FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 199401806

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleImplement Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan to Restore Salmonid Habitat
Proposal ID199401806
OrganizationColumbia Conservation District (CCD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameDebby Nordheim
Mailing address202 S 2nd St Dayton, WA 99328-1327
Phone / email5093824773 / debra-nordheim@wa.nacdnet.org
Manager authorizing this projectTerry Bruegman
Review cycleColumbia Plateau
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Tucannon
Short descriptionImplement, assess, and monitor habitat cost-share projects coordinated through the Tucannon River Model Watershed Program, a "grass roots" public and agency collaborated effort to restore salmonid habitat on private and public property.
Target speciesSpecies affected by projects in this process are ESA listed stocks of Spring Chinook Salmon (Snake River Spring & Summer ESU), Fall Chinook Salmon (Snake River Fall Run ESU), Snake River Steelhead (Snake River Summer Steelhead ESU), and Bull Trout.
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
HU 17060107060 (Tucannon River Main Stem & tributaries exept Pataha Creek - Tucannon River Model Watershed)
46.49 -117.97 Tucannon River
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
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
1980 Initial proposal to BPA for watershed restoration funding - not funded at this time
1984 Initiated USDA PL-566 process for watershed assessment and funding for implementation of Conservation Best Management Pracitces for agriculture, range, & riparian areas within the watershed
1986 Conducted a riparian tree density study in collaboration with WDFW
1987 2 large sediment basins constructed with combined drainage of 5336 ac. in prime spring chinook spawning area. Basins caught 3971 tons of sediment the first year.
1987 8000 ft. riparian fencing and 5923 ft. re-vegetation (4708 willows, 253 alder, 4858 cottonwood, 95 vine maple, & 135 ponderosa pine)
1987 Wrote 11 Conservation Farm Plans encompassing 2927.1 ac of farm ground in the drainages of the 2 sediment basins.
1989 Install 2 log weirs and 11 rock deflectors with logs & roots and boulder clusters in 2.5 mile demonstration area (28 total structures which created 2 large plunge pools and 26 medium scour pools.
1989 Planted 7200 willow, alder and cottonwood whips using volunteer fisherman and Conservation Corps within the 2.5 mile demonstration area.
1990 Installed 28 additional boulder and wood clusters to scour pools and stabilize banks. Xmas trees were used for some structures to create habitat complexity while stabilizing banks (within the 2.5 mile demonstration area).
1990 Planted 1900 willow, alder and cottonwood whips using volunteer fisherman. Beaver are a major problem to whip establishment.
1991 Received Congressional funding for the Tucannon PL-566 program for soil conserving practices.
1992 PL-566 contracts written with 14 landowners for long term conservation practice implementation on 13,823.5 ac. within the watershed.
1992 Planted 3043 willow and cottonwood whips using volunteer fisherman.
1993 IFIM study by WDOE to set flow requirements to meet salmonid habitat needs.
1993 Installed 4700 ft. riparian fencing, 2 limited access watering sites, and 1 off river watering system.
1993 Installed 3 rock & log deflectors to create 3 large pools, stabilize eroding bank, and decrease the width to depth ratio.
1993 Planted 1460 willow and cottonwood whips using volunteer fisherman.
1993 Initiated the Tucannon River Model Watershed Program through BPA.
1993 Establish Technical Advisory Committee, Landowner Steering Committee, and assign assessment responsibility between all members.
1994 Installed a series of 3 desilting basins in a wetland enhancement & sediment control project. Project is in a spring chinook & steelhead spawning and rearing area.
1995 Finalize multi-agency efforts to synthesis the extensive scientific works previously done on the Tucannon River basin (see references in Plan).
1995 Conduct on-the-ground reach-by-reach current habitat condition assessment.
