Summary:  Asotin Creek remains an important Snake River tributary for anadromous salmonid production in Washington; it has been designated as a reserve for wild steelhead under current WDFW management policy. Charley Creek, an upper tributary, historically has some of the highest densities of juvenile steelhead in southeastern Washington according to WDFW fisheries surveys.  ESA listed stocks of summer steelhead, bull trout and spring Chinook, along with resident rainbow trout, utilize the watershed. Other smaller Snake River tributaries are also important 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 Couse and Tenmile Creeks, 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, cultural and economic 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 prioritized habitat through in-stream and riparian restoration actions, and the broadest-possible use of best management practices in upland areas.  Without cooperation and partnerships at the local level, implementing the actions to improve in-stream, riparian, and floodplain function and processes, on lands predominantly in private ownership, will not be successful.
__________________________________________________________________

Background:  Asotin Creek, a tributary to the Snake River at Rm 145, drains approximately 325 square-miles of Asotin and Garfield Counties.  Headwaters originate in the Blue Mountains (6,200 ft) and flow east into the Snake River at Asotin, WA  (800 ft).  Located in WRIA # 35, the highest priority WRIA in southeastern Washington (see "WDFW: At-Risk Stock Significance Map"), Asotin Creek is part of the Snake River Salmon Recovery Region.  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, another important Asotin County tributary stream, drains into the Snake River between Asotin Creek and the Grande Ronde.  This approximately 42 square-mile watershed, also held nearly entirely in private ownership, supports wild steelhead spawning and rearing, initially documented by WDFW in 2000 (36 redds in 15.9 miles) and 2001 (29 redds in 7 miles), and sustains a remnant resident rainbow/redband trout population (23 redds).

Anadromous salmonid production in Asotin Creek 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).  Completed in 1995, the Asotin Creek Model Watershed Plan was the first BPA-funded plan produced in Washington addressed specifically to watershed restoration and protection, based on the limiting-factors affecting fish habitat conditions and function.  Decreasing stream water temperatures, and increasing complex resting and rearing pools, are among the goals identified in the Watershed Plan.  Contract actions to-date to implement project objectives have been derived from the goals of the Plan; additional and/or complementary goals and recommended actions can also be found in the "Asotin Creek Subbasin Plan" and the "Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan."  

Alpowa, Couse and Tenmile Creeks, also within the Snake River Salmon Recovery Sub-Region, are protection areas identified in the Asotin Subbasin Plan as among the 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 streams with ESA-listed fish species within the Asotin County Watersheds: to continue habitat restoration actions that further address limiting factors by protecting and improving overall water quality, riparian area conditions, floodplain connectivity, and stream-channel habitat function, structure and complexity.  Additional objectives are to continue to reduce soil erosion and instream sedimentation by stabilizing soils and stream banks through agricultural BMPs, and with improved livestock management practices that include exclusion from adjacent stream banks and beds, and the riparian zones.

Emphases:  This FY21 SOW reflects a continuation of most prior contract actions. Work elements, such as tree plantings, fencing, alternative water source developments, and no-till, reduced tillage, and direct seeding incentives, contribute to meeting these objectives by further reducing upland erosion and soil loss, decreasing sediment loading, and increasing riparian buffer establishment.  Riparian buffers also serve to reduce instream temperatures, providing both direct soil stabilization and needed stream shading and habitat for redds, fry, and juvenile fish in-stream.  Fencing keeps livestock out of the streams, further protecting the streambanks, reducing erosion, in-stream sedimentation, and fecal coliform levels.  Sediment basins serve to collect runoff before it leaves upland areas, minimizing soil loss and sediment transport into stream systems.  Basins hold the water and soil on-site, allowing water to percolate back into the soil and overall water table where it is needed.

Additional Actions:  Project management activities through June 2022 will also encompass or continue the following major tasks and initiatives:  
    
1)   Project Prioritization Framework: Expand the development of a Geomorphic Assessment, Conceptual Restoration Strategy, and Strategic Implementation Plan for habitat actions implemented by the District and its partners to include additional tributary stream reaches-- sufficient to begin to evaluate and select projects for the protection, enhancement, and restoration of priority stream reaches throughout the County 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; Channel Complexity; Floodplain Reconnection; Riparian Enhancement).

  ___________________________________________________________________

Management Considerations:  

1)  Quality Assurance and Cost-management: Altogether, District program constraints ensure that landowners and contractors are not able to overcharge or abuse cost-share programs, 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.  

      d)  The ACCD Board approves the rates listed in the Eligible Practices and Cost-Share Rate forms. 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 Asotin, 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.

      a)  For example, many landowners do not have the latitude to relocate livestock operations 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.

3)  Tree Planting Projects: General requirements and specifications

      a)  Approved riparian trees and shrubs (approved for CREP or by NRCS technicians) are planted in the Fall and Spring to help jumpstart new, or support the existing, natural vegetative community in stream channel areas and the floodplain zone. Riparian trees and shrubs are 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 willow, 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 known once a landowner contacts the District, and provides sufficient lead-time. 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.  

4)  CREP - Streambank Reserves: With the passage of the Farm Bill, CREP is now an active program available to landowners. The planning and approval process for CREP is lengthy; the District works with multiple landowners that will potentially sign CREP contracts within the contract period.  Ideally, riparian fencing would be installed in tandem with the CREP program partnership funded by the USDA FSA and the ACCD.  However, 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 augment CREP fencing incentives can broaden program purposes and improve outcomes by assisting 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 desired outcome is a larger riparian buffer in the stream corridor, and a more effective 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.

5)  Install Fence: Supplemental BPA cost-share may be used by the District to assist in the adjustment of fence locations and alignments within FSA rules and requirements, when CREP fencing incentives do not fit the circumstances on the ground; as long as the result is riparian buffers that: a) protect and enhance water quality and improve fish habitat, and b) are better-considered, more appropriately located, and bigger or more effective than they would be in the absence of BPA financial assistance.  

Additional fencing may be proposed and considered for implementation in Asotin County tributary watersheds, if installed in conjunction with other habitat restoration actions adressed to improvements in riparian zone structure, function, and water quality, on lands that directly contribute to the protection and enhancement of habitat identified as a priority in the Conceptual Restoration Strategy.

      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 priority 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 high-priority riparian zone exclusion or protection fence, that is a component of broader habitat restoration efforts and project commitments by the landowner.  

      c)  The emphases in any additional fencing opportunities should be livestock management and exclusion from the riparian zone as a component of more comprehensive habitat restoration work planned for the project area.
  
      d)  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.  

      e)  To contribute to improvements in overall habitat quality for fish and wildlife throughout the drainage, other fencing may be considered in upland areas to encourage broader utilization of available forage, as a management strategy that disperses the impact of pastured livestock across the landscape.  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 to reduce soil erosion and sediment transport -- if proposed in conjunction with other habitat restoration actions adressed to improvements in riparian zone structure, function, and water quality.

      f)  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 -- if the work proposed is a component of a suite of conservation actions planned for implementation in a priority project area.

      g)  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.  

      h)  Specific areas that are candidates for fencing are unknown until the landowner contacts the District, which is why placeholders exist in the SOW.  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.  

      i) 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: water developments are installed to support alternative grazing distribution and the management of domestic livestock operations that have been removed or excluded from riparian areas.  BPA cost-share may be used by the District to assist in the development of alternative stock-watering, if the work proposed: (a) has immediate and direct benefits to fish and wildlife habitat improvement commitments by the landowner; and b) is explicitly connected to contemporaneous habitat measures to restore and recover habitat conditions for fish and wildlife by excluding the impacts of watering livestock in the riparian zone.

      a)  Alternative water developments may consist of spring development, troughs, tanks, pipelines, wells, and pumps for domestic livestock.  BPA may provide up to 75% cost-share, as long as off-stream water developments are in support of riparian livestock exclusion measures implemented as a component of riparian habitat improvement projects undertaken by the landowner.

      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 proposed water developments 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 a specific site.

7)  Upland Erosion and Sedimentation Control: 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 may fund up to 50% 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.