Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2002-050-00 - Riparian Buffers on Couse and Tenmile Creeks in Asotin County Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2002-050-00 - Riparian Buffers on Couse and Tenmile Creeks in Asotin County
Project Number:
2002-050-00
Title:
Riparian Buffers on Couse and Tenmile Creeks in Asotin County
Summary:
Tenmile Creek is a 42 square mile tributary to the Snake River between Asotin Creek and the Grande Ronde river, and is almost exclusively held under 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 Creek is a 24 square mile tributary to the Snake River between Tenmile Creek and the Grande Ronde. It is also almost exclusively held under private ownership with wild steelhead and rainbow/redband trout spawning and rearing documented by WDFW.

The ACCD in cooperation with co-managers and local landowners have identified priority restoration projects and the need to continue to assess salmonid use of streams outside of Asotin Creek. The CREP Program, independent of BPA, has been successful in working with landowners to protect riparian areas and implement upland BMP's to reduce erosion. This initiative has gained momentum and is needed to continue to implement the Asotin Subbasin Plan, which has identified priority areas and actions for ESA listed streams within Asotin County. Couse and Tenmile are protection areas as identified by the Asotin Subbasin Plan.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Asotin County Conservation District (SWCD)
Starting FY:
2004
Ending FY:
2015
BPA PM:
Stage:
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Blue Mountain Asotin 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Steelhead - Snake River DPS (threatened)
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Cover photo

Figure Name: Cover

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 1

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

Sediment basin construction completed

Figure Name: Photo 1

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 9

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

Sediment basin capturing runoff from melting snow

Figure Name: Photo 2

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 9

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 3

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 10

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 4

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 10

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 5

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 10

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 6

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 11

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 7

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 11

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

Pond liner installed to prevent surface & ground water contamination

Figure Name: Photo 8a

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 12

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

Pond liner installed to prevent surface & ground water contamination

Figure Name: Photo 8b

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 12

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

Completed spring collection

Figure Name: Photo 9

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 12

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

Watering facility installed

Figure Name: Photo 10

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 12

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 11

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 13

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 12

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 13

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 13

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 13

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 14

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 13

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 15

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 14

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 16

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 14

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

Grass planted in previously disturbed area.

Figure Name: Photo 17

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 14

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 18

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 15

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 19

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 15

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 20

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 15

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 21

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 15

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 22

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 15

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 23

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 16

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 24

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 16

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 25

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 16

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 26

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 17

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 27

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 17

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 28

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 17

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 29

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 18

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 30

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 18

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 31

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 19

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 32

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 19

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 33

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 19

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 34

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 19

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 35

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 19

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

Cross Fence

Figure Name: Photo 36

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 20

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

Spring Box

Figure Name: Photo 37

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 20

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

Sediment Basin

Figure Name: Photo 38

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 20

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

Trough

Figure Name: Photo 39

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 20

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 40

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 21

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 41

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 21

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 42

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 21

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 43

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 22

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 44

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 22

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 45

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 22

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 46

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 23

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 47

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 23

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 48

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 24

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 49

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 24

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 50

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 24

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

Pipeline from existing storage tank to new trough

Figure Name: Photo 51

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 25

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

Float system wired to mange the water level in the trough

Figure Name: Photo 52

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 25

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 53

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 25

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 54

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 26

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 55

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 26

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 56

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 26

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 57

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 27

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839

No caption provided.

Figure Name: Photo 58

Document ID: P118285

Document: 2008-2009 Couse/Tenmile Creeks Watershed Project Implementation Report

Page Number: 27

Project: 2002-050-00

Contract: 45839


Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2017 (Current) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2018 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Jun-2017

No Decided Budget Transfers

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Project Cost Share:

FY2015 0 %
FY2014 47 %
FY2013 23 %
FY2012 31 %
FY2011 22 %
FY2010 27 %
FY2009 37 %
FY2008 59 %
FY2007 44 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution
FY2015 Local project sponsors $0

