FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25094

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
25094 Narrative	Narrative
25094 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Restore Touchet River Watershed Habitat to Support ESA listed Stocks
Proposal ID	25094
Organization	Columbia Conservation District (CCD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Terry Bruegman
Mailing address	202 S 2nd St Dayton, WA 99328-1327
Phone / email	5093824773 / terry-bruegman@wa.nacdnet.org
Manager authorizing this project	Terry Bruegman
Review cycle	Columbia Plateau
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / Walla Walla
Short description	Implement, assess, and monitor habitat cost-share projects coordinated through the Touchet River Watershed Program, a "grass roots" public and agency collaborated effort to restore salmonid habitat on private and public property.
Target species	Species affected by projects in this process are ESA listed stocks of Steelhead (Mid Columbia Stealhead ESU), and Bull Trout.

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
		HU 17070102065 (Touchet River Main Stem, North Fork, South Fork, Wolf Fork , Patit Creek, and tributaries).
46.0337	-118.6823	Touchet River
46.3015	-117.9588	North Fork Touchet River
46.3025	-117.9588	South Fork Touchet River
46.2742	-117.8953	Wolf Fork
46.3198	-117.9841	Patit Creek

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
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

Year	Accomplishment
1998	Contracted with WSU Center for Environmental Education (CEEd) to compile the Touchet River Characterization.
1998	Initiated a 2 year water quality study utilizing 9 sites through WSU CEEd.
1998	Initated a reach-by-reach on the ground habitat inventory assessment with sinuosity analysis.
1998	Installed 5 early action instream projects utilizing fish habitat enhancement stratigies to correct early identifed limiting factors.
1998	Cost-shared upland BMP's to reduce sediment delivery to the river. BMP included direct seeding, water and sediment control structures, riparian sediment basin.
1998	Riparian planting of instream project sites.
1999	Continued water quality study.
1999	Continued reach-by-reach on the ground habitat inventory assessment with sinuosity analysis.
1999	Installed 4 instream projects utilizing fish habitat enhancement strategies in know spawning and rearing reaches.
1999	Continued cost-share of upland BMP's to reduce sediment delivery.
1999	Continued riparian revegetation efforts at instream project sites and additional identified sites.
2000	Continued water quality study.
2000	Initiated an IFIM flow study guided by WDOE and WDFW and conducted by WSU CEEd.
2000	Planned 7 instream habitat enhancing projects with riparian revegetation. Completed only 3 due to extreme fire danger.
2000	Funded Water Inventory Resource Area 32, (WIRA 32) Limiting Factor Report via the Washington Conservation Commission (WCC). This is the Walla Walla Basin.
2000	7 CREP contract encompassing 180.7 acres of forest riparian buffers.
2001	WSU CEEd to write water quality study report.
2001	WSU CEEd to write IFIM report.
2001	Provided funding for Bull Trout Telemetry Study conducted by WDFW.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
	Lower Snake River Compenstation Plan	Supplementation Assessment
199802000	Assess Fish Habitat & Salmonid in Walla Walla Watershed in Washington State	Touchet is a tributary to the Walla Walla
	Walla Walla Subbasin Summary

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Coordinate Implementation of Touchet River Watershed protection, enhancement and restoration activities.	a. Represent Columbia County, Washington and the Upper Touchet River Watershed interest at Walla Walla Subbasin, and regional managing groups and associations.	5	$3,800
	b. Secure supplemental funding for watershed assessment, management plan development, and habitat enhancement activities.	5	$5,000
	c. Facilitate cooperation & agreement between resource agencies and landowners	5	$1,887
	d. Coordinate watershed/salmonid life-cycle information/education activates.	5	$2,000
2. Coordinate habitat project site selection.	a. Facilitate Inter-Disciplinary Team potential project site evaluations.	5	$1,800
	b. Identify withdrawal efficiency needs.	1	$1,800
	c. Coordinate program efforts with CREP and Continuous CRP programs.	5	$2,000
	d. Coordinate with NRCS for potential project engineering and design.	5	$4,800
	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

