riparian and instream projects in priority areas to improve cover & reduce temperature, & increase pools with secondary bank erosion reduction & nat deposition.
46.27 -117.29 Upper Asotin Creek watershed - riparian and instream projects in priority areas and 5 Yr Direct Seed Program with other listed BMP's in uplands to reduce sedimentation from cropland
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Habitat RPA Action 150
Habitat RPA Action 153
Habitat RPA Action 149

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
NMFS/BPA Action 153 NMFS BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001.
NMFS Action 153 NMFS BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
1991 Asotin Creek Water Quality Monitoring Project - Baseline Data Collection
1993 Inititiated collaboration with citizens and agency represetatives on sensative fish and wildlife resource issues (Formed Landowner Steering and Technical Advisory Committees for Asotin Creek Model Watershed)
1994 Agricultural Conservation Program Funding from USDA ASCS was used for demonstration projects on Asotin Creek. Initiated riparian fencing and alternative water development projects to encourage landowner participation
1994 Continued intensive native tree planting efforts on Asotin Creek and main tributaries. On-going efforts to reduce stream temperature, provide cover and shade, reduce streambank erosion, and future recruitment of large woody debris.
1994 Completed watershed analysis for Asotin Creek watershed. USDA NRCS & WDFW identified limiting factors affecting fish & wildlife and recommended actions to accomplish prioritized restoration projects on private, state and federal lands.
1995 ISCO Water Sampling Units and HOBO Temperature Meters deployed in watershed. Initiated monitoring to track water quality and temperature which were identified as limiting factors during watershed analysis and from monitoring data.
1995 BPA Early Action Projects completed as demonstration for winter feeding areas adjacent to stream. Exclusion fencing and alternative water developments to inform and educate landowners and agency representative of sensitive issues.
1995 "Asotin Creek Model Watershed Plan" completed and printed and serves as a guide for resource issues and used as an example of collaborated approach to watershed protection and restoration.
1995 Continued tree planting efforts with local schools, boy scouts, girl scouts and volunteers to educate local groups for support.
1995 WCC Grant Funding for upland and riparian restoration in Asotin Creek watershed from WA State Legislature. Initiated upland sediment reduction and riparian practice cost-share to off-set cost of priority habitat recovery.
1996 Continued ISCO & HOBO monitoring.
1996 Continued native tree and shrub planting (6,000) with local schools and volunteer groups, part of the on-going education.
1996 Initiated BPA Early Action Instream Habitat Restoration Projects to encourage proper pool and floodplain function.
1996 Headgate Park Pre- and Post-Monitoring of Habitat Restoration Projects funded by WCC. Initiated monitoring program to evaluate pre-conditions & effectiveness and benefits of instream structures to habitat conditions & juvenile salmonids
1996 BMP projects completed: 4 alternative water developments, 63 instream structures with 96 pools and 4 rootwads, 106 acres pasture/hayland planting, 14,000 ft of terraces, 2 sediment basins, 12,240 trees for reforestation and 1 windbreak.
1997 Technical report for Headgate Park monitoring project completed. Provided overview of pool habitat and correlations of juveniles using pools. 59% of juveniles occupied pool habitat although pools comprised <2% of area.
1997 Planted 6797 riparian trees as part of the on-going education and habitat restoration programs.
1997 BPA funding for upland cost-share programs to off-set state and federal funding sources and riparian fencing and planting and instream projects that are prioritized by local agency representative in cooperation with private landowners.
1997 WCC Funding for upland sediment reduction practices. On-going upland projects partnered to reduce fine sediment intrusion into spawning and rearing areas.
1997 Initiated Meander Reconstruction Monitoring. Baseline information regarding lateral channel migration & streambank changes thru installation of scour chains, physical descriptions of pool habitat, pebble counts in pool tailouts & photo points
1997 Supplied four aquariums to local schools for "Salmon in the Classroom" program. Each class received 200 eyed trout eggs to study hands-on the lifecycle of trout.