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
11919 SOW Asotin County Conservation District 2002-050-00 COUSE AND TENMILE CREEKS SIX-YEAR DIRECT SEED PROGRAM History $97,445 9/16/2002 - 9/30/2004
11997 SOW Asotin County Conservation District 2002-050-00 COUSE AND TENMILE RIPARIAN RESTORATION PROGRAM History $120,208 9/16/2002 - 9/30/2004
12522 SOW Asotin County Conservation District 2002-050-00 COUSE AND TENMILE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION History $77,471 10/1/2002 - 9/30/2004
15027 SOW Asotin County Conservation District 2002-050-00 COUSE AND TENMILE M&E History $30,000 8/13/2003 - 9/30/2003
19631 SOW Asotin County Conservation District 2002-050-00 BPA DATABASE ENTRY WITH MAPPING & REPORTING COMPONENT History $25,344 9/10/2004 - 9/30/2004
20108 SOW Asotin County Conservation District 2002-050-00 ASOTIN COUNTY RIPARIAN BUFFER/COUSE & TENMILE CREEKS History $237,518 10/1/2004 - 9/30/2005
24479 SOW Asotin County Conservation District 2002-050-00 EXP ASOTIN CNTY RIPARIAN BUFFER/COUSE-TENMILE CREEKS History $241,000 10/1/2005 - 12/31/2006
30656 SOW Asotin County Conservation District 2002-050-00 EXP ACCD COUSE-TENMILE HABITAT RESTORATION History $233,333 1/1/2007 - 12/31/2007
36039 SOW Asotin County Conservation District 2002-050-00 EXP ACCD COUSE-TENMILE HABITAT RESTORATION History $152,902 1/1/2008 - 12/31/2008
40711 SOW Asotin County Conservation District 200205000 EXP ACCD COUSE-TENMILE HABITAT RESTORATION History $298,204 1/1/2009 - 12/31/2009
45839 SOW Asotin County Conservation District 200205000 EXP ACCD COUSE-TENMILE HABITAT RESTORATION History $254,726 1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010
51043 SOW Asotin County Conservation District 200205000 EXP ACCD COUSE-TENMILE HABITAT RESTORATION History $245,145 1/1/2011 - 3/31/2012
56862 SOW Asotin County Conservation District 2002-050-00 EXP COUSE-TENMILE CREEKS HABITAT RESTORATION & ENHANC History $245,145 4/1/2012 - 3/31/2013
66903 SOW Asotin County Conservation District 2002-050-00 EXP COUSE-TENMILE CREEK HABITAT RESTORATION & ENHANCE History $245,145 7/1/2014 - 6/30/2015



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):10
Completed:6
On time:6
Status Reports
Completed:39
On time:15
Avg Days Late:18

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
11997 20108, 24479, 30656, 36039, 40711, 45839, 51043, 56862, 61553, 66903 2002-050-00 COUSE AND TENMILE RIPARIAN RESTORATION PROGRAM Asotin County Conservation District 09/2002 09/2002 History 39 149 0 3 15 167 89.22% 10
Project Totals 39 149 0 3 15 167 89.22% 10


Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2002-050-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 2002-050-00 - Riparian Buffers on Couse and Tenmile Creeks in Asotin County
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-2002-050-00
Completed Date: 9/27/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 8/15/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

Completion of responses to the four major ISRP qualifications is appreciated and will be an important step in making this project more strategic and in providing a higher chance of achieving substantial, on-the-ground results to benefit target fish species. Developing a more strategic framework for restoration will help to ensure that work occurs on the most important locations and if not possible at those locations, due to land owner issues, that alternate sites are guided by an overall prioritization scheme. Given the large land area involved and the limited ability to treat every "problem site," this approach will provide a template that ensures the most effective use of limited resources.

The sponsors will be starting a new process for prioritizing projects within each watershed. They will work with local and regional experts from federal, state, local agencies as well as local landowners and the public in this prioritization process. Guidance from BPA staff and the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will help inform this process. This is a good approach; will a board be created with a regular meeting schedule to carry out this process? Moreover, because this project performs work in multiple watersheds a little more information on how the prioritization process will work is needed. For example, will watersheds be prioritized first and once that has been done will projects within the highest rated watersheds be ranked and worked on? Or will prospective projects from all the watersheds in the region be simultaneously prioritized and work started on the highest rated ones regardless of watershed? And lastly, the District clearly wishes to include landowner concerns into this new prioritization process. Will that concern be met by the inclusion of local landowners and the public into the prioritization team or will some other approach be used?