1995 First draft of the Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan written, an extension of the "Tucannon River Watershed Plan - Environmental Assessment (USDS 1991)," prepared under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Act, Public Law 83-566.
1995 Received WCC grant funding to jump start the protection, enhancement, and restoration projects recommended in the Draft Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan.
1996 Installed 20 Early Action Instream Habitat Projects resulting in 5 large plunge pools, 4460 ft. of LWD & complexity, 1 off-channel rearing site, 125 small/medium pools created, 1 irrigation modification, 3100 ft. riparian fencing, and 500 trees planted.
1996 Reconstructed one large riparian desilting basin damaged in the flood. Catches sediment in spring chinook & steelhead spawning and rearing reaches.
1996 Reconstructed a 160 ft. section of dike incorporating large rootwads for habitat complexity, as requested by WDFW.
1996 Conducted a new on-the-ground reach-by-reach habitat assessment to inventory flood damage, critical areas, and to modify planned implementation schedules following the 1996 flood.
1996 Installed 1 upland sediment catch basin.
1997 Comprehensive report to NWPPC on the Model Watershed Process and Early Action Projects.
1997 Final Draft Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan written.
1997 Provide WDFW with water temperature measuring equipment for new temperature monitoring data.
1997 Installed 12 instream habitat projects resulting in 8 large plunge pools, 6828 ft. of LWD & complexity, 3 off-channel rearing sites, 98 small/medium pools created, 1 irrigation modification, 5762 ft. riparian fencing, and 7000 trees planted.
1997 Performed O&M on 5 of the 1996 projects due to January 1-3, 1997 flooding. All projects remained in place, 5 just needed some additional work to maintain structural integrity.
1997 663.7 ac. enrolled in conservation tillage practices.
1998 Installed 12 instream habitat projects resulting in 15 large plunge pools, 5540 ft. of LWD & complexity, 1 off-channel rearing site, 146 small/medium pools created, 1 irrigation modification, 11,891 ft. riparian fencing, and 10,000 trees planted.
1998 2665.24 ac. enrolled in conservation tillage practices.
1998 Take post-construction cross-sectional habitat measurements.
1999 Provide a "Living Stream" to school for salmon life-cycle education, involving approximately 500 students.
1999 Initiated a riparian planting monitoring program to measure survivability by species, planting method effectiveness, and to determine any outside influences.
1999 Initiated a new series of water quality monitoring collection sites to evaluate restoration efforts.
1999 Conducting a new series of ISCO sediment sampling collection sites.
1999 Perform pre-construction habitat cross-sectional measurements.
1999 Install 9 instream habitat projects resulting in 22 large plunge pools, 6146 ft. of LWD & complexity, 1 off-channel rearing site, 98 small/medium pools created, and 26,000 trees planted.
1999 1870.6 ac. enrolled in conservation tillage practices.
1999 2 upland water and sediment control structures installed.
1999 Monitoring Report on Habitat Projects done by WDFW.
2000 Continue salmon life-cycle education in the local schools.
2000 Continue habitat project monitoring and evaluation, report compiled by WDFW.
2000 Continue water quality monitoring collection, report compiled by WSU in 2001.
2000 Installed 7.5 instream habitat projects resulting in 18 large plunge pools, 4490 ft. of LWD & complexity, 1 off-channel rearing site, 78 small/medium pools created, and 69,276 trees planted.
2000 1852 ac. enrolled in conservation tillage practices.
2000 5 CREP contracts encompassing 168.5 acres.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9401807 Continue with Implementation of Pataha Watershed Plan Pataha is the major tributary to the lower Tucannon. It negatively effects habitat and water quality in the lower Tucannon where fall chinook spawn, steelhead rear, and bull trout over winter.
Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Supplementation Assessment
200001900 Tucannon River Spring Chinook Captive Brood Program Supplementation to increase natural production in the Tucannon
Tucannon Subbasin Summary Process