1997 BMP projects completed: 3 alt water developments, 3,034 ft of x-fence, 186 ac pasture/hayland planting, instream projects w/ 66 pools & 45 rootwads, 5,526 ft. riparian fence, 25 sediment basins, 9 ac critical area planting (CAP) and 48,263 ft. terrace.
1998 Completed reports for 1997 BPA Habitat Projects including photo documentation, expected benefits descriptions and costs. Provided general information regarding Upland Sediment Basin Cleanouts, Riparian Fencing and Instream Habitat Projects.
1998 Second year of Headgate Park Post-Habitat Restoration Monitoring. On-going monitoring of instream structures for juvenile utilization and effectiveness.
1998 BPA funding, Upland Sediment Reduction, Riparian/Floodplain Management & Instream Restoration. On-going projects: reduce erosion, restore riparian area & increase pool habitat. 25K ft fence, 50K trees & shrubs & 283 pools during 1991-97.
1998 Initiated Water Quality and Storm Event Sampling with WSU for comparison to 91-93 baseline study. Water quality sampling of sediment, temp., ammonia, coliform, total nitrogen, total phosphorus and discharge to help identify priorities.
1998 Intensive tree planting efforts using mechanical means to plant willow and cottonwoods. Students and volunteers utilized in appropriate places. On-going to reduce temperature and stabilize streambanks. 40,000 trees & shrubs planted in 98.
1998 Consulted WDFW to conduct pre- and post-instream habitat monitoring. Monitor 50% of pre-construction instream habitat projects to evaluate habitat & utilization by salmonids - similar to Headgate study but expanded to larger stream reaches.
1998 Completed aerial surveys of upland and riparian habitat projects and photo documentation. Provided insight to expected restoration benefits and also priority areas not recognized from the ground.
1998 Initiated NRCS and ACCD Sediment Basin Monitoring funded by WCC. Will determine effectiveness of sediment basins in reducing fine sediment delivery to priority stream reaches with spawning and rearing occurring.
1998 Continued NRCS and ACCD Meander Reconstruction Monitoring. On-going to check scour chains, cross-sectional profiles, and toe pins for lateral migration and continue photo documentation.
1998 Held 1st Envirothon Competion. Tested on water quality, soil, forestry, wildlife and environmental issues with 13 teams participation. Local landowners, agencies and businesses providing volunteers for judging and testing students abilities.
1998 Released 600 trout fry into a pond through "Salmon in the Classroom" and each class received another 200 eyed eggs. Two fourth graders classrooms and advanced biology classrooms in Asotin and Clarkston participate in the project.
1998 BMP projects completed: 4302 ft. x-fence, 851 ac direc seed, 14,275 ft. grass waterway, instream projects w/ 105 pools & 65 rootwads, 226 ac pasture, 7554 ft riparian fence, 83 sediment basins, 16 ac (CAP) and 28,085 ft terraces.
1999 Hosted Model Watershed Coordinators Meeting and held a tour of Watershed Projects for participants.
1999 Provided Watershed Tours for WSU Environmental Students, WCC, Governor's Salmon Team, and WA St. Cattlemen's.
1999 Continued WDFW pre- and post-instream habitat monitoring. Received 1998 WDFW Final Report for "Asotin Creek Instream Habitat Alteration Projects - 1998 Evaluations Surveys".
1999 Intensive spring rooted tree planting projects using mechanical means to plant willow, cottonwood and conifers. Previous year's plantings were showing an average of 80% survival. Approximately 30,000 trees and shrubs planted in 99'.
1999 Held 2nd annual Envirothon Competition. Landowners, local and federal agency and private industry volunteers help run stations and judge presentations with 8 teams participating.
1999 Released 450 trout fry into pond through "Salmon in the Classroom" program and received an additional 200 eyed eggs.
1999 Continued on-going Upland, Riparian and Instream Habitat Projects identified and completed according to "Plan". Received technical direction from agencies and collaborated with citizens and landowners on direction and needs.
1999 Planted 5,500 rooted trees in the fall on the Northfork utilizing native ponderosa pine and cottonwoods. 1st fall plant utilizing rooted stock on Asotin Creek.
1999 Consulted WDFW to conduct wintertime snorkeling for instream structures for over-wintering juvenile utilization. WDFW has information on summer-time juvenile densities and site preferences, but over-winter on Asotin Creek has a data gap.
1999 Initiated an upland 5-Yr Direct Seed Program to reduce sediment delivery from conventionally tilled fields. Partnered Gov's Salmon with BPA to get 19 participants with 2,420 ac enrolled. This is 25% cost-share from the funding source.