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Coordinate Implementation of Touchet River Watershed Activities, tasks, a, b, b, & d..	2003	2006	$54,672
2. Coordinate habitat project site selection, tasks, a, c, d, e, f, & g.	2003	2006	$60,760

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$27,591	$28,419	$29,272	$30,150

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Improve pool and spawning habitat quality & quantity to improve adult pre-spawning and juvenile survival.	a. Install instream bio-engineered habitat structures for increased fish utilization by increasing geomorphic stability and pools complexity & reducing water temperature and cobble embeddiness.	5	$80,000
	b. Recover riparian buffer area to restore riparian bio-function to reduce sedimentation and water temperature while increasing LWD recruitment.	5	$50,000
	c. Install agriculture conservation Best Management Practices to reduce sediment impacts on salmonid life-cycle & habitats.	5	$20,000
2. Flow Enhancement	a. Upgrade withdrawal screening systemes	5	$40,000
	b. Water leases.	5	$25,000
	c. Enclose open diversions	5	$50,000

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Improve pool and spawning habitat quality & quantity to improve adult pre-spawning and juvenile survival, tasks a, b, & c.	2003	2006	$678,845
2. Flow Enhancement, tasks a, b, & c.	2003	2006	$520,448

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$278,250	$292,163	$306,771	$322,109

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Improve pool and spawning habitat quality & quantity to improve adult pre-spawning and juvenile survival.	a. Adjust existing structures to accommodate natural fluvial function.	5	$12,625

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Improve pool and spawning habitat quality & quantity to improve adult pre-spawning and juvenile survival, task a.	2003	2006	$43,101
2. Flow enhancement, water leases.	2003	2006	$107,754

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$35,000	$36,750	$38,588	$40,517

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
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 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 from ISCO samplings sites	5	$6,000
	f. Photo documentation of project work	5	$500
	g. Conduct tree and shrub survival study	5	$4,500

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Validate effectiveness of projects to meet habitat objectives & affect biological outcomes, tasks, a, b, c, d, e, f, & g.	2003	2006	$170,212

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$40,685	$41,906	$43,163	$44,458

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 1	$37,735
Fringe	payroll and benefits	$8,376
Supplies	office, information & education	$11,000
Travel	mileage, per diem	$13,000
NEPA	& Biological Assessment	$2,500
Subcontractor	M&E	$39,000
Other	cost share	$232,301
		$343,912

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$343,912
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$343,912
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
USDA NRCS	technical, engineering, evaluation	$50,000	in-kind
State Salmon Reovery Funding Board (proposed)	instream, riparian, upland	$100,000	cash
WDFW (proposed)	technical, engineering, materials, evaluation	$15,000	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.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-6)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Jun 15, 2001

Comment:

Fundable if an adequate response is given to the ISRP's concerns. The introductory materials of this proposal were convincing, producing an expectation that a creative proposal in watershed restoration would follow, but the actual proposal is a confusing list of tasks, intentions, and objectives (both large and small) with very little explanation of how temperature, sedimentation, flow, and other important processes are expected to change across the watershed.

The proposal included no fish data and no list of priorities to the treatments (at the watershed scale or at the sub-basin scale). Most of the fish production comes from the upper watershed, which seemed relatively intact. What is limiting, juvenile rearing habitat, spawning habitat, or adult holding areas in the migration corridor? What is the basis for that conclusion?

The sponsors state on page 12 of the proposal that they will"... move toward total watershed restoration ..." The proposal should include definition of "total watershed restoration" and describe the basis from which total restoration was concluded to be possible. A watershed restoration program should first look for opportunities to protect existing intact habitat and the migratory linkages between these habitats. Second, it should restore hydrologic, geologic and riparian processes. Bioengineering enhancements should be used to make adjustments once these processes have been restored.

