BPA Fish and Wildlife FY 1997 Proposal

Section 1. Administrative
Section 2. Narrative
Section 3. Budget

see CBFWA and BPA funding recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Title of project
Washington Model Watershed Habitat Projects

BPA project number   9401800

Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding
Conservation Districts

Sponsor type   WA-Model Watershed

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

 NameAngela Fields , Art Sunderland, Duane Bartles
 Mailing address725 6th Street, Clarkston, WA 99403
202 South 2nd Street, Dayton WA 99328
Box 468 Pomeroy WA 99347

BPA technical contact   Mark Shaw, EWP 503/230-5239

Biological opinion ID   None

NWPPC Program number   7.7B.3

Short description
Implement projects developed under model watershed plans in Asotin Creek, Pataha Creek and Tucannon River.

Project start year   1994    End year   2005

Start of operation and/or maintenance   1999

Project development phase   Implementation

Section 2. Narrative

Related projects
9202602 Washington Model Watershed Plans: Implementation funding of Model Watershed Plans

Project history
To implement habitat restoration and protection projects as developed in the Asotin and Tucannon Model Watershed Plan.

Biological results achieved
Data that is currently being collected can only be compared to data that was taken before the plans were developed. We believe that by the year 2000 we should be able to record data from monitoring and use that data to determine biological results achieved. Our overall goal is to improve fisheries. In years to come, after project implementation is complete, we will be able to assess the effectiveness of the project implementation.

Annual reports and technical papers
Project statement of work and implementation reports. Final draft of the Asotin Creek Model Watershed Plan has been submitted. Draft Tucannon River and Pataha Creek Watershed Plans are expected in the fall of 1996. Quarterly reports will be sent to concerned parties documenting project activity.

Management implications
The watersheds have previously received grant funding to accomplish established goals and have administered all projects within budget and in a timely manner. Past administration shows project management capability. Communication and relationships area in great working order between district personnel, cooperating agencies, and landowner cooperators ensuring successful administration.

Specific measureable objectives
Our goals and objectives include decreasing water temperatures, reducing sedimentation delivered to the stream, lowering fecal coliform levels, increasing spawning availability, and increasing available fish habitat.

Testable hypothesis
Our primary goal is to increase fisheries. We have many practices to install to reach this goal. Initial success will be measured on the number of practices installed.

Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
Assuming that we do not have any catastrophic events such as floods, major runoff from unusual precipitation, or droughts we anticipate successful implementation of all projects. We have no control over mother nature, but this would be the only constraint.

We will be experimenting with many different types of biological engineering designs. We plan to use root wads, large woody debris placement, point barbs, off-site watering devices, planting trees for stabilization of eroding banks, and off-channel rearing ponds. Monitoring and evaluation will be compared to data collected in recent surveys. At the present time, current laws prohibit the reintroduction of fish into any of these streams.

Brief schedule of activities
Begin implementation of Asotin Creek Model Watershed Plan. Major limiting factors and solutions include 1) Lack of quality resting and rearing pools-158 in-stream structures; 2) High water temperatures-1/2 mile meander reconstruction, 36,000 feet vegetative planting, 23,760 feet riparian fencing; 3) Excessive sediment-26,400 feet fencing, 4 wells, 26,400 feet trails, 16,000 acres weed control, 6 spring developments, 6 ponds, 150,000 feet terrace, 50 sediment basins, 5 acres of filter strips, 5 acres grass waterways, 5 acres forest land planting; and 4) Elevated fecal coliform levels-21,000 feet fencing, 5 acres filter strips, 4 spring development, and 2 wells.
Implement projects on Pataha Creek for fish passage, equipment creek crossing, streambanks stabilization, channel restructuring, riparian management, sediment basins, off-channel watering devices.
Implement projects on the Tucannon River to reduce sedimentation, increase resting and rearing pools, decrease stream temperature, improve fish habitat, and decrease coliform levels.

Biological need
These watersheds have been significantly impacted by human activities and catastrophic natural events, such as floods and droughts. Only remnant salmon and trout populations use these waters as compared to earlier years. To increase salmonid productivity it will require protection and restoration of fish habitat and riparian corridor. The barriers include high stream temperatures, lack of quality resting and rearing pools, sediment deposition in spawning gravels, and high fecal coliform levels.

Critical uncertainties
Sources of funding are uncertain at this time. If project implementation is started and then funding is ceased this could cause problems. The timeliness of obtaining permits is also a concern. Improvements need to be made in the permitting process to ensure that projects are designed to specifications, projects are implemented to specifications, and that projects and completed within the window time-frame that we must follow. Landowner buy-in is also critical to the success of these projects. The landowner must be willing to cooperate and agree to maintenance standards while still feeling that he is benefiting from the proposed practice. These are all factors that will take continued determination and commitment. We will work to the best of our ability to ensure that project implementation is a success.

Summary of expected outcome
Complete and implement an integrated plan for the watersheds which will meet landowner objectives and agency acceptance, in order to protect and enhance all resource bases with concern for long-term sustainability through coordinated resource planning

Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation
Each district began their planning by involving the community. They formed a landowner based committee, known as the Landowner Steering Committee (LSC), to represent the views and needs of the community. They also established a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to assist the LSC with meeting their goals. The TAC consists of personnel from the following agencies: USDA NRCS, USFS, WDFW, WDOE, WDNR, WSU CES, BPA, and Clearwater Power Company.

Lack of funding is the only known risk at this time. This could pose a risk if project implementation is begun and then funding ceases in the middle of construction.

Monitoring activity
Success will be based upon increased availability of fisheries habitat and improved water quality throughout the watersheds. Periodic sampling will be conducted in the form of stream temperatures monitored by Hobo meters, grab samples for fecal coliform levels, and sediment samples. Improvement in fisheries habitat will be based on the number, depth, and frequency of pools or structures installed. Monitoring results will be evaluated and reported quarterly, as appropriate for the sampling method.

Section 3. Budget

Data shown are the total of expense and capital obligations by fiscal year. Obligations for any given year may not equal actual expenditures or accruals within the year, due to carryover, pre-funding, capitalization and difference between operating year and BPA fiscal year.

Historic costsFY 1996 budget data*Current and future funding needs
(none) New project - no FY96 data available 1997: 600,000
1998: 650,000
1999: 700,000
2000: 700,000
2001: 750,000

* For most projects, Authorized is the amount recommended by CBFWA and the Council. Planned is amount currently allocated. Contracted is the amount obligated to date of printout.

Funding recommendations

CBFWA funding review group   Snake River

Recommendation    Tier 1 - fund

Recommended funding level   $600,000

BPA 1997 authorized budget (approved start-of-year budget)   $579,000