1999 BMP projects completed: 1864 ac 5-yr direct seed, 610 ac direct seed, 19500 ft riparian fence, 4100 ft grass waterway, instream projects w/ 116 pools & 10 rootwads, 188 ac pasture planting, 10 sediment basins, and 8218 ft. terraces
2000 Completed spring plantings of 19,100 native rooted ponderosa pine and cottonwood, 21,000 willow and cottonwood whips, and 19,800 bare-root material for a total of 60,000 native tree and shrub planting.
2000 Continuing "Salmon in the Classroom". Planted 750 trout.
2000 Holistic Resource Management workshops for local citizens, landowners, managers and agency representative to understand the diversity of issues and how they are connected. Making better decisions for future generations.
2000 Continue WDFW pre- & post-habitat monitoring, winter-time snorkeling, water temperature data & identifying whether spawning adults are keying on instream structures. Received "Asotin Creek Instream Habitat Alterations Projects: 1999".
2000 Received WSU "Asotin Creek Watershed Water Quality Monitoring Final Report" which shows that the creek is making a measurable recovery since the 1991-93 Study was completed. Lower fecal coliform counts throughout and instream temperatures are increasing.
2000 Attended Rosgen Stream Classification workshop in Pagosa Springs. Engineer and Stream Hydrologist design instream projects, but it is important to understand stream mechanics and proper stream and riparian function.
2000 Helicopter flight of Asotin County to get photos and identify unique projects for future funding.
2000 Lewiston Public School Shadow Program. Toured and went to watershed meeting with teacher who heard about our program through the local newspaper and television station. Excellent opportunity for both to see different perspectives on sensitive issues.
2000 On-going mechanical spring and fall tree planting projects.
2000 NRCS Re-Assessment of Asotin Creek: geomorphic reclassification of stream to describe changes, description and quantification of pools and large woody debris adjacent for refuge, susceptible streambank erosion, and classifications of riparian plant area.
2000 Landowner interest in Tenmile and Couse Creeks for same types of projects that have been completed on Asotin Creek
2000 Couse Creek landowner calls to inform of steelhead spawning, which triggers WDFW to do spawning surveys and juvenile (summer) densities in Couse and Tenmile Creeks.
2000 BMP projects completed: 2597 ac 5-yr direct seed, 5 ac CAP, 710 ac direct seed, 2675 ft. riparian fence, 338 ac pasture planting, 2000 trees reforestation, 2070 ft grass waterway, 9 sediment basins, 1 spring development, 22554 ft. terraces, 2 wells
2001 Continue spring rooted tree planting projects on Asotin Creek 29,300 native trees and shrubs planted
2001 Host NMFS Mtg. and Tour to inform new Biological Assessment contacts of past and present project on Asotin Creek
2001 GIS Mapping: projects completed within Asotin County from all funding sources by project type since 1996, fish species distribution, land use and ownership, precipitation, and watershed locations.
2001 Received final copy of "Asotin Creek Inventory and Assessment Report" from NRCS. It compares the stream and riparian conditions from 1994 - 2000.
2001 WDFW pre- and post-habitat monitoring final report "Asotin Creek Instream Habitat Alteration Projects - 2000 Habitat Evaluation & Snorkeling Surveys & Water Temperature Monitoring".
2001 "Asotin Creek Subbasin Summary" completed. GIS maps of fish distribution, projects completed by type and funding source, and graphs with percentages show the results of a coordinated effort to protect and restore priority habitat.
2001 Trout Unlimited, Nez Perce Tribe, WA DOE, and Oregon BLM tours of Asotin County to inform and educate partners on projects completed and prioritized for upcoming years. We get compliments on our ridge-top-to-ridge-top approach.
2001 Road Builders and MW Coordinators PowerPoint Presentation of Instream, Riparian and Upland Projects completed within Asotin Creek watershed to inform and educate on projects completed and partnerships developed.
2001 WCC Limiting Factors Analysis beginning for WRIA #35 which includes Asotin County. This process will pull together all available written and known information on the streams and how they pertain to anadromous salmonids.
2001 Dave Rosgen of Wildland Hydrology is holding an "Applied Fluvial Geomorphology" Course on Asotin Creek.
2001 BMP projects completed: 400 ac 5-yr direct seed, 133 ac direct seed, 1 sediment basin, 2960 ft. terraces