In the past, the project has provided explicit quantification of its deliverables. The District states that this was not easily done for the current proposal because the new prioritization process that will identify upcoming work has not taken place. Instead the submitted budget was based on funding the District had received in the past for a suite of actions, e.g. riparian planting, maintaining planted vegetation, noxious weed control, protection of riparian buffers, manure management, developing water sources for livestock, sediment and erosion control and planting perennial cover. Given the circumstances this was a reasonable approach. It is clear however, that before new projects can be initiated budget and contract revisions will likely have to occur to account for possible differences in project emphasis.

It appears that this project would unfold over time as projects are prioritized with help of other “experts” and cooperation of private landowners. The proponents have successfully gained support of private landowners, and this is key to restoration in this region. But specific targeted actions need to be identified in order to effectively use available funding. Targeted actions and objectives should be developed at the time of contracting.

Implementation monitoring can be used to gauge the degree to which project objectives are met. In order for this to be effective, it is important that the project objectives are stated in measurable terms and have an expected time for results to be achieved. Such an effort can be done with relatively low tech methods and/or using volunteers to implement part selected components. The Conservation District has purchased a turbidity meter and deployed water and air temperature monitoring equipment to collect environmental data. We urge the sponsors to work with their monitoring partners to ensure that their larger projects are being examined. Before and after photos should also be taken whenever possible.

The primary focus of this monitoring would be to ensure that project objectives are met. It is fine that different entities will be conducting M&E (actually this is preferred). The proponent and those conducting M&E should share regularly information on activities.

The coordination of proposed riparian and floodplain project work with in channel work is adequately addressed, the proponents assert that their new prioritization process will provide the strategic planning to coordinate such work.

ISRP comments in 2006 identified the need for geomorphic assessment to better understand broader scales processes. It is not clear if this assessment will occur in the new proposal?

Information regarding passive restoration and protection is adequately addressed. The District defined what it meant by passive restoration in its response giving minimum tillage as an example.

Evaluation of Results

This is a long standing project that has made substantial accomplishments on the ground. Unfortunately, the lack of a strategic approach for identifying highest priority watersheds and treatments within each, is limiting the long term success of the project. Additionally, the lack of basic implementation and effectiveness monitoring to address physical and vegetation response to treatments, limits the ability to make adjustments to treatment type and location needed to improve project and treatment effectiveness over time.

