Summary:   Couse and Tenmile Creeks are important Snake River tributaries for anadromous salmonid production in Washington.  ESA listed stocks of summer steelhead, bull trout and spring Chinook, along with resident rainbow trout, utilize all of the smaller watersheds of Asotin County -- including Alpowa Creek, and the lower reaches of Joseph Creek and the Grande Ronde drainage.   Indigenous anadromous fish species most actively targeted for management are summer steelhead, bull trout, and spring Chinook salmon.  

The goals for these species are to restore sustainable, naturally producing populations to support tribal and non-tribal harvest and cultural and economical practices while protecting the biological integrity and genetic diversity of these species in the watershed.  The broad general strategies used to achieve the habitat objectives include protecting and restoring priority habitat through the use of in-stream, riparian, and upland best management practices (BMPs).  Without cooperation and partnerships at the local level, implementing these practices to improve in-stream, riparian and floodplain function and processes, on lands predominantly in private ownership, will not be successful.  
__________________________________________________________________

Background:  Couse Creek, a tributary to the Snake River between Tenmile Creek and the Grande Ronde River, drains approximately 24 square-miles of Asotin County.  It is held almost exclusively under private ownership; wild steelhead and rainbow/redband trout spawning and rearing have been documented by WDFW.  Tenmile Creek is another important Asotin County tributary stream, and drains into the Snake River between Asotin Creek and the Grande Ronde.  This approximately 42 square-mile watershed is also held nearly entirely in private ownership.  Wild steelhead and rainbow/redband trout spawning and rearing was documented by WDFW in 2000 and 2002.  36 redds in 15.9 miles in 2000 and 29 redds in 7 miles were also documented in 2001, with an additional 23 resident rainbow/redband trout redds.

Couse and Tenmile Creeks are protection areas identified by the Asotin Subbasin Plan, which has identified priority areas and actions for ESA listed streams within Asotin County.  As in Asotin Creek, anadromous salmonid production in these other Asotin County watersheds is affected by high summer stream temperatures, sediment deposition, turbidity, loss of riparian vegetation, and lack of suitable resting and rearing pool habitat (Asotin Creek Model Watershed Plan).  The ACCD, in cooperation with co-managers and local landowners, continues to identify priority restoration projects addressed to the needs of salmonids and other fish and wildlife resources in these streams.  Independently of BPA program support, the USDA CREP Program has been successful in working with landowners to protect riparian areas, and to implement upland BMPs to reduce erosion and diminish the impacts of sediment loading in these stream reaches.
__________________________________________________________________

Purpose:  The objectives within the overall SOW are to continue to identify priority areas and actions for ESA listed streams and fish species within the Asotin Watershed, to continue habitat restoration actions, and to further address limiting factors by protecting and improving overall water quality, riparian area conditions, and stream-channel habitat function.  Additional objectives are to continue to reduce soil erosion and instream sedimentation by stabilizing soils and stream banks through agricultural BMPs, and to improve livestock management practices through actions that include exclusion from adjacent stream banks and beds, and the riparian zones.

Emphases:  This FY14 SOW reflects a continuation of some prior contract actions.   Work elements, such as tree plantings, fencing, alternative water sources, and no-till direct seeding, meet these objectives by further reducing upland erosion and soil loss, decreasing sediment loading, and increasing riparian buffer establishment.  Riparian buffers also serve to reduce in-stream temperatures, provide direct soil stabilization and provide needed stream shading and habitat for fish redds and fry in the stream.  Fencing keeps livestock out of the streams, further protecting the stream banks, reducing in-stream sedimentation, and reducing fecal coliform levels.  Sediment basins serve to collect runoff and soil loss before leaving the site and before entering stream systems.  Basins hold the water and soil on-site, allowing the water to percolate back into the soil and overall water table where it is needed.

Additional Actions:  Project management activities in 2014-15 will also encompass the following major task(s):

1)   Reduced Tillage, No-Till, and Direct Seeding: a new 3-5 year enrollment period for continuation and expansion of incentives for Residue Management; and a near-term increase before reductions in CRP Take-out incentives, as acreages roll-out of the program.  

     a)  Incentive payments are tailored principally to compensate for a loss of crop-yield in the initial period after switching from conventional, deep-tillage farming methods (3-5 years).  The purpose is to encourage landowner participation and eventual buy-in to less-invasive cropping practices for the long-term (after 5 years):  
     b)  These programs are in a period of transition; the initial program period was for three years, and the District would like to extend for an additional two years. Some landowners have made the investments in new equipment to support minimum-till and direct-seed practices after the incentive period; in other circumstances, soil condition and quality improvements are just beginning to show the benefits of continuing these practices for individual landowners, some of whom have yet to commit to alternative tillage practices for the long-term.
     c)  Care should be taken not to create a disincentive when adjusting payment periods, or otherwise disadvantage those landowners who "early-adopt" on-farm residue management practices that promote soil retention and reduced run-of.  
     d)  Additional flexibility allows the District to tailor incentive periods to individual circumstances; total payment levels are expected to diminish as acreages roll-out of the CRP Take-out Program in year-4 or year-5; no newly enrolled year-1 acres were added to the program in FY14; and total costs are projected to continue to diminish as the incentive program winds-down.  
     e)  Costs for the Residue Management incentive program will begin to decline: FY14 is the last open-enrollment period for this program; the COTR has given the District flexibility to tailor incentive payments within a 3-5 year period, at a maximum amount of $26/acre.

2)   Project Prioritization Framework: Initiate and develop Habitat Assessment and Strategic Implementation Planning -- sufficient to begin to evaluate and select projects for the protection, enhancement, and restoration of Priority Stream Reaches on the basis of: a) project location; b) habitat limiting factors addressed; c) project certainty (assurance & feasibility); and d) project type (e.g., Assessments; Upland BMPs; Instream; Riparian).
___________________________________________________________________

Management Considerations:  

1)  Quality assurance and cost-management: Together, these constraints ensure that landowners and contractors are not able to overcharge or abuse the cost-share program, through excessive hourly-rate billing or the implementation of sub-standard practices.

     a)  All project elements have to be inspected, and approved, by District staff before a landowner receives cost-share reimbursement for the project.  If project actions do not meet the required specification, the District doesn't pay for implementation costs until deficiencies are remedied and results meet the standards.  

     b)  The costs of BPA-supported actions and practices are based on documented expenses that cannot exceed a cap set by the board.  The District board establishes the caps (or "hold-downs") for every practice we employ.  Expenses actually incurred can be less than the cost-caps established by the board (at less cost to BPA).

     c)  The ACCD board also sets a maximum hourly-rate a landowner may charge for their time (an amount less than what a contractor would charge, but still showing their time has a value).  The USDA Farm Service Agency in Asotin County has set the same rate as the District for landowner labor (currently $20/hour); other agencies with whom we work accept this rate.  Even if a landowner spends an inordinate amount of time employed on project implementation, total reimbursement is limited by the maximum cost-share limits established by the Board.  

2)  Efforts continue throughout the watersheds of Asotin County, supported by BPA in partnership with the District, to address the factors limiting anadromous salmonid production in Couse, Tenmile, Alpowa, Joseph and the Grande Ronde drainages.  These include: high summer stream temperatures, sediment deposition, turbidity, loss of riparian vegetation, and lack of suitable resting and rearing pool habitat.  The broad general strategies used to achieve these objectives include protecting and restoring prioritized habitat through the use of in-stream, riparian, and upland best management practices.  Despite cooperative progress toward program goals, additional actions are needed to further protect, and improve overall water quality, riparian areas, and in-stream habitat.

3)  For example, many landowners do not have the ability to relocate a livestock operation away from a stream corridor.  In these circumstances, fencing a riparian buffer can keep livestock out of the stream, protecting the streambanks and reducing in-stream sedimentation; but it may also be an incomplete or ineffective approach to reducing fecal coliform levels precipitated by feeding operations that concentrate animals in too close a proximity to the riparian zone. [WE: I]

4)  Tree Planting Projects: General requirements and specifications [WEs: K - L]

     a)  Approved riparian trees and shrubs (approved for CREP or by NRCS technicians) will be planted in the Fall and/or Spring to help jumpstart new, or support the existing, natural vegetative community in stream channel areas and the floodplain zone.  Riparian trees and shrubs will be planted to help support proper habitat function, promote long-term stream temperature reduction, and encourage re-establishment of floodplain function and stream channel connectivity.  Typical riparian tree species include willows, red-osier dogwood, choke cherry, mock orange, and hawthorn.    

     b)  Some upland trees and shrubs may also be planted, to aid in the retention of soils in the near-term; to manage surface water run-off, and help reduce sediment transport and the loading of the stream channels with soils; and to contribute to improvements in overall water quality throughout the drainage(s) in the long-term.  Windbreaks, or shelter belts, are single or multiple rows of trees or shrubs in linear configurations.  The purpose of a windbreak is to reduce wind-induced soil erosion and transport, protect plants from wind-related damage, manage snow deposition, shelter infrastructure, animals and people, and enhance wildlife habitat.  Windbreak tree and shrub species are determined based on site conditions; typical upland tree species include ponderosa pine, red fir, Douglas fir, larch, tamarack, juniper, and spruce.  

     c)  If weather and soil conditions require it, plants will be watered to ensure survival.  Fabric mulch may be installed to reduce weed competition, extend the growing season, and/or retain soil moisture; drip irrigation may be installed in locations where available, feasible, and necessary.  Watering needs are determined first by knowing the varying precipitation zones throughout Asotin County and keeping up with localized rainfall frequency and amounts throughout the wet and dry seasons.  When plantings are planned or have been planted, it is generally known that if the precipitation rates are below what is normal for the area, then additional watering is prescribed and completed as needed.  Site-specific evaluation of the plantings and overall soil moisture conditions are also conducted to monitor the tree plantings to ensure survival.

     d)  No general planting density-rate is used: planting densities are site-specific in that they vary depending on conditions. Normal densities could be up to 500 stems/acre depending on site location, site quality, soil type, condition and characteristics, and rainfall levels.

     e)  Specific areas that are candidates for tree planting are unknown until the landowners contact the District.   Knowledge of the planting availability by the landowner is based upon advertising of available programs and the District working with the local landowner.  The landowner works with the District on a voluntary basis once the landowner indicates that planting is needed or desired.  

      f)  The District evaluates the site, and the habitat purposes to be served, in conjunction with NRCS staff, to determine the best planting protocol, species mixture, locations, and maintenance needs of the specific site.

5)  CREP - Streambank Reserves [WE: J]: FSA farm program incentives are not always neatly aligned with individual landowner requirements.  Standardized program implementation rules can have unintended or inadvertent consequences: rigidly-applied fence requirements may isolate otherwise usable areas of pasture or fail to align with ownership boundaries.  Some additional BPA cost-share to supplement CREP fencing incentives can assist the District in navigating around or within FSA rules and requirements that do not fit the circumstances on the ground.  

     The purpose served is a better place to put the fence -- aligned to the opportunity presented by landowner needs and interest -- when FSA dollars won't build in a particular location within the constraints of CREP.  The outcome is a larger riparian buffer in the stream corridor, and a more effectively managed distribution of cows to water-access, by virtue of a more thoughtful placement of a fence-line than would otherwise occur in the absence of BPA support.

     a)  Fencing shall be installed and maintained by the landowner for the life of the project specified in the cost-share contract, usually a minimum of 15 years.  