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
Asotin County Upland Implementation Grant WCC Upland BMP's funds partnered with BPA & SRFB.
SRFB Grants (due in November for FY 02) Future SRFB Grants need 15% match, BPA & WCC funds.
Asotin County CREP Grant WCC CREP Grant that needs funds for an additional position.
Asotin County Buffer Program with Emphasis on Protecting and Restoring Couse & Tenmile Creeks Proposal that builds on projects and landowner relationships from Asotin Creek watershed
Assess Salmonids in Asotin Creek Watershed "New" proposal for FY 2002-2006 for Evaluating the current productivity and survival rates of anadromous and resident salmonids in Asotin Creek. This WDFW proposal would answer a re-occurring question from ISRP to how our projects are affecting salmonids
Protecting and Restoring Asotin Creek Watershed "New" proposal for FY 2002 -2006 for Upper watershed sedimentation issues on Forest Service, WDFW and private land road issues. Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries Watershed Program.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Coordinate Asotin Creek Model Watershed Project Prioritization and Planning. a. Administer, coordinate, and communicate watershed activies to residents and agency representatives 5 $4,430
b. Coordinate citizen / agency task groups to prioritize and rank projects 5 $5,000
c. Develop project proposals and prepare for submittal 5 $2,300
d. Submit NEPA & BA thru BPA to NMFS and USFWS for concurrence of instream habitat projects 5 $1,870
e. Produce final report of accomplishments for habitat projects and report M&E analysis and validation 5 $3,000
2. Secure Additional Funding and cooperative partnerships. a. Match funds with local, state and federal agencies 5 $2,000
b. Intitiate cost-share programs in priority areas outside the Asotin Creek watershed 5 $1,400
3. Implement 15 CRP/CREP riparian buffer system agreements with landowners on 20 miles of stream to improve 550 riparian acres. a. Meet with interested landowners on site and assess eligibility of stream reach for CRP/CREP program. (10%) 2 $4,500
b. Obtain landowner sign-ups 2 $1,500
c. Develop CRP/CREP plan for review and approval, including planting prescriptions, fencing design, water developments and other practices. (65%) 2 $19,500
d. Enter into protective conservation agreements with participating landowners for contiguous stream reaches. (5%) 2 $1,200
e. Report progress and complete grant documentation. 2 $2,800
4. Provide technical assistance during buffer implementation as necessary. a. After contract approved, provide additional technical assistance as may be required by the landowner to implement the approved plan. (13%) 2 $4,500
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Objective 1 (Tasks a - e) 2003 2006 $124,000
Objective 2 (Tasks a - b) 2003 2006 $16,000
Objective 3 (Tasks a - e) 2003 2004 $60,000
Objective 4 (Task a) 2003 2004 $9,000
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$58,000$57,000$48,000$46,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Reduce in-stream summer water temperatures to 18 c a. Riparian fencing and alternative water development projects to reduce direct animal pressure on prioritized stream reaches following CREP guidelines 5 $20,000 Yes
(Lower Snake Co-Managers Obj.) (Reduce Pre-Spawner Mortality) b. Riparian planting projects in prioritized areas for long-term LWD recruitment for shade and cover and partner with CREP 5 $20,000 Yes
c. Jump-start LWD component by incorporating it into complex habitat projects and streambanks for cover 5 $10,000 Yes
d. Increase # of pools and decrease stream width-to-depth ratios by installing geomorphic restoration projects in prioritized stream reaches to reduce stream temperatures 5 $8,000 Yes
2. Increase quantity and quality of pools w/LWD to nine per mile a. Install in-stream habitat projects according to geomorphic stream classifications in prioritiy areas 5 $4,000 Yes
(Lower Snake Co-Managers Obj.) (Increase Juvenile Survival) b. Continue increasing # of pools w/LWD to improve over-winter survival of juveniles 5 $12,000 Yes