Qualification #1 - Additional detail should be provided on the process for prioritizing watersheds and individual projects, completed plans from this process, or a timeline for the completion of this planning effort
The sponsors state that they will complete prioritization of projects, by watershed, in 2014 (expected in July 2014 but no later than Jan 2014 [2015?]). The sponsors plan to work with local and regional experts from federal, state, local agencies, landowners and the public to prioritize their restoration projects. More information is needed about this process: * Will a board with a regular meeting schedule carry out this process? * How will the prioritization process work? * How will landowner concerns be included into the prioritization process? Also, there is no discussion about prioritizing watersheds before prioritizing individual projects within watersheds. It would seem most efficient to prioritize watersheds and then do project prioritization only for the highest priority watersheds likely to be treated in the life of the current agreement. It is noted that an interdisciplinary team (including fisheries, soils, geomorphology, and range management disciplines) will be formed to complete the task. Use of such a team is a sound approach. The sponsors also state that BPA wants to see documentation of high quality outcomes of actions instead of quantification of direct fisheries benefits. Improved definition of expected outcomes is discussed in item 2, while monitoring/evaluation of project/treatment success is discussed in item 4.
Qualification #2 - The proposal needs to be revised to include quantitative objectives and associated, targeted actions and with time frames for their completion
There appears to be some confusion on development of objective statements as suggested by the ISRP. The original comments were offered in hopes of seeing objective statements of desired project/treatment outcomes (future conditions following restoration treatment) that can be observed/measured. For example, in addition to a statement that 10 miles of stream will be fenced (a deliverable accomplishment), it was hoped that the objective statement would be something like: "Within 2 years following treatment, fully exclude livestock use of the riparian area and achieve at least 80% survival of planted vegetation. Within 5 years, achieve reestablishment of historical, riparian vegetation communities on at least 80% of the fenced area." Such statements of quantitative objectives provide descriptions of desired, post restoration conditions that can readily be measured and an expected time frame for completion. They also establish a useful foundation for project monitoring. Completion of these objective statements is requested for individual projects. Additional detail on this topic is also included in the Programmatic Issues discussion.
Qualification #3 - Additional information and discussion is needed about a strategic approach to assessing and restoring connectivity for upstream and downstream fish passage in the mainstem and major tributaries.
The sponsors state that prioritization of fish passage needs will be part of the overall prioritization process and that such an effort is difficult due to changing flow conditions and dewatering of some stream channels. It is suggested that this assessment focus on documented, man-made barriers (culverts, diversion dams etc.) that occur on streams known to support spawning and/or rearing of target fish species. Re-connecting potential habitat is a high priority issue and should be done iteratively at subbasin and watershed scales. Given the stated lack of irrigation in the area, it is suggested that the assessment focus on road-stream crossings and on any known water diversion structures. It is not clear if a full listing of these structures is in hand to allow for such a prioritization effort. If not, one should be developed. The primary goal of a completed fish passage assessment is to facilitate the reconnection of the highest quality habitat especially to, and within, the highest priority watersheds. A schedule for completing an assessment of fish passage, particularly in high priority watersheds, is requested.
Qualification #4 - A plan and timeline is needed for a project implementation and compliance monitoring/evaluation program
As noted in the original ISRP comments "This issue was raised previously by the ISRP, and there does not seem to have been much progress towards accomplishment." The basic outline of a program and a timeline for its completion is requested. Many of the comments raised for the Asotin Creek Enhancement and restoration project also apply to this project, especially near term development of an implementation and compliance monitoring program using relatively simple approaches and perhaps using students or interested public to assist in its implementation. This program would determine if project objectives (which describe expected, project-specific outcomes, as described in item 2. above) are met. The objectives would provide the foundation for such monitoring. It is felt that monitoring/evaluation activities could be implemented on selected projects or groups of projects, at a very reasonable cost and would provide valuable insights regarding project results and the effectiveness of treatment types. This information would likely lead to improvements in the effectiveness and efficiency of restoration treatments and increases in overall program benefits.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:

A response is requested for the following items:

1) Additional detail on the process for prioritizing watersheds and individual projects, completed plans from this process, or a timeline for the completion of this planning effort.

The proposed habitat protection and restoration project demonstrates its significance to the region. The program identified its key deficiency in the past: implementing projects opportunistically rather than based on a technical evaluation and prioritization. The current program proposes to evaluate and prioritize actions using the Atlas Process. Prioritization is needed before specific deliverables are identified. Although there is success in demonstration of landowner conservation practices, the direct fish benefits in the targeted creeks is unclear.

2) The proposal needs to be revised to include quantitative objectives with associated time frames for their completion.

3) There needs to be additional information and discussion about a strategic approach to dealing with connectivity, that is, upstream and downstream fish passage in the mainstem and tributary proposal components.

4) Description of a timeline for implementation of a meaningful monitoring and evaluation program. This issue was raised previously by the ISRP, and there does not seem to have been much progress towards accomplishment. The basic outline of a program and a timeline for its completion is requested. Many of the comments raised for the Asotin Creek Enhancement and restoration project also apply to this project, especially near term development of an implementation and compliance monitoring program using relatively simple approaches and perhaps using students or interested public to assist in its implementation.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The proposal demonstrates its significance to ESA fishes and regional programs, including NMFS RPAs. The program facilitates collaboration between private landowners and agencies and enhances cost-sharing in an effort to improve habitat conditions for fishes. Itoffers a solid program of work towards implementation of "whole watershed" restoration which includes both upland and instream treatments and acknowledges and supports passive restoration. As stated, it “helps to bridge the gap between agency representatives and landowners on sensitive resource issues.” This does appear to be an important role and needed for long term, sustainable restoration. Some questions remain:

1) How does this project coordinate the proposed riparian and floodplain work with that may occur in the stream channel? If not well-coordinated, damage to treated areas could occur given disturbance by heavy equipment needed for instream work or channel re-meandering.