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Coordinate Implementation of Tucannon River Model watershed Plan Activities a. Facilitate watershed council activities 5 $3,800
b. Secure supplemental funding for Plan implementation; projects to protect, enhance and resore salmonid habitat 5 $5,000
c. Facilitate cooperation & agreement between resource agencies and landowners 5 $1,887
d. Coordinate watershed/salmonid life-cycle information/education activities 5 $2,000
2. Coordinate habitat project site selection. a. Facilitate Inter-Disciplinary Team potential project site evaluations. 5 $2,200
b. Identify withdrawal efficiency needs. 1 $1,500
c. Coordinate program efforts with CREP and Continuous CRP programs. 5 $2,000
d. Coordinate with WCC, NRCS & WDFW for potential project engineering and design. 5 $5,788
e. Facilitate project prioritization and selection. 5 $1,200
f. Complete Biological Assessment 5 $2,000
g. Complete NEPA check list 5 $500
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Coordinate Implementation of Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan Activities, tasks, a, b, c, & d. 2003 2006 $54,672
2. Coordinate habitat project site selection, tasks a, c, d, e, f, & g. 2003 2006 $65,447
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$28,712$29,573$30,460$31,374

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Improve pool and spawning habitat quality & quantity to improve adult pre-spawning and juvenile survival. a. Install instream bio-engineered habitat strucutres for increased fish utilization by increasing geomorphic stability and pool complexity & reducing water temperature and cobble embeddiness. 5 $100,000
b. Recover riparian buffer area to restore riparian bio-funcion to reduce sedimentation and water temperature while increasing LWD recruitment. 5 $65,000
c. Install agriculture conservation Best Management Practices to reduce sedimentation impacts on salmonid life-cycle & habitats. 5 $20,000
2. Flow Enhancement a. Upgrade withdrawal screening systems. 5 $25,000
b. Water leases. 5 $22,625
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Improve pool and spawning habitat quality & quantity to improve adult pre-spawning and juvenile survival, tasks a & b. 2003 2006 $951,442
2. Flow Enhancement, tasks a, & b. 2003 2006 $215,532
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$244,256$292,694$307,329$322,695

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Improve pool and spawning habitat quality & quantity to improve adult prespawning and juvenile survival. a. Adjust existing structures to accommodate natural fluvial function 5 $12,625
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Improve pool and spawning habitat quality & quantity to improve adult prespawning and juvenile survival, task a. 2003 2006 $57,136
2. Flow enhancement, water leases. 2003 2006 $97,516
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$35,811$37,675$39,559$41,537

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Validate effectiveness of projects to meet habitat objectives & affect biological outcomes. a. Conduct pre & post-construction habitat cross sectional inventories 5 $20,000
b. Perform fish utilization of project sites 5 $8,500
c. Conduct basin wide redd counts at project sites (WDFW/LSRCP in-kind) 5 $0
d. Conduct structural integrity evaluations (NRCS in-kind) 5 $0
e. Turbidity data collection form ISCO sampling sites 5 $6,000
f. Photo documentation of project work 5 $450
g. Conduct tree & shrub survival study 5 $4,550
2. Conduct 5-Year Milestone Comprehensive Project evaluation a. Conduct Reach-by-Reach Walk-the-Stream re-evaluation (geomorphic stability, vegetation condition, instream habitat quality & quantity). 2 $40,000
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Validate effectiveness of projects to meet habitat objectives & affect biological outcomes, tasks a, b, c, d, e, f, & g. 2003 2006 $191,542
2. Conclude Milestone Comprehensive Project evaluation. 2003 2003 $41,200
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$81,885$48,807$50,271$51,779

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel FTE: 1.1 $41,879
Fringe payroll & benefits $8,376
Supplies office, information & education $10,645
Travel mileage, per diem $13,225
NEPA & Biological Assessment $2,500
Subcontractor M&E $65,000
Other cost share $211,000
$352,625
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$352,625
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$352,625
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$330,000
% change from forecast6.9%
Reason for change in estimated budget

Increase is due to projected water lease expense.

Reason for change in scope

Milestone assessments need to be completed. This assessment was postponed, on advise from BPA, based on the premise of "no new work" to be preformed in FY2001. These assessments will validate current restoration activities and guide future project activities based on evaluation findings - adaptive management. Addition of water lease and diversion screening as priority activities.

Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
USDA NRCS (proposed) technical, engineering, evaluation $50,000 in-kind
State Salmon Recovery Funding Board (proposed instream, riparian $100,000 cash
USFS (proposed) technical, materials, equipment, evaluation $20,000 in-kind
USFS (proposed) instream & riparian $15,000 cash
WDFW (proposed) technical, engineering, materials, evaluation $15,000 in-kind
Columbia County labor, equipment $5,000 in-kind
Landowners (proposed) materials, labor, equipment $10,000 in-kind
Washington Conservation Commission instream, riparian, upland $30,000 cash
WDOE riparian $20,000 cash
USDA CREP & Continuous CRP riparian $50,000 in-kind

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:
Jun 15, 2001

Comment:

Fundable only if an adequate response is provided that addresses the ISRP's concerns. Maps of the subbasin and fish distributions in the proposal were very helpful. The Program has been implementing on-the-ground habitat projects guided by the Plan since 1996. Summary tables of expenditures and tasks accomplished were helpful. A two-year water quality reassessment was completed in March 2001 by WSU Center for Environmental Education and a final report is currently being written. Nevertheless, the results of these assessments were not reported in the project proposal.