c. Decrease width and increase stream depth 5 $25,000 Yes
d. Identify cool water refugia and protect in-stream and riparian habitat (passive) 5 $2,500
3. Reduce sediment deposition in spawning gravels by maintaining or reducing cropland erosion and stabilizing eroding streambanks a. Continue upland cost-share for sediment reduction practices (direct seeding, pasture/hayland planting, sediment basins, and noxious weed control) 5 $66,285
(Lower Snake Co-Managers Obj.) (Increase Incubation Success) b. In-stream structures geomorphically designed to scour and sort spawning gravels and re-establish floodplains for depositional features. 5 $15,000 Yes
c. Riparian fencing and plantings to stabilize and recruit LWD on streambanks 5 $10,000 Yes
d. Riparian management plans for alternative water developments and fencing projects for CREP buffers along stream to filter sediment and nutrients. 5 $2,500
4. Implement measures necessary to protect and enhance high quality riparian areas contiguous with CRP/CREP programs a. Provide cost-share for conservation practices identified in Objective 3 Task d under Planning and Designing 5 $25,000
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Objective 1 (Tasks a - d) 2003 2006 $100,000
Objective 2 (Tasks a - e) 2003 2006 $72,500
Objective 3 (Tasks a - d) 2003 2006 $265,500
Objective 4 (Task a) 2003 2005 $50,000
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$265,000$265,000$265,000$265,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Continue wise management of habitat funds and assess habitat projects for effectiveness a. Landowners, agency and engineers assess habitat projects to make sure they are functioning as designed 5 $0
b. Determine if desired function is being met and if not, recommendations for project 5 $0
CRP/CREP n/a landowners responsibility $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Objective 1 (Tasks a -b) 2003 2006 $4,000
Operation and maintenance has always been a responsibility of the landowner. $0
Investigations for quality assurance, cannot account for acts of mother nature. $0
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2004FY 2006
$2,000$2,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Planning, coordinating and implementing project assessments and monitoring a. Coordinate citizen / technical committees to prioritize monitoring projects 5 $1,000
b. Fund priority monitoring projects 5 $12,000 Yes
c. Continue NRCS Sediment Basin Monitoring 5 $500
d. Continue NRCS Meander Reconstruction M&E 5 $500
h. Continue cold water refugia identification and assessment 5 $5,000
i. Further define reference site conditions 5 $500
j. Continue working with Salmon Corps and Nez Perce Tribe to identify projects and alternative funding 5 $500
k. Begin planning assessments & limiting factors on streams outside watershed with spawning & rearing steelhead 5 $1,000
l. Complete and submit reports describing assessments and monitoring results 5 $2,000
2. Verify CRP/CREP buffers are installed and functions according to plan a. Inspect riparian protective measures cost-shared for continuing functionality and effectiveness 2 $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Objective 1 (Tasks a - l) 2003 2006 $92,000
Objective 2 (Task a) 2003 2004 $0
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2004FY 2003FY 2005FY 2006
$23,000$23,000$23,000$23,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel FTE: 1 $44,510
Fringe 40% MW Lead, 30 % CREP, 20% Admin. Ass $10,000
Supplies Equipment, copier lease, office supplies, etc $10,000
Travel MW Mtgs, regional mtgs, training, etc $3,620
NEPA and Biological Assessment $1,870
Subcontractor Riparian fencing and trees, instream and monitoring contracted through bids $136,000
Other Upland BMP and Riparian enhancement cost-share with private landowners $91,285
$297,285
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$297,285
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$297,285
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$235,000
% change from forecast26.5%
Reason for change in estimated budget