     b)  The amount of cost-share associated with BPA funding depends on the difficulty of the fence project, but especially its relationship to fish habitat protection purposes, and the degree of contribution to enhanced and improved habitat outcomes.  BPA may provide up to 75% cost-share for most protection fence projects (90% for high-priority riparian zone fence).  The Asotin County Conservation District Board shall approve rates that will be listed in the Eligible Practices and Cost-Share Rate forms.  

     c)  Outside of the actual riparian zone, cost-share for fencing may also be available to landowners for exclosures that protect "critical areas" --  highly erodible, wetland, seeps, springs or surface water areas that should have livestock excluded.  Additional purposes may be applicable to the protection of threatened/endangered species and the integrity of cultural resource sites.  

     d)  With BPA approval on a site-specific basis, a minimal amount of the planned budget may be utilized to provide cost-share to landowners implementing upland fencing projects -- if the outcome is the reduction of soil erosion on range ground.  BPA has explicitly closed-out support for cross-fencing, but will consider alternatives that enable landowners to better utilize pastures and more effectively manage marginal pasture/range ground, in conjunction with demonstrable benefits to fish and wildlife.

     e)  Design and construction details for riparian and upland fencing are per NRCS Standard Specification #382: Fence.  The entire fence specification is approximately 50 pages in length and is therefore not included within this SOW.  This specification includes many types of fencing, including riparian and upland fencing, which are detailed individually within the overall specification.  

      f)  Specific areas that are candidates for fencing are unknown until the landowner contacts the District.  Knowledge of the fencing availability by the landowner is based upon advertising of available programs and the District working with the local landowner.  The landowner works with the District on a voluntary basis once the landowner indicates that fencing is needed or desired.  

      g)  The District evaluates the site, and the habitat protection or improvement purposes to be served, in conjunction with NRCS staff, to determine the best fencing strategy, type and location or alignment for the specific site.

6)  Alternative Water Source [WEs: O - W]: water developments are installed for grazing distribution, and to support domestic livestock operations that have been removed or excluded from riparian areas.  

     a)  Alternative water developments may consist of spring development, troughs, tanks, pipelines, wells, and pumps for domestic livestock.  BPA funds provide up to 90% cost-share.

     b)  NRCS standards are followed for all water developments; and contracts are secured before construction.  Specifications for various standard water development practices are quite lengthy and therefore not included within this SOW.  The specifications include many types of water development practices which are detailed within each individual application.  These include: #574: Spring Development; #614: Watering Facilities/troughs/storage tanks; #516: Pipe; #533: Pumps; and #642: Wells.

     c)  Specific areas that are candidates for water developments are unknown until the landowners contact the District.  Knowledge of the specific water development practice availability by the landowner is based upon advertising of available programs, and the District working with the local landowner.  The landowner works with the District on a voluntary basis once the landowner indicates that water development is needed or desired.  

     d)  The District evaluates the water development proposed, and the habitat protection or improvement purposes to be served, in conjunction with NRCS staff, to determine the best water development type and location for the specific site.  

7)  Upland Erosion and Sedimentation Control [WEs: X - Z]:  off-channel upland strategies or practices, and the construction of control measures or structures, are installed to reduce erosion and sediment transport from roads and fields, that can increase in-stream sediment levels in ESA-listed streams and their tributaries.

     a)  Upland erosion and sedimentation control measures or structures may include terraces, multi-purpose ponds, sediment basins, grassed waterways or perimeter buffers, and other upland practices.  BPA funds provide up to 75% cost-share.

     b)  Specific areas that are candidates for the development of upland sedimentation control measures or practices are unknown until the landowner contacts the District.  Knowledge of the specific practice availability by the landowner is based upon advertising of available programs, and the District working with the local landowners.  The landowner works with the District on a voluntary basis once the landowner indicates that upland erosion and sedimentation control measures are needed or desired.  

     c)  The District evaluates the site proposed for work, and the habitat protection or improvement purposes to be served, in conjunction with NRCS staff, to determine the best erosion control measure or practice, and the location of any structure, for the specific site.