FY07-09 proposal 199604601

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleWalla Walla River Basin Fish Habitat Enhancement
Proposal ID199604601
OrganizationConfederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
Short descriptionThe proposed project is a continued effort by the CTUIR to protect and restore habitat critical to the recovery of salmonid fish populations in the Walla Walla River Basin.
Information transferProject methods, results and discussion are shared through annual and quarterly reports of progress provided to the Bonneville Power Administration. Annual reports for the years of 1997 (project start date) through 2004 may be obtained online at BPA's Publication Search link at: http://www.efw.bpa.gov/searchpublications. Project information is also shared through coordination meetings with the Snake River Recovery Board, Walla Walla Watershed Alliance, Mill Creek Group, Priority Project Process, Walla Walla Watershed Council and the CTUIR Web Page.
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Form submitter
Jed Volkman Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation jedvolkman@ctuir.com
All assigned contacts
Julie Burke Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reserva julieburke@ctuir.com
Gary James Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation garyjames@ctuir.com
Michelle Thompson Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation michellethompson@ctuir.com
Jed Volkman Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation jedvolkman@ctuir.com

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Walla Walla

046° 07' 38.23" N 117° 58' 10.92" W South Fork of the Touchet River While traveling northeast on Hwy 12 through Dayton Washington, turn right (southwest) on North Fork Touchet Road. Travel two miles, turn right (south) on South Fork Touchet Road. Continue south for eight miles to north bounday of project area.
045 51' 16.42" 118 13' 3.92" South Fork of the Walla Walla River While traveling North on Hwy 11, turn right on the Walla Walla River Road. Continue east approximately 10 miles on the Walla Walla River Road to the South Fork of the Walla Walla River Road to Flume Canyon. The proposed work area is just beyond this point on the right side of the road.

Section 3. Focal species

primary: Chinook Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
primary: Steelhead Middle Columbia River ESU
secondary: Bull Trout

Section 4. Past accomplishments

2005 Cons. Easement Couse Ck. Design Gose St. Passage Structures. NPCC 06 request. Project permits/clearances. Planted 860 trees/shrubs in coord with CREP. Walla2 R. 1000 foot Levee Removal. Walla2 R. Plant and fence maint. Effectiveness monitoring/ analysis
2004 Cons. Easement on Walla2 R. Design for Gose Street Passage Barrier. Approx 300k in cost share. Removed barrier on Couse Ck. Planted 1200 grass plugs Walla2. Planted 2500 plants Mainstem WW. Maintained- mowing, fence repair, plants in all project areas.
2003 Cons. easement on mainstem Walla2. Coordination w/ landowner/USDA. 220k in cost-share. Acquired 46 acres on Walla2R. BA for Blue Creek. Half mile fence Walla2. Riparian restoration on two mainstem Walla Walla Project Areas. Effectiveness monitoring/eval.
2002 Instream design Blue Ck. Developed permit requirements. Seeded 32 acres grass Couse Ck. Placed 3000' weed barrier tarp mainstem Walla2 R. Seeded 10 acres grass mainstem Walla2 R. Plant and fence maintenance all pjct areas.
2001 Cons. easment Walla2 R. Design for instream wk Patit Ck. 80k in cost share secured. Barrier removal Whiskey Ck. 800 willow, 250 rose/choke cherry Couse Ck. Fence and planting maintenance. Completed effectiveness monitoring/analysis for all project sites.
2000 Cons. easement Walla Walla R. Developed instream work design on Couse Creek. Secured permits. Completed LWD placement & 5000 cuttings on Couse in October. Const. 4 miles fence on Patit, two miles fence on Couse Creek. Controlled weeds. Fence/plant maint.
1999 Developed design for Blue Ck. instream. Cons. easements Couse Ck and Patit. Secured permits. Placed LWD in Sept. Seeded 18 acres of grass-mainstem Walla2. Completed planting on Couse Ck. Completed effectiveness monitoring/analysis for Blue Ck.
1998 Cons easements on Couse Creek and Walla Walla River mainstem. Landowner communication/negotiation. Design for Couse Creek Planting. Planted 1200 plants on Blue Ck. Effectiveness monitoring on Blue Creek. Plant maintenance on Blue Creek and Couse Creek.
1997 Two cons. easements on Blue Creek. Instream design for Blue Creek and Couse Creek. Secure permits materials. Const. four log weirs, 7 rock weirs on Blue Creek/Couse Creek. Placed 4000 willow cuttings Blue/Couse Cks. Plant maintenance Blue Creek.
1996 Funding for the first year of the project was not obtained until late in the FY. Work in 1996 focused on securing project equipment, identifying potential project areas,and meeting with various landowners and agency personnel in the Basin.

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Funding sourceRelated IDRelated titleRelationship
PCSRF - CRITFC [no entry] CTUIR Walla Walla Basin Fish Habitat PCSRF-CRITFC grant to be administered through the Walla Walla Basin Fish Habitat Project. These funds are used as match/cost-share on BPA dollars to meet habitat objectives.
BPA 199608300 Grand Ronde Watershed Restoration CTUIR Department of Natural Resources inter-project coordination.
BPA 198710001 Umatilla Anad Fish Hab - CTUIR CTUIR Department of Natural Resources inter-project coordination
BPA 200003100 Enhance North Fork John Day Ri CTUIR Department of Natural Resources inter-project coordination
BPA 200003900 Walla Walla River Basin Monito CTUIR Department of Natural Resources inter-project coordination

Section 6. Biological objectives

Biological objectivesFull descriptionAssociated subbasin planStrategy
Increase rearing/spawning habitat for salmonids Control noxious weed populations/restore perennial vegetation Walla Walla Strategies include herbicides and mechanical methods to remove noxious weeds. Reintroduce native tree, shrub, and grass species. Plant maintenance such as watering. Use of weed barrier mats.
Increase rearing/spawning habitat for salmonids Instream flow management Walla Walla Strategies include: Development of off-channel watering sites, protection and regeneration of riparian areas. Levee removal and encouragement of floodplain function and thus bank storage of water. Livestock exclusion, spring developments.
Increase rearing/spawning habitat for salmonids Improve instream habitat-placement of LWD and boulders directly increases habitat complexity and can improve habitat quality Walla Walla Strategies include: Placement of whole trees within active channel where appropriate. Construction of rootwad revetments, log weirs, rock weirs, barbs, etc. Reestablishment of riparian areas and thus source of future LWD. Long-term conservation easements
Increase rearing/spawning habitat for salmonids Improve riparian habitat-these areas directly impact stream temperatures, LWD recruitment, channel complexity, pool formation, etc. Walla Walla Strategies include: grazing management, livestock exclusion fencing, riparian planting, long-term conservation easements, beaver management, off channel watering, noxious weed control, etc.
Increase rearing/spawning habitat for salmonids Modify channel and floodplain function-improve form and fuctioin of stream channels and fllodplains. Walla Walla Strategies include: Levee removal, bank sloping, improve width to depth ratios, sinuosity, channel complexity, addition of LWD, riparian and flooplain planting, long-term conservation easements.
Increase rearing/spawning habitat for salmonids Construct pool and riffle habitat using instream modifications. Straightening of streams throughout the basin has reduced the amount of available pool habitat and quality gravel spawning areas. None Strategies include: Addition of LWD, boulders, grade control structures, revegetation and protection of riparian areas, livestock exclusion, reduce confinement and entrenchment, restore pool/riffle sequencing.
Increase rearing/spawning habitat for salmonids Improve water quality None Strategies include: Development of off-channel watering sites, protection and regeneration of riparian areas and wetlands. Upland planting and thus reduction of farm runoff, conservation easements, road obliteration, improve drainage /culverts.
Increase rearing/spawning habitat for salmonids Increase protective status of priority habitats. These areas may provide final refuge for many fish and wildlife species and often contain high water quality source. None Long-term conservation easements, acquisition, enforcement.
Increase rearing/spawning habitat for salmonids Collect data and monitor trends None Strategies include: Monitor habitat enhancement projects to evaluate accomplishments. Metrics include channel morph, vegetation, photo points, pool frequency, shade, channel form, etc.

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Work element nameWork element titleDescriptionStart dateEnd dateEst budget
Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation for South Fork Touchet River, Rainwater, South Fork Walla Walla Instream Develop and secure all state, local, and Federal permits necessary to complete this WE. This WE will also include correspondence with the BPA Compliance Group and the CTUIR Cultural Resources Dept. 2/1/2007 6/30/2008 $202,627
Biological objectives
Increase Instream Habitat Complexity Increase habitat complexity work for South Fork Touchet River, Rainwater, South Fork Walla Walla, Instream Oversight of whole tree placement and road obliteration work activities on the South Fork of the Touchet River. 8/1/2007 9/30/2009 $101,314
Biological objectives
Plant Vegetation Plant Vegetation Plant on mainstem Walla Walla, South Fork Touchet River, Pait Ck., Blue Ck., Couse Creek 3/1/2007 9/30/2009 $20,263
Biological objectives
Maintain Vegetation Maintain vegetation Control of noxious and competitive weeds within project areas as needed. 3/1/2007 9/30/2009 $101,314
Biological objectives
Other Obtain Conservation Easements Obtain easements with landowners in priority GA’s as they become available 2/1/2007 1/31/2009 $20,263
Biological objectives
Other Produce Annual Report Complete Annual Report of Progress 2/1/2007 3/31/2009 $50,648
Biological objectives
Coordination Seek Cost-Share Funding Develop and submit grants/proposals to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board in the State of Washington and the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Board through the Columbia River Inter Tribal Fish Commission. Various other State and Federal sources may also be pursued as part of this effort during any month of the year. Cost share funds that are secured by this project are used exclusively for project implementation which allows administrative and personnel dollars provided by the BPA to go further. 2/1/2007 1/31/2009 $101,314
Biological objectives
Identify and Select Projects Identify and Select Projects Identify, prioritize, and select potential project sites through watershed assessment, subbasin plan, public outreach, landowner contact, interagency communication, and personal observation.Conduct brief on-site visits to project areas; identify habitat factors most limiting salmonid production. Review list of project with staff, discuss any concerns, prioritize, develop final list of projects to be implemented 2/1/2007 3/31/2009 $20,263
Biological objectives
Manage and Administer Projects Manage and administer project work on South Fork Walla Walla, Kentch Oversight of weed control application by contractors at South Fork of the Walla Walla River-Kentch. 3/1/2007 9/30/2009 $70,920
Biological objectives
Produce Design and/or Specifications Produce Design and/or specifications for South Fork Touchet Rainwater, South Fork Walla Walla Kentch and Instream Develop project design for the placement of whole trees and road obliteration for project area on the South Fork of the Touchet River. Instream structures on South Fork Walla Walla River, and riparian restoration, Kentch. This work is planned to begin in July of 2006. 2/1/2007 7/30/2008 $101,314
Biological objectives
Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report Produce/Submit scientific findings report Document and assist as necessary the BPA Environmental Compliance Group for planned projects. This includes various permit applications, ESA clearances, NEPA clearances, maps, surveys, etc. 2/1/2007 1/31/2009 $81,051
Biological objectives
Analyze/Interpret Data Analyze/Interpret Data Analyze long-term monitoring data, compare results to previous years, other CTUIR habitat projects and physical and biological specifications provided in literature. The analysis of this information provides the project with the data needed to make out-year management decisions, adaptive management. 9/1/2007 9/30/2009 $70,920
Biological objectives
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data This WE involves the collection, generation, and entering of effectiveness monitoring data at project areas in the Walla Walla Basin. 7/1/2007 8/1/2009 $70,920
Biological objectives

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget
Personnel [blank] $139,636 $146,618 $153,949
Fringe Benefits [blank] $48,224 $50,635 $53,167
Supplies [blank] $11,888 $12,483 $13,107
Travel [blank] $14,649 $15,382 $16,151
Capital Equipment [blank] $0 $0 $0
Overhead [blank] $84,602 $88,832 $93,274
Other [blank] $22,374 $23,493 $24,667
Totals $321,373 $337,443 $354,315
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: $1,013,131
Total work element budget: $1,013,131
Cost sharing
Funding source/orgItem or service providedFY 07 est value ($)FY 08 est value ($)FY 09 est value ($)Cash or in-kind?Status
CTUIR Summer Youth $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 In-Kind Confirmed
Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Program Implementation Funding $25,000 $0 $0 Cash Confirmed
Snake River Recovery [provision left blank] $25,000 $0 $0 Cash Under Development
Totals $60,000 $10,000 $10,000

Section 9. Project future

FY 2010 estimated budget: $372,032
FY 2011 estimated budget: $372,032
Comments: [Outyear comment field left blank]

Future O&M costs:

Termination date: Ongoing
Comments: Project is an ongoing habitat based effort to address factors limiting anadromous fish recovery. The Walla Walla Subbasin Plan identifies significant need in the subbasin for habitat protection and enhancement/restoration activities needed to recover focal species.

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

199604601ISRPResponse Jul 2006

Reviews and recommendations

FY07 budget FY08 budget FY09 budget Total budget Type Category Recommendation
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs]
$337,710 $337,710 $337,710 $1,013,130 Expense ProvinceExpense Fund
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0 $0 $0 $0 ProvinceExpense
Comments: WA recommends $0, OSPIT recommends $105k. This project will be reconsidered if 199601100 is capitalized. ISRP fundable qualified: programmatic habitat M&E issues, see M&E decision memo comment. Sponsor should address ISRP comment next time they report to Bonneville (copy to Council)


Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This is a potentially important project that relates closely to the Walla Walla subbasin plan. The proposal, however, is not well-organized or well-written. The sponsors did not provide a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of the project to date in terms of how well the overall project has met it objectives. The project has been funded for 10 years and abundant data on effectiveness should be available. However, few significant results were presented, especially those related to fish. Available data should have been analyzed and presented in a concise, convincing way in this proposal. As it stands, there is very little evidence upon which to evaluate project effectiveness. Moreover, the sponsors did not adequately describe the monitoring program other than to discuss the kinds of data that were being collected. There is no clarity to the objectives of the proposal. Objectives for ongoing and new work are entangled, and there is a strong tendency to confuse actions with objectives. Adequacy of methods is difficult to assess because project objectives are not adequately presented. There is an over-reliance on tables to convey information. The sponsors should have followed the guide for proposal writing more closely. Technical and scientific background: The background is well written and explains the logic for the project continuing. The proposal seeks to restore priority reaches in the Walla Walla and Touchet Rivers with high estimated restoration potential for spring Chinook and summer steelhead. The need is based on restoration priorities developed in the Walla Walla Subbasin plan. The sponsors need to address a few issues related to the high priority designation of the reaches and their restoration potential. Considering the large number of factors limiting production in these two reaches, implying that recovering habitat would be very difficult, why were they designated as high priority for restoration? Are there areas of higher priority that have not received attention? It would be helpful if the sponsors provided their rationale for selecting restoration sites. Are they simply going down a list by order, or is their some other rationale? Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: One of the strongest elements of the proposal is its direct linkage to the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan. The proposed work addresses two of the reaches identified as high priority in the Plan and uses the limiting factors analysis provided by EDT to determine appropriate restoration activities. The proposed work also is consistent with the Fish and Wildlife Program, the 2000 Biological Opinion, and several other state plans. The proposal lists a number of actions that will be taken to address limiting factors. How much of this work will be on private land? For work on private land, the sponsors need to indicate whether they have received landowners’ permission to carry out the actions, what actions can take place without permission, and what the fall back position will be if permission is not granted. Relationships to other projects: The project includes collaborative work with several other projects and groups. The sponsors would closely collaborate with Fish and Wildlife Program-funded fish habitat programs managed by CTUIR in other basins. They also would work with a Priority Projects Group composed of tribal, state, and private entities. Project history: A central shortcoming of the proposal is a lack of clarity about what the actual project monitoring program is and how it relates to larger M&E efforts. The sponsors should clearly and concisely describe the monitoring program without solely referring to other documents and efforts. If the project M&E is part of the cooperative CTUIR Walla Walla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation, WDFW, ODFW effort, then describe in sufficient detail what that monitoring program consists of. How will implementation and effectiveness monitoring be done? In the proposal, for example, the sponsors state that implementation monitoring will be conducted is with a BACI design. This statement provides little insight into the actual design of the program. The sponsors apparently have been collecting monitoring data on habitat and fish since the inception of the project and they claim that the data show “measurable” benefits to fish habitat. The sponsors need to back up their statement by presenting a comprehensive synthesis (not just summary tables of data) of quantitative results and conclusions about project effectiveness to date. We recognize that, for some projects, measurable benefits from particular actions will be seen only after long time periods. This does not mean that the products of these actions should not be monitored. A careful and thorough analysis of project effectiveness is necessary to evaluate the progress of the project to date. Objectives: The objectives section is a mix of what apparently are objectives related to continuation of established projects and actions related to new projects. The objectives are neither well defined nor measurable and consist largely of actions that are more appropriate for Methods. Objectives are scattered throughout the proposal (e.g., in the Objectives and Methods Section, and in Table 13) and need to be consolidated and focused. Tasks (work elements) and methods: Methods are provided, but it is difficult to know how appropriate they are because quantifiable objectives are not given. The purpose of the section entitled “Project Objectives and Methods/Work Elements” is unclear, it is not well integrated with the rest of the proposal, and it has the appearance of an add-on. Monitoring and evaluation: The proposal side-steps the issue of monitoring both in terms of clearly describing the general monitoring program (not just the data that will be collected) and specifically indicating how each project will be monitored. Facilities, equipment, and personnel seem adequate. Information transfer is primarily by reports. Conveyance of results to stakeholders would seem to be particularly appropriate for this project but it is not mentioned. Benefits to focal and non-focal species: Benefits are anticipated for all co-occurring focal species by removing or reducing limiting factors. Although benefits are likely, they are difficult to assess because of the lack of clear project objectives and a description of the monitoring protocol. Non-focal species were not addressed. If habitat rehabilitation is successful, non-focal species could benefit.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: The sponsors provided a reasonable response to some of the ISRP’s comments but not to others. The sponsors adequately addressed ISRP comments related to objectives, reach prioritization, landowner permission to conduct projects, and information transfer. The sponsors provided little more information on project effectiveness than they did in the original proposal, basically citing monitoring results from a single project (which was insightful and indicated progress toward success) rather than providing a comprehensive quantitative synthesis across all projects. Because of the lack of presentation of comprehensive, quantitative results it is difficult to assess the success of this project. The ISRP remains concerned about the lack of fish monitoring. The sponsors apparently do not feel that measuring parameters related to fish production at the project level is necessary. Their rationale is that changes in salmonid abundance for an individual project could result from any number of factors not related to habitat restoration activities and argue that effectiveness is best determined at the subbasin or tributary scale. This view is somewhat perplexing because the sponsors mentioned in the section in the original proposal entitled “Parameters currently being monitored and analyzed over time” that monitoring fish populations was a standard part of their project assessments. One way of assessing impacts of extraneous factors at the site level is to employ unrestored reference reaches to serve as a comparison with restored reaches. The sponsors mentioned the use of reference reaches several times in the proposal, but they did not describe the reference reaches or even clearly indicate if they would actually make use of them. It would be relatively simple to add some monitoring of fish response, and to take a more active part in the development of habitat effectiveness evaluation in the basin. The sponsors could develop a cost-effective program with help from a statistical team in creating a design. Qualification: More effort should be placed on monitoring fish response to habitat changes. Monitoring all projects may not be necessary, but the sponsors do need some plan at an appropriate watershed/subbasin scale to determine the effectiveness of the projects. To assess effectiveness, the sponsors should try to identify reference reaches to compare with restored reaches.