The CREP Lead Position or utilizing .40 FTE to hire an additional employee to oversee the CREP Program. Currently funding shortfalls have left the ACCD with a backlog of CREP potential signups and partnering BPA and WCC funds to hire an additional employee is a very high priority. Also identifying funds for enhancing the CREP Program meets NMFS RPA's as listed below and we have also reconginzed a need to continue with an upland 5 Year Direct Seed Program.

Reason for change in scope

Addressing 2002-2006 NMFS RPA's for Measures Related to Tributary Habitat particularly RPA #153. The ACCD works with the CREP Program locally but has a back log of people waiting to sign-up and enroll in the program. We have identified the need for an additional FTE and have the ability to partner WCC and BPA funds to accomplish this feat. WCC funds were cut by the state and because the program was slow at first, but has mushroomed in the last three months we were not eligble for enough state funds to hire an additional person. We have utilized this proposal for the first two years envisioning the WCC grant to take over funding requirements for the CREP position. This has increased our budget, but will help BPA / NWPPC meet NMFS's Mitigation Measures.

Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
NRCS Vehicles, gas, office space, phone, internet $70,000 in-kind
WDFW Local and Regional project review, etc $10,000 in-kind
Local Landowners and Citizens Cost-Share for upland and riparian projects $600,000 cash
US Forest Service Pomeroy District Challenge Cost-Share for habitat projects $55,000 cash
WA St. Conservation Commission Upland Sediment Reduction Cost-Share $50,000 cash
WDFW Lead Entity Funding Administrative funding $35,000 cash
WA Salmon Recovery Funding Board Instream, Riparian and Upland Cost-Share $200,000 cash
WA St. Conservation Commission CREP Riparian Cost-Share Program (10%) $100,000 cash
USDA Farm Service Agency CREP Riparian Cost-Share Program (50%) $450,000 cash
USDA Farm Service Agency Practice Incentive Payment (40%) $375,000 cash
USDA Farm Service Agency 10 - 15 yr Lease on CREP Acres $750,000 cash
NRCS CREP Riparian Technical Assistance $100,000 cash
Other budget explanation

The reason for the reduction in out year costs for FY 2005 and 2006 are we anticipate having alternative funding for the CREP Lead Position. Currently we have shortfalls in funding 1 FTE for CREP Projects, but FY 2003 and 2004 funding will help offset costs so we are able to hire an additional employee to oversee the CREP Program. Administration from this funding source will be for 1 FTE, .50 for Model Watershed Lead, .40 for CREP Lead, and .20 for Administrative Assistant with out year administration being reduced.


Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Sep 28, 2001

Comment:

Response needed. This is a well-written proposal that addresses the ISRP's concerns about providing a comprehensive review of restoration programs within the basin and information on biological benefits. The level of involvement by all stakeholders in the subbasin in the planning and implementation of restoration is impressive and could serve as a model for many other locations in the basin. It is reminiscent of the stakeholder involvement and cooperation we observed in the Hood River and John Day subbasin tours.