There is heavy dependence in the proposal on use of bio-engineered, in-stream structures when proposals for the Umatilla and Tucannon rivers seem to be discounting the importance of these tools for watershed restoration efforts. Statements in the proposal include: "Watershed-wide program interest began in the Touchet River basin following the success of the "Model Watershed" process in the Tucannon River basin," (page 8) and, on page 13,"Monitoring and evaluation is directed by the Touchet River Watershed Program and follows efforts used in the Tucannon River Model Watershed." The proposal should include description of demonstrated successes for fishery/habitat benefits found in the Tucannon program that they would like to mimic in the Touchet River.

Objective 1 (page 9) is to improve adult holding and spawning. An item under Task A is to "Create large, high quality pools for adult holding areas." If construction of these pools disrupts natural channel-forming processes isn't the expectation that they will initiate a series of what may be undesirable changes in the channel up and downstream of the site?

Project sponsors should explain how they will know when their watershed objectives have been met. They should describe how they will show in progress reports that they are on track to meeting these objectives. The response should further describe the project's selection of monitoring approach (tier), for establishing the project's biologically measurable results, and the justification of this selection (see ISRP's general comments on monitoring).

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority (passive restoration measures only)

Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:

The $232,000 that is listed in Section 8 was identified as cost share when in fact it is supposed to be implementation. Reviewers suggest that more riparian work should be performed in the near future instead of instream activities. This project addresses habitat issues that are essential to the successful management of endangered species and has been proposed to be implemented in the appropriate areas. The proposal needs to be retooled to concentrate on passive restoration approaches (i.e.. fencing and planting) and the budget should be reduced appropriately. 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 insure fisheries benefits to target species. There needs to be oversight by the COTR to insure that actions taken will benefit fish and wildlife. There is a disconnect between what are identified as limiting factors and the application of restoration measures.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-8)

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Aug 10, 2001

Comment:

Not fundable. Project sponsors demonstrated success in working with landowners, but the restoration approach is not adequately justified. The project needs a watershed assessment in place so that they can assign priority to prescriptions. There is little evidence that limiting factors will be addressed. Evaluation based on some physical measurements in different years at different flows with controls is wanting. Help via expertise in standard watershed restoration procedures and in analysis is required. The project needs to include services of an experienced fluvial-geomorphologist and a hydrologist to assist in design and evaluation of projects to restore geomorphic stability, and to assess the probability that sufficient change is even possible for attaining the desired conditions. This input should be in place before new actions are taken. The proposal is to mimic methods the strategy and methods used in the Tucannon River, but data from the Tucannon River do not provide convincing evidence that benefits are accruing in that basin from the proposed methods. Tables 1 and 2 are difficult to interpret. Many more pools were found in 2000 than in 1998, but the stream got wider and shallower. Stream discharge also was greater in 2000 than in 1998 confounding any reliable comparisons. Data in Table 12 need to be compared to similar data from both control and treatment sites before the alterations were made. The project also needs assistance of an experienced analyst to guide assessment strategies, and to help identify meaningful controls.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Project would create pool habitat features in Touchet River, a system lacking pool habitat.

Comments
Project does not respond to watershed process problems - treats symptoms. While treatment methods have created durable habitat features, they have not been shown to improve survival and should not be viewed as substitute for restoring sustainable watershed function.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Rank A, if implemented as suggested

Date:
Oct 16, 2001

Comment:

The upper Touchet River contains some of the best remaining steelhead habitat in the upper Walla Walla River Basin. It has also seen increasing use by spring chinook without any supplementation. This project should be funded to focus on passive habitat enhancement techniques and irrigation withdrawal screening. Recommend funding Section 4, Objectives 1 and 2 as they relate to passive habitat enhancement techniques. Fund Section 5, Objective 1b and c only, in riparian areas, and Objective 2. Fund Section 7 as it relates directly to passive habitat enhancement techniques in relation to salmonid productivity in cooperation with the WDFW. Overall budget for implementation should be reduced by 50% for all portions of passive habitat enhancement until specific areas of implementation are identified.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment: