FY07-09 proposal 199401805

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Blue Mountain / Asotin

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs: We are only identifying potential O&M on George Creek Meander project, we are not requesting any O&M Costs for upland or riparian projects, it has and will continue to be responsiblity of private landowners after project completion.

Termination date: 2030
Comments: The Asotin Creek Model Watershed Plan was printed in 1995 and this project has been implementing the goals and objectives identified by locals and agency representatives. Currently we are implementing the Asotin Subbasin Plan with similar limiting factors and biological objectives. We have found that previous projects were identifed and implemented in high priority areas, the new planning process has identifed Major Spawning Areas (MSA's) for steelhead and Chinook salmon with hypotheses, objectives and strategies. Locals were on-board with this planning process, but implementation will take time and adaptive management will continue to be used for protecting and restoring prioritized ESA habitat within the Asotin.

Final deliverables: We envision achieving the objectives identified for aquatic habitat conditions in the Asotin Subbasin Plan for wild steelhead and Chinook salmon by implementing the measures outlined in this project. We hope to realize the vision identified in the Asotin Subbasin Plan for a healthy ecosystem with abundant, productive, and diverse populations of aquatic and terrestrial species that supports the social, cultural and economic well-being of the communities within the Subbasin and Pacific Northwest.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This is a good proposal showing progress toward overall goals and is tied into the subbasin plan. A response needs to provide more detail on M&E, provide basic results on fish response to habitat improvements to date, and describe the need to introduce greater sinuosity back into the stream system as a vehicle for reconnecting with the flood plain. The proposal describes a project designed to implement procedures without adequately describing the problems to be solved. The causative problems have probably been analyzed to greater extent than the proposal indicates, and the proposal should be revised to show this -- and to show where genuine watershed analysis is still needed. Adequate watershed analysis should precede application of techniques. Technical and scientific background: This is an ongoing project for prioritizing and implementing on-the-ground habitat projects for wild steelhead and Chinook salmon in Asotin watershed. Bull trout also benefit from this ridge-top-to-ridge-top approach with match from private landowners and other grants. Channel degradation, due in part to one hundred years of livestock impacts on riparian vegetation in combination with damaging flood events, has resulted in the current habitat problems in Asotin County. Wide, shallow channels, shortage of pools, and lack of healthy riparian plant communities, particularly the shortage of wood components all contribute to water quality and quantity problems. Most of these problems can be solved with long-term riparian buffer systems. Buffers filter sediment and nutrients, stabilize streambanks, improve fish habitat and provide food sources, nesting cover and shelter for wildlife. Buffers provide shade, reducing summer water temperatures, and over time are expected to help narrow degraded stream channels. More details on buffers and their effects can be found at the Washington State Conservation Commission website: http://www.scc.wa.gov/ or at the NRCS website: http://www.wa.nrcs.usda.gov/. The problem the proposal attempts to address is not really defined. The Technical and Scientific background is focused on the target fish populations (good information) and on some generalities about limiting factors in terms of instream habitat. However, no background information is provided which defines the problems in terms of their causes, which are human activities throughout the watershed(s), although the project's title bears the word, watershed. This sections' inattention to watershed processes could indicate flawed approach (or flawed problem analysis leading to project approach). It is also ironic because, elsewhere in the proposal, the watershed concept is alluded to, as is the idea of working with landowners. Indeed, the project personnel bear primary responsibility to a watershed-focused agency. Exactly what are the human or human-generated activities that have damaged the streams, and what will be the approaches for eliminating or reducing these causative processes? Logging, grazing, land tillage, road building/operation, and whatever other watershed-disrupting processes are not described. Watershed analysis should have shown where and to what extent such processes are problems. Later, the proposal mentions that the project will follow subbasin plan strategies involving protecting riparian vegetation by livestock fencing and by promoting livestock BMP’s such as alternative grazing rotations and alternative watering facilities; restoring native vegetation in upland areas; improving upland water infiltration by direct seeding; and developing and implementing TMDL’s and other watershed scale assessments to remedy local factors negatively influencing temperature regimes. The justification for doing all this should be described in the technical and scientific background section, in other words, the causative, human-generated causes that exist -- the underlying problems -- as well as the instream limiting factors. This proposal is directly related directly to Asotin Subbasin Plan. Relationships to other projects are described in detail. Project history: The proposal is over-generalized, vague, and lacking in specifics on physical and biological results from the project's 11 years of existence. For example, a series of results statements is as follow: "Expected benefits of instream projects were met in the short-term with immediate pool habitat and expectation of long-term results such as increased smolt-to-adult survival and instream structures continuing to function as designed for increased complex pool habitat for all life stages of salmonids is also being realized. Riparian planting and fencing projects with alternative water developments for domestic stock have also seen measurable gains in riparian function, diversity and recovery." The statistical evidence for all this should appear in the project history section. It does not. Objectives: The proposal provides a full set of objectives; however, restoration of sinuosity (+ width:depth ration, + stream:floodplain connectivity) is missing as a means to reduce embeddedness. Tasks (work elements) and methods: There are a full set of elements to complement objectives. Methods are stated, usually in general terms and look appropriate in intent. The underpinning information to support their selection was not provided in the Technical and Scientific section. Sponsors need to provide more detail on this. Monitoring and evaluation is inadequately described. For example, Objective 1 and subtask listing do not provide adequate detail for review. (Under Monitoring and Evaluation Phase), Planning, coordinating and implementing project assessments and monitoring: Task a. Fund priority monitoring projects outside Asotin Creek. Task b. Expand WDFW pre- and post-habitat assessments on half the instream structures outside Asotin Creek. Task c. Continue WDFW steelhead spawner utilization and summer-time juvenile densities on Couse and Tenmile Creeks. Task d. Complete and submit reports describing assessments and monitoring results. Facilities, equipment, and personnel appear adequate. The ACCD works in concert with NRCS State Office and Field Staff. The local NRCS Field Office provides the District with in-kind services including technical assistance, office space, office equipment, field equipment, phone and fax lines. Having the partnership with the NRCS allows ACCD to focus 75% of funding for prioritize on the ground protection and restoration projects. Information transfer is adequate and has resulted in prioritized projects being completed within upland, riparian and instream areas throughout the subbasin and supported with recent EDT priority analysis during Subbasin Planning.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: The ISRP recommends the project as fundable with the qualifications that geomorphological watershed analysis and monitoring and assessment results from previous projects be incorporated into the proposal. This qualification applies to both Asotin SWCD projects. Our qualification to the fundable recommendation is to point to the self-acknowledged "snapshot" nature of the Subbasin Plan, and the lack of geomorphic process analysis that is a crucial part of understanding what should be done where and when to rehabilitate streams in Asotin County. The next review of the Subbasin Plan should include a review of the fluvial geomorphology, as context for proposed actions in the revised plan. Our second qualification is that evaluation of monitoring and assessment of previous projects ought to be submitted prior to the second year of funding. The sponsors need to more fully describe how the efforts to manage and improve the uplands and riparian areas tie into the stream work. It is essential to rehabilitate riparian buffer zones to complement conservation measures in the agricultural areas and in an attempt to stabilize the over-widened creek. The proposers' response indicates clearly that they are relying on the Asotin Subbasin Plan for identification of their proposed projects, as they should be. They mention changes in agricultural practices etc that are in response to the passage in the Subbasin Plan: “Historic and current land use practices have altered the hydrologic cycle of Asotin Creek. Farming, timber harvesting, and urbanization have changed the water cycle, reducing water infiltration and accelerating runoff. To a lesser extent, modifications of the riparian zone, including tree removal, road building, grazing, soil compaction, and flood control projects also altered Asotin Creek hydrology… Asotin Creek is now wider and shallower than it was historically. Changes in the hydrologic cycle are demonstrated by excessive runoff, altered peak flow regimes, lack of ground water recharge, reduction in soil moisture storage, and low late-season flow (Figure 2-3). Stream channel straightening, an increase in slope, and flow velocity have caused a loss of instream fish habitat, especially pools.” However, the problem faced in this subbasin is one of recovery from severe degradation, as is clearly stated on p.12 of the Subbasin Plan: “Asotin Creek historically had a less severe gradient, a meandering flow pattern with point bars that formed pools and riffles, and well developed floodplain connections. The point bars provided habitat for an entire aquatic community of plants and animals. The stream channel had long, deep pools and a well-developed thalweg. Today, much of Asotin Creek and its tributaries have been straightened, diked, or relocated. The straight, wide and shallow channel continuously adjusts in order to compensate for alterations to channel shape and location, floodplain disconnections, and modifications to runoff patterns. Flood events in conjunction with these channel modifications have resulted in a braided channel lacking instream structure, pools, and woody riparian vegetation (NRCS 2001). The loss of well developed thalwegs with naturally functioning point bars is responsible for much of the loss of fish habitat.” In this situation, rehabilitating existing riparian zones may be necessary while re-establishing the dynamic equilibrium of the channel. This will eventually require redefinition of the riparian zone and the existing work will need to be extended accordingly. Unfortunately, the proposers' belief that riparian zone recovery will lead to channel recovery is unlikely to be borne out, although a dense riparian stand will act to filter sediment leaving the land, or being carried downstream in a flood occupying the floodplain - where it is still connected hydrologically.