This proposal requests an additional $2 million to continue implementation of the Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan. Apparently, the program was initiated based on a premise that fish habitat in the Tucannon River would be improved by"... increasing pool and spawning habitat quality & quantity through geomorphic stabilization, riparian bio-function restoration, increasing complexity, maintaining adequate flow, and reducing water temperature and sediment" (page 2). That focus has since been lost and the program now is largely devoted to development of bio-engineered instream structures. This amounts to getting the cart before the horse. The program should return to pursuit of restoring geologic, geomorphic, and riparian processes. The processes restored will determine what stream characteristics can be maintained. Once these processes are restored, bioengineering projects may be appropriate to adjust some conditions.

Monitoring of physical conditions is part of the project. The proposal reports that data were gathered to represent some pre-project conditions and for one year since the projects. These data should be included in the proposal. In the FY2000 Review, the ISRP also commented that the sponsors needed demonstrate the biological benefits of this project. The project history section relates administrative level history of the project, but completely fails to provide any summary of biological benefits achieved to date. The table of tasks completed - weirs installed, feet of fencing installed, etc. - does not constitute a summary of biological benefits achieved.

Objective 1 of the proposal is to "Improve adult pre-spawning survival" and Objective 2 is to "Improve juvenile survival" (page 12). There doesn't seem to be any monitoring of survival to assess progress in meeting these objectives. At minimum, there should be monitoring to determine whether or not survival of the pre-spawning adults and juveniles is increasing as a result of program activities.

The budget raises a number of uncertainties. Under personnel, two PI's are listed, both employees of the Watershed Council, and the budget asks for ~ $40K support for them in their administrative capacities. Budget also lists $65K for monitoring and evaluation to an unspecified subcontractor. The proposal should identify either the specific subcontractor (and provide qualification information) or a set of criteria that the subcontractor must meet in order to conduct the monitoring and evaluation.

Similarly, the budget under Section 8 lists $211K for "cost-share" activities, which seem to be associated with implementation or installation of many of the stream and habitat improvement actions. This is confusing because later in Section 8 the budget lists a separate cost-share section from various collaborators that totals $315K. Likely, the first "cost-share" number is money for subcontracting to implement stream restoration activities. This needs to be clarified and information on the subcontractors or their qualifications and expertise needs to be provided.


Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:

The proposal needs to be retooled to concentrate on passive restoration approaches (i.e.. fencing and planting). There is disagreement on the level of success of bioengineering solutions and the reviewers would like to see an emphasis on returning ecosystem function to the stream corridor. This project needs to be implemented consistent with limiting factors and problem locations identified in subbasin summaries and eventually subbasin planning to ensure fisheries benefits to target species. There needs to be oversight by the COTR to ensure that actions taken will benefit fish and wildlife. We agree with ISRP that no biological benefit has been demonstrated to date as measures of success have been focused on physical structures and population densities near them.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 10, 2001

Comment:

Not fundable. Sponsors failed to demonstrate prioritization of efforts by a watershed assessment. Project needs refocusing and reorientation, with assistance from of an experienced fluvial-geomorphologist and an experienced analyst to guide assessment strategies, and to help identify meaningful controls.

This program was initiated based on a premise that fish habitat in the Tucannon River would be improved by"... increasing pool and spawning habitat quality & quantity through geomorphic stabilization, riparian bio-function restoration, increasing complexity, maintaining adequate flow, and reducing water temperature and sediment." The ISRP is concerned that the focus of the project appears too have changed to development of bio-engineered instream structures; there is no evidence that the project is improving conditions for fish. A detailed response was provided; however, ISRP reviewers remain committed to the notion that bioengineering projects should be limited to "fine-tuning" once watershed function has been restored. Bio-engineered projects are methods to control a channel; they generally do not produce the geomorphic stability required for a productive watershed.

Sponsors did provide some information to show impact of projects on physical structure of the channel, but none to show the biological benefits. The data (Tables 1 and 2) that were presented are difficult to interpret. Many more pools were reported in 2000 than in 1998, but the stream got wider and shallower. Stream discharge was greater in 2000 than in 1998. It is not clear that these differences are associated with project activities. Data in Table 12 are offered as evidence of benefits for fish, but these data need to be compared to similar data from both control and treatment sites before the alterations were made if it is to have any meaning.

Objective 1 of the proposal is to "Improve adult pre-spawning survival" and Objective 2 is to "Improve juvenile survival." There doesn't seem to be any monitoring of survival to assess progress in meeting these objectives. The original intent of the project was to improve geomorphic stability, but there doesn't seem to be any monitoring of characteristics for a geomorphically stable watershed.

This project needs to return to its original purpose. That is"... increasing pool and spawning habitat quality & quantity through geomorphic stabilization, riparian bio-function restoration, increasing complexity, maintaining adequate flow, and reducing water temperature and sediment" The project needs to enlist the services of an experienced fluvial-geomorphologist to assist in design and evaluation of projects to facilitate geomorphic stability, and to assess the probability that sufficient change is possible to attain desired conditions, and to help identify an appropriate monitoring strategy. They also need assistance of an experienced analyst to guide assessment strategies and to help identify meaningful controls. These inputs should be in place before new actions are taken.


Recommendation:
Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Although program was initiated based on a premise that fish habitat in the Tucannon River would be improved by "…increasing pool and spawning habitat quality & quantity through geomorphic stabilization, riparian bio-function restoration, increasing complexity, maintaining adequate flow, and reducing water temperature and sediment", the actual focus of the project seems to be development of bio-engineered instream structures; there is no evidence that the project is improving conditions for fish.

Comments
Bioengineering projects should be limited to "fine-tuning" once watershed function has been restored. Bio-engineered projects are methods to control a channel; they generally do not produce the geomorphic stability required for a productive watershed. Sponsors did not provide any information to show biological benefits of projects.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? no


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment:

"Not Fundable" recommendation for ongoing Tucannon model watershed coordination; Project 199401806

This is a collaborative program that coordinates activities to restore salmonid habitat on private and public lands. The proposed budget requests $352,625 in FY 2002 and $1,133,953 over three years.

The CBFWA and ISRP (p. 112) had similar concerns with the project regarding the current orientation of the project and that the project seems to have refocused on placing instream structures and neglected a watershed approach to their restoration efforts. In additions concerns were raised that there is a lack of evidence that the project has improved conditions in the watershed. BPA recommends funding to maintain the base coordination and planning function for this project.

The coordination that this project provides to the restoration efforts in the watershed is important. This is especially true in regards to the projects association with the Tucannon River Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program (Project # 200001900). On April 5, 2000, the Council approved the step review of the Tucannon River Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program. This recommendation was conditioned on the understanding that WDFW would work on linking the artificial production initiative to the habitat restoration activities in the basin and that future annual reports will place greater detail in their treatment and analysis of data collected. This linkage being the two projects is vital to ensure that habitat efforts are the most beneficial to the captive broodstock program.

Staff recommendation: The staff concludes that the ISRP's comments highlight concerns about the continuing watershed restoration. The staff recommends continued funding of the base program and approaches with meaningful controls for stability, Section 4, 5 (objectives 1b and c, and 2) 6 and 7 pending subbasin planning. These tasks may involve the creation of pool forming structures as identified in the screening assessment as required by NMFS, USFWS and WDFW. The staff recommends that the budget not include funding for Section 5 (objective 1a), installation of instream bio-engineered habitat structures. Bonneville funding for this effort needs to be justified in the Council's subbasin planning process. Budgets for FY 2003 and 2004 need to be refined to reflect the recommended approach in the development of the FY 2002 Budget and SOW.

In addition, the staff concludes that the ISRP criticisms should warrant revisiting the objectives of this project that provides a watershed coordination function (Section 4, objective 1, 2) in the Tucannon watershed. This is an integral role for the coming process of subbasin planning, so the staff recommends maintaining a coordination function while the subbasin planning process is implemented, and provides for linkages to the artificial production initiative in the subbasin.

Budget effect on base program (Project 199401806):

FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004
Increase $252,625 Increase $304,249 Increase $318,417

[Note: Out year budgets were adjusted proportionally for objective 5 (1a) based on the averaged annual increase as presented in the FY 2002 proposal, to establish fiscal year 2003 and 2004 costs.]


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 6, 2002

Comment:


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Contracting difficulties since 2002, working on month to month extension since. Projects on line and will spend on level of budget modification from January. On line for cap of 304K. Everything submitted for 04 contract as off last week.
Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

FY 2004 proposed amount is consistent with original grant proposal and ISRP recommendation. Sufficient to continue approved project type until subbasin plan is adopted. Projected COLA for FY 2005 will be absorbed to maintain FY 2004 level. All project type will remain consistent with original grant until subbasin plan is adopted and revised proposal submitted.
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:
$318,417 $318,417 $318,417

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website