2) Similar questions as were raised for the companion project, such as the need for multiple disciplines, the reach scale may be too limited for processes like erosion/sedimentation, and water temperature concerns. ISRP comments in 2006 identified the need for geomorphic assessment to better understand broader scale processes. The proposal notes that this is to be included at a stream reach scale in the Atlas Process, but there is no mention of it occurring at a watershed scale.

3) There is a good deal of discussion regarding passive restoration and protection, yet there is little discussion of any activities to accomplish this. Perhaps fencing and upslope erosion treatments are considered passive. If so, this should be clarified.

Three general objectives were briefly identified. These objectives should include quantitative metrics that can be monitored. The objectives should also link back to the limiting factors that were identified in the proposal. Additionally, LWD and bed scour were not directly addressed by the objectives.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

As with the companion proposal, it appears that there has been a substantial amount of work and stakeholder/community buy-in achieved in the past several years. This is a major accomplishment of the project. It is stated that there has been "documented improvement in the health of watersheds in Asotin County" but there is no information or detail provided to summarize any of these positive changes. Including this type of information on positive results seems particularly relevant since the watershed has been a "model Watershed" since 1994.

The history of accomplishments was not clearly described in the proposal. Ideally, the proposal should have stated its initial quantitative objectives for each of its previous actions, such as miles of stream fenced, and numbers of trees planted. Then it should describe what was accomplished in terms of fencing and tree planting, and how many planted trees survived or died. Information about accomplishments was provided in linked implementation reports, but a summary of this key information should have been in the proposal so that reviewers and the Council can readily see what was accomplished. In the linked report, it was not clear whether the reported activities achieved the initial objectives, in part because quantitative objectives probably were not developed for the initial projects. Proposals such as this should estimate what they hope to accomplish and then evaluate what was accomplished. This is not monitoring action effectiveness, but rather it is documenting accomplishments, which should be easy to do. Presentation of this information would facilitate a roll-up of habitat accomplishments across all watersheds in the Columbia basin.

The proposal notes that previous habitat actions were largely opportunistic and not based on strategic assessment and prioritization of actions. This is unfortunate because habitat actions are expensive and opportunistic actions may not have the desired outcome if for example upstream condition impact actions downstream. In the proposal’s adaptive management section, the sponsors recognize that there is a need for a strategic assessment. It is noted that the Atlas Process for prioritizing projects will be utilized. Completion of a comprehensive review and prioritization of future work is critical and should be completed immediately. It also appears that the proposed prioritization process is reach-based and will not be able to effectively assess major processes like erosion/sedimentation and water temperature that operate on a broader scale and should provide a context to inform the reach scale considerations.

The proposal attempts to address comments from the previous ISRP review. It is noted that the program consulted with a BPA geomorphologist, but it is not clear to what extent the prioritization process will account for geomorphic processes, as suggested by the ISRP. The ISRP also asked for monitoring and assessment, but the sponsors responded that the project is a habitat project, not RM&E. Some fish and habitat monitoring is being conducted by other entities such as WDFW and the State of Washington IMW. Nevertheless, the sponsor should document what was implemented during the project period, for example trees planted, trees that survived, and miles of stream protected. It appears that the annual implementation report contains much of this information even though the proposal does not.

Evaluation of Results

The lack of a consistent and comprehensive program of effectiveness monitoring and evaluation appears to severely limit the sponsor’s ability to identify and discuss the actual results of past treatment. The application of some medium to low resolution monitoring such as thermographs or stream shading using a solar pathfinder for water temperature, before-after photo network, and before-after upland erosion monitoring using available models would be useful. There are excellent photographs provided in annual reports of completed work, but few are before-after sequences. Additionally, there does not appear to have been any past effort to relate treatments in upslope and riparian/floodplain areas to instream habitat conditions.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