The project needs to present some analysis and interpretation of M&E data that justify its past actions and continued plans. As for proposal below (27001), this proposal is short on methods, which are needed especially for the more intensive active restoration projects. The proposal gives a good summary of past activities and accomplishments in general, but should present some of the M&E data that are being gathered by WDFW. A more detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of the BMPs, such as direct seed, would be helpful. The project proponents seem very committed to a specific set of best actions, which raises concerns about how carefully and critically they monitor outcomes or consider alternative actions.

The ISRP's tour of the Asotin subbasin provided convincing evidence and discussion on the willingness of local landowners to be involved in the CREP and direct seed programs. A major question is whether the expected benefits of the direct seeding program can be realized and whether these benefits will compel local farmers to continue direct seed practices after the initial incentive programs end. The no-till or direct seeding component of the project needs to include or be linked to an economic analysis. Will the short-term incentives result in a lasting change? What is the long-term effect of more intensive use of herbicides with no-till and direct seed? Implementation of the CREP and direct seed incentive programs is presently limited by lack of adequate staffing. Another major question is whether the expected sediment reductions are occurring, and most importantly, whether these can be directly related to changes in salmonid abundance.

Finally, there is a need for stronger justifications for the role of active vs. passive stream restoration in projects. What role are natural processes going to take in the restoration programs, e.g., building stream meanders back into a system? What happens when a big flood arrives and moves the stream out of its newly engineered channel? This and many other projects are restructuring channelized and degraded streams into newly engineered meandering stream channels. A concern of the reviewers is that while these initial steps may help jump start stream rehabilitation and shoreline revegetation, future hydrologic events and geomorphic processes may move the stream out of the newly engineered channel to interact with the larger local landscape and form new unanticipated stream courses. Efforts to retain the stream in the engineered channel, such as reinforcing or rip rapping banks run counter to the present desire to reestablish normative process in stream and river corridors.

The field tour and presentation indicated an overemphasis on quick-fix methods of stream channel "stabilization." Excessive reliance on construction of hard (rockwork) structures may be creating an inflexible channel. This prevents another approach of the project, namely, developing riparian vegetation, from performing what should be one of its primary purposes: retarding bank erosion, while letting the channel gradually "meander and return to natural functions" (proposal p. 942). The project could form more and better salmonid habitat (including pools) in the long run and be in closer keeping with stream restoration science by emphasizing natural channel formation (course migration, damped by riparian vegetation) rather than the hard engineering now being used. In the project, riparian vegetation seems to be viewed almost solely as a way to reduce summer temperature; its function as structural habitat for fish and as a binder of streambank soils should also be prominently recognized.


Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

Addresses RPA 153 which requires a connection to CREP and commitments of at least 15 years. Although there is no specific reference to sediment and temperature monitoring in the proposal, the work is being performed through this project by the USFS and WDFW. Species that benefit from the proposed work include all life stages of spring chinook, bull trout, and steelhead. The sponsors indicated that there are 15+ CREP commitments (15 year commitments) in place.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Fundable, however, the ISRP continues to have some reservations about the no-till operations, and the need to develop a more analytical approach toward evaluating (rather the demonstrating) the potential benefits and costs of the program. Project sponsors should refer to the programmatic comments in the beginning of this report for additional ISRP comments on the need to examine agricultural economic aspects of no-till operations. A solid economic analysis of the larger no-till program would lead to insights and likely a real demonstration project that can be held up across the basin. The biological components of the project are sound, particularly as coupled with the WDFW biological monitoring.

The level of involvement by all stakeholders in the subbasin in the planning and implementation of restoration is impressive and could serve as a model for many other locations in the basin. It is reminiscent of the stakeholder involvement and cooperation we observed in the Hood River and John Day subbasin tours.

The project sponsor's response contained some useful information, but was somewhat rambling, making it difficult to determine the main points occasionally. The response did not entirely allay the ISRP's concerns from the preliminary review concerning the role of active vs. passive stream restoration in projects. What role are natural processes going to take in the restoration programs, e.g., building stream meanders back into a system? What happens when a big flood arrives and moves the stream out of its newly engineered channel? This and many other projects are restructuring channelized and degraded streams into newly engineered meandering stream channels. A concern of the reviewers is that while these initial steps may help jump start stream rehabilitation and shoreline revegetation, future hydrologic events and geomorphic processes may move the stream out of the newly engineered channel to interact with the larger local landscape and form new unanticipated stream courses. Efforts to retain the stream in the engineered channel, such as reinforcing or rip rapping banks run counter to the present desire to reestablish normative process in stream and river corridors.


Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Project is to coordinate, assess, protect, restore (active and passive) and monitor biological benefits to fish of holistically-based fish habitat cost-share programs in the Asotin Creek watershed. Combination of indirect benefits through planning and survival improvement if habitat restoration has intended effects.

Comments
Project is to reduce in-stream summer water temperatures to 18 degrees C; increase quantity and quality of pools with LWD to nine pools per mile; reduce sediment deposition in spawning gravels by maintaining or reducing cropland erosion; continue coordination of Asotin Creek Model Watershed project prioritization & planning; implement 15 CRP/CREP riparian buffer system agreements with landowners on 20 miles of stream to improve 550 riparian acres, using e.g., no-till/direct seeding; secure additional funding & cooperative partnerships outside the Asotin Creek watershed; provide watershed information & education programs to local schools, citizens, & agency representatives; and, plan, coordinate, & implement project assessment & monitoring. Is there a landowner commitment? Project will implement Action Item 153 if permanent or long term (>15 years) easement is acquired. Easement should be consistent with CREP.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes


Recommendation:
A
Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Recommend funding consistent with the Council's subbasin planning and as implementation of RPAs 150, 152, 153, and 154.

BPA RPA RPM:
150, 152, 153, 154

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
400 (153)


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment:

Council recommendation:

The only project currently funded under the direct funding portion of the fish and wildlife program in Asotin Creek, Project 199401805 coordinates, protects and restores fish habitat through cost-share programs. Asotin County Conservation District requested additional funding from the FY01 base to prevent the loss of significant benefits gained through past project implementation and to maintain their ability to obtain matching funds. The County has obtained significant cost share from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board that could be at jeopardy if the budget maintained FY01 plus 3.4 percent level.

The project emphasizes passive restoration techniques and includes new money for CREP/CRP funding (RPA 153). The project has some active restoration components. Council believes the increased funding will allow the County to continue the passive restoration emphasis of the project and recommends the CREP/CRP funding component. The Council recommended budget for this project exceeds the general rule of funding at the Fiscal Year 2001 level plus 3.4%. The increases are directed towards those activities that may respond to RPA 153. Council would tend to de-emphasize some of the more intensive active restoration techniques (Construction and Implementation budget tasks 1d and 3b), in light of some of the questions raised by the ISRP about engineered work and in an effort to correspond to ESA needs, but believes some less intensive active restoration (Construction and Implementation budget tasks 2a-c) should continue.

Bonneville's comments supported funding the project as responsive to several RPAs and consistent with subbasin planning.

For Fiscal Year 2002, Council would recommend increasing the budget by $28,010 over the Fiscal Year 2001 plus 3.4% base budget for the project.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 13, 2002

Comment:

Fund to implement RPA's 150, 152, 153 and 154.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Agree with 04 recommended, project is on pace, two big projects scheduled for this year, but 30K might not get spent since lack of rain. Will have an effect in 05, and will have to reschedule September work for later in year. Seed will be purchased prior to 04.15 K in work that might have to move forward for the seeding part of the contract. Large meander reconstruction design work not complete, so construction has not gone out to bid. Has been carried over for two years. Potential 60 K that could need to be added on in 04 if work does not go forward. Match with SRFB funding.
Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:


REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$280,214 $280,214 $280,214

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website