The only emerging limiting factor mentioned was noxious weeds. Major issues are not discussed including climate change, water use/availability as related to agricultural use, upland forest management issues, and especially roads and fires and their relation to erosion and instream sediment. Also, another factor, and one that is perhaps a key limiting factor, is the extent to which the lack of cooperation by private property owners might prevent successful implementation of priority actions. The proposal highlights cooperation with landowners, but it did not identify the number of priority actions that may be constrained by unwilling landowners. How will this compromise or adversely impact adjacent habitat restoration activities? Nevertheless, the ISRP was impressed with the informative presentation and video that documented significant progress in gaining support by private landowner to protect and restore habitat.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Objectives for the proposal should be quantitative and thus link to deliverable activities that have occurred and that are proposed. Methods or rationale to achieve objectives were not fully described. It is not clear how some deliverables will achieve the stated objective. For example, how will removal of noxious weeds reduce embeddedness in the stream channel?

The proposal generally describes the type of actions that it will implement as deliverables. The proposal should quantify these deliverables so that actions can be compared with what was proposed. For example, how many acres, or stream miles, of riparian vegetation is proposed to be planted during the project period? Each deliverable should have a quantitative objective so that progress against the objectives can be documented. Plus, it would be good to know how much might be accomplished with the proposed budget. This type of information is needed for habitat restoration efforts throughout the Columbia basin so that the Council and planners can readily see what is being proposed and what is being accomplished.

In the budget section, it was not clear for what the majority of funds would be used. What is the item “other”?

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The lack of a monitoring program was previously identified by the ISRP, and there appears to have been little progress made in this area. No RM&E protocols are listed. The sponsors stated that monitoring has been a challenge due to the fact that this is a habitat restoration project not an RME project. However, there appears to be a number of options to employ relatively low cost/low effort implementation and compliance monitoring techniques to describe outcomes of work completed and to relate those to stated objectives.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/27/2013 10:03:56 AM.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (7/10/2013)

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2002-050-00-NPCC-20131126
Project: 2002-050-00 - Riparian Buffers on Couse and Tenmile Creeks in Asotin County
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-2002-050-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Close Out
Comments: Close out project and combine appropriate funding and implementation priorities with Project #1994-018-05. ISRP qualifications #1, #2 and #3 can be dealt with in contracting during transition.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Additional detail should be provided on the process for prioritizing watersheds and individual projects, completed plans from this process, or a timeline for the completion of this planning effort—Close out project and combine appropriate funding and implementation priorities with Project #1994-018-05. ISRP qualifications #1, #2 and #3 can be dealt with in contracting during transition.
Council Condition #2 ISRP Qualification: The proposal needs to be revised to include quantitative objectives and associated, targeted actions and with time frames for their completion—Close out project and combine appropriate funding and implementation priorities with Project #1994-018-05. ISRP qualifications #1, #2 and #3 can be dealt with in contracting during transition.
Council Condition #3 ISRP Qualification: Additional information and discussion is needed about a strategic approach to assessing and restoring connectivity for upstream and downstream fish passage in the mainstem and major tributaries.—Close out project and combine appropriate funding and implementation priorities with Project #1994-018-05. ISRP qualifications #1, #2 and #3 can be dealt with in contracting during transition.
Council Condition #4 ISRP Qualification: A plan and timeline is needed for a project implementation and compliance monitoring/evaluation program—Close out project and combine appropriate funding and implementation priorities with Project #1994-018-05. ISRP qualifications #1, #2 and #3 can be dealt with in contracting during transition.
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2002-050-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2002-050-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 1 - Appears reasonable
Comment: Restoration activities occurring on private land; confirm that screening or other criteria employed so that BPA funding not used for activities landowners already required to conduct, otherwise cost share appears fine.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2002-050-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2002-050-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2002-050-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2002-050-00 - Riparian Buffers on Couse and Tenmile Creeks in Asotin County
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
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. See full comments under proposal 199401805.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2002-050-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2002-050-00 - Riparian Buffers on Couse and Tenmile Creeks in Asotin County
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: ISRP fundable qualified. Also Programmatic Issue: habitat m&e.

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Megan Stewart Project Lead Asotin County Conservation District
Dawn Boorse Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Sandy Cunningham (Inactive) Supervisor Asotin County Conservation District
Andre L'Heureux Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration