project tour june 1-3, 2016 · june 1-3, 2016 buford creek barrier fish passage design project,...

Snake River Salmon Recovery Board Lead Entity

2016 SRFB Grant Round

Project Tour

June 1-3, 2016

Buford Creek Barrier Fish Passage Design Project, June, 2015

Table of Contents Tour Schedule 2

2016 SRSRB Lead Entity Score Card 5

Regional Priority Map 7

Map with Project Locations 8

Summary Table of Habitat Factors and Objectives for Each MSA 9

Critical Habitat Uncertainties within the Snake River Salmon Recovery Region 11

SRSRB Draft Application Summaries 12

Bridge to Bridge Restoration – Phase 2 (16-2098) 13

Mill Creek Passage Update (16-2096) 15

Mill Creek Passage Implementation – Upper Flume (16-2097) 17

Walla Walla County Fish Screen Projects (16-2100) 19

McCaw Reach Fish Habitat Rest. Phase B Construction (16-2099) 21

Tucannon Mobile PIT Tag Detection (16-2095) 23

Touchet River Conceptual Restoration Plan (16-2093) 25

North Touchet River Reach 2 Design (16-1459) 27

Tucannon Complexity & Connectivity PA-18 (16-2097) 29

Tucannon River PA-28 Phase II Habitat Restoration (16-2094) 31

Asotin Creek Riparian Protection Project (16-2092) 33

Asotin Intensively Monitored Watershed Monitoring YR10 (16-2101) 35

Draft Application Scoring Summary from May 3rd Lead Entity Committee Meeting 37

1


SRFB Review Panel Draft Application Project Tour

Schedule for June 1, 2016

8:00 am Meet at SRSRB Office in Dayton, 410B East Main St.

SRFB Review Panel, Attendees, Project Sponsors, and SRSRB Staff

8:15 am Leave Office

9:15 am Bridge to Bridge Restoration – Phase 2 (16-2098) Brian Burns – Tri-State Steelheaders

Rest stop

10:30 am Mill Creek Passage Update (16-2096) Brian Burns – Tri-State Steelheaders

11:15 am Mill Creek Passage Implementation – Upper Flume (16-2097) Brian Burns – Tri-State Steelheaders

Noon Lunch Provided (Rooks Park)

1:30 pm Walla Walla County Fish Screen Projects (16-2100) Greg Kinsinger – Walla Walla County Conservation District

2:45 pm McCaw Reach Fish Habitat Restoration Construction – Phase B (16-2099)

Jeff Klundt – Walla Walla County Conservation District

5:00 pm Return to Dayton

2






8:15 am Tucannon Mobile PIT Tag Detection (16-2095) Joe Bumgarner – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

9:00 am Touchet River Conceptual Restoration Plan (16-2093) Justin Pearson – Columbia Conservation District

9:45 am Load up on Bus 10:00 am North Touchet River Reach 2 Design (16-1459) Jerry Middel – Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Noon Lunch Provided (Last Resort)

Tucannon Programmatic Coordination and Implementation in 2015

Kris Buelow – SRSRB

1:15 pm Tucannon Complexity & Connectivity PA-18 (16-2091) Kris Fischer – Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

2:30 pm Tucannon River PA-28 Phase II Habitat Restoration (16-2094) Terry Bruegman – Columbia Conservation District


3






8:10 am Leave Office 9:45 am Asotin Creek Riparian Protection Project (16-2092)

Megan Stewart – Asotin County Conservation District

11:00 am Asotin Intensively Monitored Watershed Monitoring YR10 (16-2101) Steve Bennett – Eco Logical Research Inc.

Noon Lunch Provided (Asotin Park)


4

2016 SRSRB Lead Entity Score Card

5

Summary Table of Habitat Factors and Objectives for Each MSA

Priority Habitat Factor and Objective

Mainstem Walla Walla River MSA

Imminent Threats: Fish Screens, Fish Passage Barriers, Low/Dewatered Streams

I. Temperature: < 4 day > 72ºF

II. Large Woody Debris: > 1 key pieces per channel width

III. Embeddedness: < 10% embeddedness

IV. Riparian:> 40 to 90% of maximum

V. Channel Confinement: reduce to 40% to 60% of stream length

Mill Creek MSA

Imminent Threats: Fish Passage Barriers (including gravel berms), Fish Screens, Low/Dewatered Streams

I. Embeddedness: < 10%

II. Temperature < 4 day > 72ºF

III. Large Woody Debris: > 1 key piece per channel width

IV. Riparian: > 40 to 90% of maximum

Middle Touchet River MSA (mainstem from Coppei creek to Patit Creek)

Imminent Threats: Fish Screens, Fords, Low Stream Flows, Gravel Berms


II. Temperature: < 4 days > 72ºF


IV. Channel Confinement: <15 to 40% of stream bank length

Upper Touchet River MSA (Patit Creek upstream to Touchet headwaters)

Imminent Threats: Fish Passage Barriers, Fish Screens, Fords, Low Stream Flows, Gravel Berms

I. Temperature: < 4 days > 72ºF

II. Riparian: >62 to 82% of maximum


IV. Channel Confinement: <10 to 40% of stream bank length

Upper Tucannon River MSA (from Pataha Creek upstream to Tucannon headwaters)

Imminent Threats: Fish Screens, Low Stream Flows

I. Riparian: > 40 to 75% of maximum

II. Large Woody Debris: >1 key piece per channel width

III. Channel Confinement: < 25 to 50% of stream bank length

IV. Temperature: < 4 days > 72ºF

Lower Tucannon River mSA (from Pataha Creek downstream to Tucannon mouth)

Imminent Threats: Fish Passage Barriers, Screens, Low Stream Flows

I. Temperature: < 4 days > 72ºF

II. Embeddedness: < 20%


IV. Riparian: >40 to 75% of maximum

V Channel Confinement: < 25 to 50% of stream bank length

9

Summary Table of Habitat Factors and Objectives for Each MSA (continued)

Priority Habitat Factor and Objective

Alpowa Creek MSA

Imminent Threats: Fish screens, Low Stream Flows, Remove Obstructions

I. Riparian: > 80% of maximum


III. Temperature: < 4 day > 72ºF

IV. Large Woody Debris: > 1 key piece per channel width

Joseph Creek MSA

Joseph Creek lies primarily in Oregon. Therefore, priority actions for the portion of Joseph Creek within Washington are to address imminent threats.

Lower Grande Ronde MSA

Objectives for the Lower Grande Ronde are currently being developed in consultation with ODFW.

Wenaha River MSA

The vast majority of the Wenaha River lies entirely within a wilderness area administered by the USFS. The proposed action for this river is to continue protective status.

Asotin Creek MSA (mouth to headwaters including all tributaries except George Creek)

Imminent Threats: Fish Passage Barriers, Fish Screens, Dewatered Streams

I. Large Woody Debris: > 1 key piece per channel width


III. Bed Scour: Reduce to < 10 cm

IV. Riparian: >75% to 90% of maximum

George Creek MSA (tributary of Asotin Creek)

Imminent Threats: Dewatered Streams


II. Large Woody Debris: > 1 key piece per channel width

III. Riparian: >75% of maximum

IV. Temperature: < 4 day > 72ºC

Pataha Creek MSA (tributary of Tucannon River)

Imminent Threats: Fish Passage Barriers, Fish Screens, Ford, Dewatered Streams

I. Embeddedness: Protect existing condition

II. Temperature: Protect existing condition

III. Riparian: Protect existing condition

IV. Large Woody Debris: Protect existing condition

V. Channel Confinement: Protect existing condition

10

Critical Habitat Uncertainties within the Snake River Salmon Recovery Region

Subbasin/Stream Critical Uncertainties

Asotin Creek Sub basin Large woody debris, Embeddedness, Turbidity, Fines, Riparian function, Bed scour, Natural temperature regime, Natural base flow condition

Tucannon River Sub basin Anthropogenic stream confinement, Habitat type (pools), Riparian function, Harassment, Woody debris, Carcasses

Walla Walla River Sub basin Turbidity, Obstructions, Riparian function, Anthropogenic stream confinement, Temperature

Almota Creek (Lower Snake River Sub basin) Large woody debris, Riparian function, Embeddedness, Low flow, Anthropogenic stream confinement

Deadman Creek (Lower Snake River Sub basin) Turbidity, Large woody debris, Riparian function

Grande Ronde Sub basin Sediment, Temperature, Flows, Key habitat quality and diversity

11

Draft Application Summaries


2016 SRFB Grant Round

Prepared by the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board Lead Entity Staff

Mill Creek transition into the concrete flume

12

Bridge to Bridge Restoration – Phase 2 (16-2098)

Sponsor: Brian Burns – Tri-State Steelheaders

Location: Walla Walla River MSA – Priority Restoration Reach

3 Year Plan: Yes

Project Type: Restoration

Request+Match: 300,000 + 335,807 $635,807

Species: Mid-Columbia Steelhead (DPS), Columbia River Bull Trout (DPS), Mid-Columbia River Chinook

Description: The Bridge to Bridge Restoration Design completed in 2010 (RCO project #08-2028) provided 30% plans

for nearly two miles of the Walla Walla River near Lowden, WA. Final designs were completed for the upper third of the

design reach, and implementation of those plans was completed in 2013 (Phase 1). Final designs are now complete for

the remaining part of the design reach (RCO project #14-1902).

This current proposal is to implement restoration Phase 2 of 4. Tri-State Steelheaders will address limiting factors by

placing logs and log structures along 0.6 miles of stream to improve channel complexity, maintain pools, create off-

channel areas, and encourage side channels. A terrace will be excavated to re-establish riparian vegetation on eroding

meander bank, with associated minor channel re-alignment. Riparian plantings will also address limiting factors by

increasing shading, and improving riparian function.

This section of the Walla Walla River is identified by The Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan as a priority restoration

reach in the Walla Walla mainstem MSA. Adult and juvenile summer steelhead and spring Chinook use the project reach

during their migrations and Bull Trout occur there seasonally. Other species of cultural value and state concern that utilize

the project reach are Margined Sculpin, Leopard Dace, and River Lamprey.

Goals and Objectives:

The goals of the project are to improve width/depth ratio in the project reach, improve pool and cover habitat in the project reach, increase instream complexity, improve riparian buffer width and function in the project reach, increase shading to reduce thermal loading, and create self-sustaining conditions to maintain improved habitats. Specific project objectives are to:

Increase large wood in the project reach to at least one piece per stream width.

Increase pool and cover habitat by installing five large wood structures.

Improve floodplain function and wood recruitment with 5,000 new riparian plants.

Encourage side channel formation and off-channel areas by installing three large wood structures.

Draft Application Lead Entity Meeting (5/3/16) Questions/Comments/Notes:

How the channel has adjusted on the site implemented in 2013? We haven’t had large flows since then but a small side channel is now active.

How long is the treatment reach? ~3,200 ft.

What is the cost share source? Project made the first cut at FbD and those funds will be used as match. SRSRB RTT Meeting (5/17/16) Questions/Comments/Notes: None Project Tour Questions/Comments/Notes:

13

Mill Creek Passage Update (16-2096)


Location: Mill Creek MSA – Priority Restoration and Protection Reach

3 Year Plan: Yes

Project Type: Planning (Assessment)

Request+Match: 48,600 + 0 $48,600


Description: In 2009, the Tri State Steelheaders, in cooperation with the Mill Creek Work Group, completed a fish

passage assessment with conceptual passage designs for the Mill Creek flood control channel in Walla Walla, WA. The

assessment determined that the overall passability of the channel for adult and juvenile summer steelhead, bull trout, and

spring chinook was 37 percent. Since the original assessment, a hydraulic model study has been completed, four different

sections of the channel have been modified with passage improvements, and a continued effort is being made at

accommodating maintenance vehicle access in the channel with respect to the fish passage modifications. During a

recent design phase (project #12-1634), two bridges with piers in the channel were evaluated for passage. While both

present passage problems, one was found to be much worse of a problem than the initial assessment could have

detailed. The 2009 assessment rated passability at 37%. With new information, the passability is now rated at 18%. This

illustrates the need to update the passage assessment.

This project will update the 2009 Mill Creek Fish Passage Assessment (#06-2203) with more accurate hydraulic and

design data. The study will occur in the concrete channel section, between 9th Avenue and Roosevelt St (RM 6.7 to 8.7).

The result will be updated and improved assessment of passability which will be used for future project prioritization and

to possibly leverage transportation funding for bridge replacement.

Goals and Objectives: The goal is to improve our understanding of fish passage problems in Mill Creek to inform future

phases of passage work. Specific project objectives are:

Acquire survey data at previously un-studied reaches,

Conduct new hydraulic modelling, and

Refine methods of providing maintenance access in the channel.


Is the community/city/chamber of commerce is contributing to funding this work? No but the flood control district maintains the channel. Recently a community coalition requested USACOE 1135 funding to conduct a GI study because the infrastructure is failing, the community seeks a more appealing channel and passage for fish is poor. The USACOE constructed the channel back in the 1940’s but then turned it over to the local sponsor.

What is the cost share? The project is an assessment and does not require a match, the total request with no cost share is $48k.

SRSRB RTT Meeting (5/17/16) Questions/Comments/Notes: None Project Tour Questions/Comments/Notes:

15

The Passability Summary from the 2009 Fish Passage Assessment. Estimated passage for

steelhead, chinook, and bull trout is shown at discharges of 6, 20, 60, 100, 200 and 400 cfs.

Column width for each discharge reflects exceedance flows (i.e. 100 cfs is the most typical flow).

16

Mill Creek Passage Implementation – Upper Flume (16-2097)


Location: Mill Creek MSA – Priority Restoration and Protection Reach

3 Year Plan: Yes


Request+Match: 4,501,779 + 794,660 $5,296,439 (large capital project proposal)


Description: Tri-State Steelheaders will implement final designs (15-1324) for fish passage improvements in a 5,000 foot

long reach of the 2-mile long concrete-lined Mill Creek flood control channel in Walla Walla, WA. The implementation-

project reach connects with a passage project completed in 2011 (Mill Creek Flume Transitions, 09-1587). The Mill Creek

Barrier Assessment (06-2203) completed in 2009 identified and described barriers for ESA listed steelhead and Bull

Trout, and for reintroduced spring Chinook. Returning adults encounter flow dependent depth and velocity barriers, and a

lack of resting opportunities. Juvenile fish encounter low spring flows, and high water temperatures in late spring. Adults

and juveniles often become trapped in the flood control channel by mid-May, where they experience lethal temperatures.

Many of these passage issues are considered imminent threats in the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan. Mill Creek,

upstream of the flood control project, is a critical and under-utilized area for spawning and rearing of ESA listed species,

and provides an important recovery opportunity for those listed fish, as well as good habitat for other native fish and

reintroduction efforts for spring Chinook.

Goals and Objectives: The goals of the project are to improve low flow passage for juvenile and adult steelhead, bull

trout, and spring chinook, improve high flow passage for adult steelhead, bull trout, and spring chinook, and provide

resting opportunities where none currently exist.

Project objectives are to implement final fish passage designs for approximately 5,000 of Mill Creek channel. The project

will address low flow and high flow barriers, and will incorporate resting pools providing fish passage through a 5,000 foot

section of Mill Creek at multiple life stages for steelhead, Chinook, and bull trout. Specifically:

Reconfigure concrete baffles in Mill Creek channel – ~50 existing baffles will be removed, and ~325 will be installed.

Install surface roughness to provide a low velocity boundary layer for discharges up to 320 cfs. Approximately five

hundred 7’x10’ panels will cover the approximate 5,000 feet in length of channel.

Install ~80 resting pools in the concrete channel – pools are 12 feet by 7 feet, covering approximately 900 feet in

length of channel.


Concerns were expressed about scoring this unrealistic project because if it scores highly and we choose to not approve it, we are compromised. To address this we will caveat and describe why this project is not approved by the LE/SRSRB when that time comes. We need to score it based on its description, pretend we do have the money and then when we submit our final ranked list we explicitly state that (assuming everyone on LE and SRSRB agree) that we do not want it funded from our lead entity allocation but rather this is our only Large Capital project for SRFB to advance to OFM and legislature

It was expressed that “even if the Large Cap gets approved by the legislature” this request of $5 million will not solve/fund the complete Mill Creek fish passage project. It needs to be clearly stated this $5 million provides passage to one mile of the 7 mile project footprint.

Is the project phase-able? Yes. SRSRB RTT Meeting (5/17/16) Questions/Comments/Notes:

RTT determination that project addresses and imminent threat based on impacts at the population scale (I).

Can we put in shoots in with the blocks? This has been considered within the energetics model. Project Tour Questions/Comments/Notes:

17

Walla Walla County Fish Screen Projects 2017-18 (16-2100)

Sponsor: Greg Kinsinger – Walla Walla County Conservation District

Location: Walla Walla County streams, including the Mill Creek MSA, Touchet River Middle MSA, Walla

Walla River MSA, and Dry Creek mSA,

3 Year Plan: Yes


Request+Match: 236,811 + 41,790 $278,601


Description: It has been established by Federal, State, and local agencies that screening irrigation diversions with

NMFS approved fish screens is key to ESA listed fish recovery. Since inception in 2001, the Washington Dept. of Fish and

Wildlife (WDFW) Cooperative Compliance Review Program (CCRP), partnering with the Walla Walla County

Conservation District (WWCCD), has had great success in reducing juvenile anadromous fish mortality by installing nearly

400 state and federally approved fish screens on irrigation pumps and diversions in Walla Walla county. The

CCRP/WWCCD fish screen program reflects voluntary efforts by landowners to come into compliance with surface

diversion regulations. We believe 50 to 75 irrigators basin-wide still need to come into screening compliance. Non-

compliant diversions are contributing to immediate fish mortality.

WWCCD requests funding to continue implementing the highly successful CCRP/WWCCD fish screen installation

program by facilitating installation of 20 fish screen projects, all located in Walla Walla county, over the next two years

(2017 -2018). The screens will be located at sites that are currently non-compliant with state and federal laws. Each

project will be fitted with a NMFS compliant screen found most suitable for that location, and sized to a verified water right

or, if smaller, a permanent irrigation practice. Previous CCRP/WWCCD screen projects funded by SRFB range in size

from 15 to 4500 gpm (.033cfs-10cfs).

Goals and Objectives: The goal is to eliminate fish mortality associated with the use of non-compliant screens found at

irrigation pump stations and gravity diversions located throughout Walla Walla County.

The objective is to install 20 National Marine Fisheries Service-approved fish screens at agricultural diversions in Walla

Walla County by the end of 2018. These screening projects will eliminate salmonid species mortality associated with fish

stranding at gravity flow irrigation diversions and will also eliminate mortality caused by impingement and entrainment at

pumping stations.


Proposal is for two year project but if budget constraints are such they would be willing to cut scope to 10 screens over one year then seek additional funding for the remaining 10 screens next year.

What about the possibility of consolidating screens and then one pipe could serve multiple sites? The thought will be evaluated. This has been done in the past when land got subdivided – as opposed to installing several screens, one for each new landowner, they used pipe to deliver water from the original point of diversion as opposed to several POD and several screens.

How many screens are ready to move forward now? At the moment, 4 landowner acknowledgement forms are signed, 10 total are likely ready now, and 10 are reserved for “walk ins”.

o *LE Committee requests that the sponsor decrease the funding request to the number of signed landowner acknowledgement forms in hand on July 7th (final application deadline).

Who will be responsible for maintenance costs? The landowner.

What is the water withdraw range for the proposed screens? The range will be from 0.3 to 5 cfs for individual screens. SRSRB RTT Meeting (5/17/16) Questions/Comments/Notes:

Request sponsor for additional information to make the imminent threat impact level (water withdraw amount, locations in basin and location in stream, etc.).

Why isn’t there any enforcement for withdraws, would we consider funding this sort of project at a lower level than 85%?

Project Tour Questions/Comments/Notes:

19

McCaw Reach Habitat Rest. Phase B Construction (16-2099)

Sponsor: Jeff Klundt – Walla Walla County Conservation District

Location: Middle Touchet River MSA – Priority Restoration and Protection Reach

3 Year Plan: Yes


Request+Match: 529,729 + 97,344 $627,073


Description: Walla Walla County Conservation District (WWCCD) proposes the following project - Phase B of the

McCaw Reach Fish Restoration Project will construct the project as designed (in project 14-1895) on 5500 ft of the

Touchet River west of Waitsburg, WA. The project is located in the Touchet River Major Spawning Area for Mid-Columbia

steelhead and is located in a priority area for restoration as identified in the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan. The

overall goals are to construct a project that will increase roughness elements, promote sediment storage and create a

dynamic channel environment with complex side channels and large wood features. The existing channel is reduced in

complexity and roughness, has degraded riparian vegetation and has incised in some areas. WWCCD will place large

wood features in the main channel and side channels to encourage the activation of side channels, increase bar

deposition, and develop pools. The project, when constructed will provide Mid Columbia steelhead rearing, passage and

holding habitat, Bull Trout wintering habitat, and non-listed Chinook passage and holding habitat. When construction is

completed on this project, overall river channel complexity will be improved by increased bar development, pool

establishment, and overall increase in stream length. Side channels will increases stream length by 3000 ft.

Goals and Objectives: The goals of this project are to increase instream habitat complexity with addition of LWD

structures; increase stream channel length & sinuosity by activation of side channels; and restoring floodplain connectivity

and function. Specific project objectives are:

Increase channel complexity, promote retention of mobile wood, and increase local sediment deposition and

sorting for adult Chinook passage and juvenile winter rearing, steelhead juvenile rearing and potential adult

spawning, and all life stages of bull trout overwintering habitat, through the installation of 44number of large

woody debris structures and11 engineered log jams sufficient to increase LWD key pieces to >2 pieces per bank

full width.

Increase floodplain access and connectivity by 11 acres at a 3 year flow and increase side channel connectivity

by 3000 feet at a 3 year flow for juvenile Chinook and steelhead over winter habitat through the placement of

large wood.


The project footprint is in a conservation easement since about 1999. Designs are for ~5,500 feet including 3,000 feet of side channel addition.

Was this reach straightened at one time, it appears the side channels might be historic channel locations? Not to our knowledge, but there was bank stabilization sites/levees here and there and a disconnection of the floodplain.


21

Tucannon Mobile PIT Tag Detection (16-2095)

Sponsor: Joe Bumgarner – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Location: Tucannon River MSA – Priority Restoration and Protection Reach

3 Year Plan: Yes


Request+Match: 50,238 + 30,909 $81,147

Species: Snake River Steelhead (DPS), Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook (ESU) Columbia River Bull

Trout (DPS)

Description: WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will use this grant to conduct mid-winter mobile PIT Tag surveys on

the Tucannon River from about river mile 11 to Panjab Bridge (river mile 49.9) or, if time allows, from the Tucannon River

mouth to Panjab Bridge. The purpose of the survey is to supplement the data collected in the Life Cycle Model Study that

was funded by SRFB in 2015 (RCO project #15-1322) by detecting the location (i.e., re-sighting) PIT tagged ESA listed

spring Chinook or summer steelhead from the Juvenile Life Cycle Model Study after fall movement but before smolt out-

migration occurs. Re-sight surveys will consist of two to three staff members floating two small-scale PIT Tag antennas

via raft or foot survey.

Re-sight surveys will collect the GPS location and the type of micro habitat being utilized of each tagged fish that is

detected. Data will be verified and summarized for inclusion in the Life Cycle Model Study. Re-sight surveys will greatly

increase the PIT Tag data that is usable for the Life Cycle Model Study as it will greatly increase the sample size of PIT

tagged fish present between the PIT Tag arrays after fall movement, and will increase the precision of the survival

estimates between reaches. As seen in the past, detections from the PIT tag arrays alone on juveniles are limited by

stream depth and the tag orientation as juveniles migrate. These mobile surveys will alleviate much of the uncertainty

regarding fish movement and should provide greater information on the types of habitat they prefer over the winter.

Goals and Objectives: The goal of this project is to determine mid-winter spatial distribution of PIT tagged juveniles and

identify life-stage- and reach-specific habitat utilization, and to use this information to identify restoration priorities and

potential population limiting factors. Specific project objectives are:

Describe the mid-winter spatial distribution of overwintering juvenile spring Chinook salmon and steelhead within the Tucannon River mainstem.

Describe the mid-winter specific habitat utilization of overwintering juvenile spring Chinook salmon and steelhead within the Tucannon River mainstem.

Provide all collected data from this project to the Tucannon Salmonid Survival and Habitat Utilization study to estimate overwinter survival of spring Chinook and summer steelhead in the Tucannon River.


This project is a direct complement to the Tucannon chinook and steelhead survival and habitat utilization project. It adds mid-season detailed fish regarding where they go in between the PIT arrays and to assess micro habitat utilization mid-season.

Most of the budget is for equipment and if funded (and if needed to occur again the following year or subsequent years) the budget will go down to around $20,000 a year.

It was noted that the capital cost is large in year one but subsequent costs will go down considerably and Joe concurred.

Is this considered monitoring and part of the eligible 10% of our allocation? Proposed as an assessment.

Is the additional data collected (micro habitat utilization) already being collected? No, the current PIT arrays are at 4 static points, plus the data will be real time so repeat surveys to assess utilization and movement associated with environmental conditions can be assessed.

How large is the raft? ~3 x 10.

What is the read range? At ~200 cfs or less it should get 100% read below the raft and slightly toward the sides.

What about using backpack probe interrogators instead or in addition, the current method might potentially bias against utilization of complex habitat and side channels? Concerned that the presence of a person may alter fish behavior.

SRSRB RTT Meeting (5/17/16) Questions/Comments/Notes:

Could this project seek endorsement funding? Potentially, check with WDFW.


23

Touchet River Conceptual Restoration Plan (16-2093)

Sponsor: Justin Pearson – Columbia Conservation District

Location: Middle and Upper Touchet River MSA – Priority Restoration and Protection Reaches

3 Year Plan: Yes


Request+Match: 200,600 + 37,472 $238,072


Description: The Columbia Conservation District (CCD) will use this grant to develop a conceptual restoration plan for the

Touchet River and Tributaries in Columbia and Walla Walla Counties in the middle and upper Touchet River major spawning

area (MSA) and Patit Creek minor spawning area (mSA) as identified in the SE WA Salmon Recovery Plan (2011). These

tributaries are inhabited by native ESA threatened Mid-Columbia steelhead and Bull Trout and re-introduced spring Chinook.

The planning process will expand upon the Touchet River Geomorphic Assessment (GeoEngineers, 2011, PRISM #09-1593) of

existing information; conduct habitat surveys; identify priority stream reaches and habitat enhancement potential; and develop

conceptual restoration designs. The guiding principle of this restoration plan will be to focus on improving the habitat factors

limiting salmonid production and survival. To meet this goal, we will work closely with the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board,

Regional Technical Team, co-managers, WWCCD, BPA, landowners, and other partners at all stages of the project to ensure

high priority salmonid limiting factors and restoration actions are identified. This project is identified in the Snake River Salmon

Recovery Plan and regional work plan in WRIA 32 Assessment and Planning Restoration. Deliverables will serve as the basis of

future restoration project development in both the MSA and mSA.

Goals and Objectives: The goal of this project is to update the geomorphic/watershed assessment, build a prioritized

conceptual restoration plan for the identified watersheds and to produce at least conceptual reach designs for as much of the

project areas identified throughout the project that addresses the current degraded habitat condition and function by increasing

channel complexity and confinement, restoration of riparian areas, and implement BMP’s on distinct potential project areas.

Specific project objectives are:

Use existing data and support from the existing Touchet Geomorphic Assessment while filling in the gaps of information to complete a conceptual restoration plan.

Develop a citizen work group and work with the Voluntary Stewardship Program’s Watershed Work Group (WWG) to develop working relationships and seek input and feedback on the conceptual restoration plan to make it implementable.

Coordinate and collaborate amongst local technical partners and landowners throughout the project to assist in scoping and developing the assessment and to provide input and vet project details.

Develop discrete conceptual habitat restoration plans for middle and upper Touchet MSA stream reaches. The conceptual restoration plan will be used to communicate project concepts that address the identified limiting factors incorporating information that has been gleaned through the assessment process with input from project partners. This plan will include project prioritization for the watersheds identified in this proposal and will provide the basis to move forward to final design and project implementation.


Much of the success on the Tucannon regarding strategic, transparent and supported implementation is due to the geomorphic assessment and conceptual restoration plan as people know the technical basis, understand the priorities and can plan implementation scheduling and budgeting.

How long will the project budget take to be spent? Two years to complete the project. What phase does this project represent? The geomorphic assessment upstream from Dayton is done. What we lack is the conceptual restoration plans for the priority reaches identified in the Touchet River geomorphic assessment.

Will one outcome will be a map of confined and floodplain potential? Yes.

What is the match source? District will provide match.

Why the budget is about same as Asotin yet the first two outputs (sediment budget and LiDAR) already exist on the Touchet? The footprint will be expanded, LiDAR may need re-collected since it is 6 years old.

Will the project reveal any imminent threats and if so, should it get points for imminent threat? Yes, that could happen but it is not the basis for this project. Imminent threat points are assigned to specific projects sites for designs or implementation, not general assessments and the group agreed.

SRSRB RTT Meeting (5/17/16) Questions/Comments/Notes:

This project should be a priority.


25

North Touchet River Reach 2 Design (16-1459)

Sponsor: Jerry Middel – CTUIR

Location: Upper Touchet River MSA – Priority Protection Reach

3 Year Plan: Yes

Project Type: Planning (Design)

Request+Match: 120,080 + 0 $120,080


Description: The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) will use this grant to develop final habitat

restoration designs that, when implemented, will restore and enhance floodplain connectivity, improve geomorphic and

hydrologic function, place instream habitat elements to improve salmonid spawning and rearing habitat and complexity, and re-

vegetate disturbed riparian areas along approximately 2 mile of the North Fork Touchet River near Dayton, WA. CTUIR and the

design team will work with private landowners within the proposed project reach to ensure the final product meets CTUIR's River

Vision goals and landowner needs. The project is identified as the third priority project reach for the North Touchet River in the

Touchet River Geomorphic Assessment (SRFB #09-1593). The project will benefit ESA listed Mid-Columbia steelhead and is

located in a priority restoration reach of the Touchet River major spawning area, as identified in the Salmon Recovery Plan for

SE Washington and the regional three year work plan.

Goals and Objectives: The goal is to develop an agreed upon restoration design that when implemented would improve

instream habitat conditions, primarily for juvenile summer steelhead, and restore natural stream processes through the 2 mile

long project reach. The objective of this project is to provide a set of construction-ready designs adequately detailing a

restoration actions. We anticipate that final design will include elements of removal of riprap/confining structures or levee

setback, expansion of floodplain, construction of and encouragement of both low and high flow side channels, and the

placement of LWD structures to increase channel roughness and pool frequency. The design must incorporate CTUIR’s River

Vision goals and meet landowner needs. Based upon our understanding of the project reach we anticipate the designs to

incorporate these specific objectives:

Upon completion of the implemented project design, the project will include 2 key pieces of wood per channel width.

Upon completion of the implemented project design, the project will include approximately 3,700 feet of levee removed

or levee setback allowing for flood plain connectivity and channel migration.

Upon completion of the implemented project design, the project will include connection of approximately 16 acres of

floodplain inundated at the 2-year reoccurrence flow (mostly on the upper portion of the project reach), and

approximately 19 acres of floodplain inundated at the 10-year reoccurrence flow (mostly on the lower portion of the

project reach).

Draft Application Lead Entity Meeting (5/3/16) Questions/Comments/Notes: None (reviewed last year). Lead Entity supported re-scope of Baileysburg project (15-1306) to complete this design.

SRSRB RTT Meeting (5/17/16) Questions/Comments/Notes: None. Previous discussion was to support the request to re-scope the Baileysburg project (15-1306) to complete this design.


27

Tucannon Complexity & Connectivity PA-18 (16-2091)

Sponsor: Kris Fischer – CTUIR


3 Year Plan: Yes


Request+Match: 406,864 + 802,380 $1,209,244


Trout (DPS)

Description: The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) will use this grant to restore floodplain

connectivity and channel complexity on the Tucannon River within what’s known as Project Area 18 (RM 33.15 & 34.3),

located within Columbia County, Washington. The project is situated within the priority restoration reach for the ESA

threatened (Snake River ESU) spring Chinook and summer steelhead (Snake River Restoration Plan 2011). The goals of

this project are to increase channel complexity and restore floodplain connectivity, through the placement of LWD and the

excavation of short pilot channels to reconnect existing side channels. LWD structures are designed to create channel

impediments to flow, leading to increased floodplain inundation allowing for greater floodplain connectivity, and to provide

places of low velocity refugia to winter rearing salmonids. The overall design objectives are to increase LWD key pieces

(>6m long & 0.3 m dia) from the current ~0.5 pieces to >2 pieces per bank full width, and increase perennial channel

length primarily through the reconnection of perennial side channels and off channel habitats. These goals are identified in

the recovery plan (2011) and the restoration plan and are critical in increasing over winter survival for spring Chinook.

Goals and Objectives: Project goals are to improve floodplain connectivity and flood frequency to the point that riparian

habitat quantity and quality can reestablish and be supported by natural process; reverse impacts of simplified channel

structure caused by limited LWD Key Pieces (>6m long & 0.3cm Diam.) on chinook redd scour and adult holding and

spawning, juvenile rearing migration for chinook/steelhead leading improved survival; and reduce pre smolt emigration

from the project reach by minimizing channel confinement and reconnecting side channel and floodplain habitats

providing refuge areas. Specific objectives are:

Construction of ~80 log and associate mobile single logs jams instream sufficient to increase LWD Key Pieces to

>2 piece per bank width (Recovery Plan 2011) by 2017.

Re-connection of four historic side channel near Hartsock Spring Cr. to reestablish 3,176 ft of side channel at ~1.5

yr return interval and off channel habitat by 2017.

Reestablishment of riparian habitat over much of the low floodplain with native stock totaling 20 acres to 100-175

stems/ac.


Project is on WDFW property and purpose is to enhance floodplain and add complexity.

If SRFB funds are not allocated, will CTUIR fund the project or will CTUIR phase the project? Attempting to secure other funds (BiOp), but won’t know until the decision are made with other funding sources.

Can the project be phased over two years? Basically the project is being phase in three parts already, design is ongoing now and this proposal is for construction, mobilizing twice will cost more but he may have to do so.

Will this project will intentionally capture the spring branch? At high flows the spring branch is currently fed by the river and connected; the desirable condition would be for high flows to scour the spring lightly but not to direct the spring into the main side.

What about all the deadfall in the project area, will it be re-placed, removed or enhanced? Very little work is intended for that “upper” area that is currently loaded with LWD.


29

Tucannon River PA-28 Phase II Habitat Restoration (16-2094)

Sponsor: Terry Bruegman – Columbia Conservation District


3 Year Plan: Yes


Request+Match: 304,775 + 326,981 $631,756


Trout (DPS)

Description: The Columbia Conservation District will utilize these grant funds as match with BPA funds to complete PA

28 Phase II habitat enhancement & restoration implementation. The project is located in the Tucannon MSA, Reach 6

between RM 21.7-RM 19.5 and is a priority protection/restoration area for spring Chinook, Steelhead and Bull Trout

habitats. Project reach is a focus area for spring Chinook, Steelhead & Bull Trout for various life cycles, spawning,

rearing, migration & overwintering. Project reach has been impacted by past land management, stream channel

straightening, confinement & LWD removal. These are common conditions throughout the Tucannon River and identified

in the Tucannon Geomorphic Assessment (Anchor 2011) & Tucannon Conceptual Restoration Plan (Anchor 2011).

Limiting factors being addressed in this project reach are deficient LWD key pieces ( 6mlong & 0.030 cm Diam.), 2

pieces/channel width desired in the Recovery Plan (SRSRB 2011), channel confinement and floodplain connectivity.

Existing conditions are detrimental to salmonids providing limited winter rearing habitat, causing early emigration from

upper river reaches into habitats down river which may have additional detrimental conditions (Personnel communications

WDFW). Phase II actions will construct ~41 log jams in main stem and side channels, to increase LWD Key Pieces to >2

piece per bank width (Recovery Plan 2011).

Goals and Objectives: Project goals are to improve floodplain connectivity and flood frequency to the point that riparian

habitat quantity and quality can re-establish and be supported by natural process; modify simplified channel structure,

caused by limited LWD Key Pieces (>6m long & 0.3cm Diam.) and channel confinement which leads to redd scour,

reduced winter rearing habitat quality for chinook/steelhead leading to poor survival; and reduce pre smolt emigration from

the project reach by minimizing channel confinement and reconnecting side channel and floodplain habitats providing

refuge areas. Specific objectives are:

Construct ~41 log jams instream, sufficient to increase LWD Key Pieces to >2 piece per bank width (Recovery

Plan 2011) by 2017.

Re-connect 2 historic side channels to re-establish 0.43 miles of side channel and enhance with LWD complexity

at ~1.5 yr return interval by 2017.


Project is on private property downstream of Marengo a few miles. This is phase II of a III phase project.

How much area will be opened up by setting back levies? The levy is a sugar berm that has become hardened by vegetation so connecting new floodplain will occur more by aggradation due to LWD/complexity more-so than by setting the levy back. Without a new setback levee, the landowner is not agreeable to allowing the level of complexity and aggradation we want to see. The setback levee will be only a couple feet high because it is so far back and it will be blended into natural topography and hardly noticeable.

Where is the match coming from? Mostly from BPA/BiOp but about $50,000 from a commission grant.


31

Asotin Creek Riparian Protection Project (16-2092)

Sponsor: Megan Stewart – Asotin County Conservation District

Location: Asotin Creek MSA – Priority Restoration Reach

3 Year Plan: Yes


$ Request+Match: 90,000 + 197,928 $287,928


Trout (DPS)

Description: The Asotin County Conservation District will use this grant to implement a project designed to protect and

enhance three miles of stream on Asotin Cr by installing a riparian buffer to exclude livestock. Approximately 80 acres will

be enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and the project will include alternative livestock

water developments, tree/shrub planting, fencing and installation of a bridge. Asotin Cr is a high priority area for the WA

Dept of Ecology and is also inhabited by native ESA threatened Snake River steelhead, Snake River spring Chinook,

Columbia River Bull Trout and, to a lesser extent, Snake River fall Chinook.

The landowner has installed fences along the stream, especially where winter feeding occurs, but there is still livestock

access to the stream and riparian area. The current buffer is minimal and does not meet the current Natural Resource

Conservation Service specifications. Land on the north side of the creek is used for winter feeding and calving for

approximately 50 head of cattle. In late spring, the cattle are moved to the south side of the creek to utilize spring pasture.

Currently, the only way to access the south side is for livestock to cross the creek. Due to high flows, a traditional livestock

crossing is unsafe for young calves so the cattle have access to large sections of stream. The landowner has agreed to

enroll in CREP to establish a buffer along this stretch of Asotin Cr however an alternative method for moving cattle across

the creek will be required.

Goals and Objectives: The goal of this project is to completely eliminate livestock access to approximately 3 miles of

Asotin Creek to fully restore the riparian function on approximately 80 acres adjacent to Asotin Creek by enrolling in

CREP for a 15 year contract while still maintaining the viability of the agricultural livestock operation by providing off

stream livestock watering facilities and alternative option for crossing the stream. Specific objectives are:

Improve riparian function by installing native riparian forest habitat along approximately 3 miles of Asotin Creek.

CREP provides guidelines of 500 stem counts per acre for riparian forest habitat. Species diversity will be

important for this site since there are very few conifers which are important for LWD recruitment. After through

planning is done, a planting plan will be created to identify priority planting sites and species Eliminate all livestock

access to the 3 miles of stream in the project area.

Reduce risk of water quality contamination by installing larger riparian buffers between livestock operations and

the stream.


Is the bridge in the budget request? Yes.

What is the source of match? DOE and BPA.

Are there any pre-existing water development/wells on the project site? Yes, there are pre-existing wells on winter feeding areas but they need water for upland pasture for when cows can no longer drink from river.

Noted was the high level of coordination on this project amongst agencies on behalf of the district.


33

Site Map: Asotin Creek Riparian Protection Project

Red Line – CREP Fence; Yellow Line – Additional Fence

34

Asotin Intensively Monitored Watershed Monitoring YR10 (16-2101)

Sponsor: Steve Bennett – Eco Logical Research Inc.

Location: Asotin Creek MSA – Priority Restoration and Protection Reach

3 Year Plan: Yes

Project Type: Monitoring

Request+Match: 118,000 + 175,419 $293,419

(monitoring proposal max 10% of Regional allocation)


Trout (DPS)

Description: ELR Inc is the project sponsor and the project type is a monitoring project. This request is to support

ongoing monitoring in the Asotin Creek Intensively Monitored Watershed project (Asotin IMW). The project was started in

2008 and is expected to run until 2019. The funds are being requested to support i) juvenile steelhead PIT tagging and

mark-recapture surveys, and ii) habitat monitoring using the Columbia Habitat Monitoring protocol (CHaMP). These two

monitoring efforts are being used to assess the effectiveness of large woody debris restoration at increasing juvenile

productivity in Asotin Creek. Three tributaries in Asotin Creek need to be monitored: Charley Creek, North Fork Asotin

Creek, and South Fork Asotin Creek. The overall goal is to maintain the current level on monitoring and funds are being

requested because we have been informed that the current IMW monitoring budget that is currently provided by Pacific

State Marine Funding Commission (PSMFC) may be reduced as of 2016 to between $0 and $100,000. It is critical at this

stage in the Asotin IMW to maintain the basic monitoring levels to ensure that the goals of the IMW can be completed:

namely to determine the effectiveness of LWD restoration methods, determine the casual mechanisms of habitat and fish

responses, and to provide recommendations for implementing LWD restoration in other watersheds. The extent of fish

monitoring is 12 sites 300-500 m in length, 4 in each tributary (see attached map). The extent of the habitat monitoring is

12 CHaMP sites (length 160-200 m) in Charley and North Fork Creek – Tetra Tech is funding CHaMP monitoring in South

Fork Creek in 2016. This project will support the ESA listed summer steelhead recovery. All of the fish and habitat data

collected will be made publically available in the PTAGIS (ptagis.org) and on the CHaMP website (champmonitoring.org).

Analyses of the data will be conducted with other funds provided to the Asotin IMW by PSMFC.

Goals and Objectives: Project goals are to monitor juvenile steelhead populations pre- and post-restoration and

determine 1) if populations responded to restoration, 2) what habitat changes were linked to fish responses, and 3) how to

extrapolate the results to other watersheds. Objectives are to:

Continue monitoring at permanent Fish (12) and Habitat (18) sites in IMW study area

Manage and analyze the data

Report results


Noted was the challenge over the last 9 years in securing IMW funding and the deficit the project has had to operate with; the proposal will be retracted if we are successful in securing sufficient budget from other sources (not likely known until closer to September).

What is the source of match? ISEMP donated tags/equipment.

It was noted that ~$118,000 is the maximum allowed for monitoring (10% of allocation).

Did the LE funding go to this program last year? Yes.

Who funded the shortfall last year? It was a combination of PSMFC and SRFB last year.

Is project implementation is part of this request? No, restoration has been funded and the final year of restoration actions will occur this summer, this request is just for monitoring.

It was noted that the intent of our habitat restoration is to increase the number of fish – have the results shown this or not? The results are preliminary and the number of fish in treatment sites is increasing relative to control sites. He noted the test is the effectiveness of restoration not population status and trends. Hypothesis is if treatment sites produce more fish and all other factors stay the same then the population should increase. This is not status/trend monitoring but rather project effectiveness monitoring project.

It was noted this project is proposed to be sponsored by ELR. We don’t know if we can get SRFB policy changes to allow this – plan B is for WDFW or another entity to sponsor but that is additional bureaucracy and cost.

The group debated moving it up to 30 points because it will identify protection or restoration actions in a priority reach and will fill a key data gap (is LWD effective at improving fish abundance). Group agreed to assign it 30 points.


35

This

is o

nly

a dr

aft

eval

uati

on

fro

m M

ay 3

, 201

5 to

pro

vide

fee

dba

ck a

nd in

put

for

the

pro

ject

spo

nso

rs a

nd f

or

the

Lead

Ent

ity

Co

mm

itte

e to

get

a f

eel f

or

the

pro

pose

d pr

oje

cts.

Pro

ject

Ran

kin

g20

16 G

ran

t R

ou

nd

Dra

ft A

pp

licat

ion

sA

VER

AG

ESR

FB R

equ

est

Ru

nn

ing

Tota

lD

raft

Rev

iew

No

tes

1**

Mill

Cre

ek P

assa

ge I

mp

lem

enta

tio

n -

- U

pp

er F

lum

e12

0.6

-$

$0Fu

nd

ing

Req

ues

t is

$4

,50

1,7

79

2A

soti

n C

reek

Rip

aria

n P

rote

ctio

n P

roje

ct11

9.6

90,0

00$

$9

0,00

0

3Tu

can

no

n C

om

ple

xity

& C

on

nec

tivi

ty P

A-1

811

5.3

406,

864

$

$4

96,8

64A

dd

itio

nal

Pro

gram

mat

ic f

un

din

g p

oss

ible

4B

rid

ge t

o B

rid

ge R

esto

rati

on

- P

has

e 2

113.

130

0,00

0$

$796

,864

SRFB

Req

ues

t an

tici

pat

es F

bD

fu

nd

ing

5Tu

can

no

n R

iver

PA

-28

Phas

e II

Hab

itat

Res

tora

tio

n11

2.6

304,

775

$

$1

,101

,639

6*M

ill C

reek

Pas

sage

Up

dat

e11

1.1

48,6

00$

$1

,150

,239

7M

cCaw

Rea

ch F

ish

Hab

itat

Res

tora

tio

n C

on

stru

ctio

n P

has

e B

108.

852

9,72

9$

$1,6

79,9

68Fb

D a

nd

FIM

A f

un

din

g p

oss

ible

; C

ou

ld p

has

e th

e p

roje

ct**

*

8W

alla

Wal

la C

ou

nty

Fis

h S

cree

n P

roje

cts

106.

323

6,81

1$

$1,9

16,7

79C

ou

ld p

has

e th

e p

roje

ct**

*

9A

soti

n In

ten

sive

ly M

on

ito

red

Wat

ersh

ed M

on

ito

rin

g YR

1010

6.3

118,

000

$

$2

,034

,779

Pri

ori

ty f

or

the

LE C

om

mit

tee*

***

10To

uch

et R

iver

Co

nce

ptu

al R

esto

rati

on

Pla

n10

5.5

200,

600

$

$2

,235

,379

11Tu

can

no

n M

ob

ile P

IT T

ag D

etec

tio

n10

5.2

50,2

38$

$2

,285

,617

Pri

ori

ty f

or

the

LE C

om

mit

tee*

***

*An

tici

pat

ed R

egio

nal

Allo

cati

on

$1

,16

2,6

58

**P

roje

ct is

a p

lace

ho

lder

if a

larg

e ca

pit

al f

un

din

g p

rogr

am b

eco

mes

ava

ilab

le, o

ther

wis

e fu

nd

on

ly a

fter

all

oth

er p

roje

cts

are

fun

ded

- n

ote

th

is r

equ

est

will

no

t ad

dre

ss p

assa

ge f

or

the

full

con

cret

e ch

ann

el

***L

E C

om

mit

tee

req

ues

ts t

hat

sp

on

sor

dec

reas

e th

e fu

nd

ing

req

ues

t to

th

e n

um

ber

of

sign

ed la

nd

ow

ner

ack

no

wle

dge

men

t fo

rms

in h

and

****

LE C

om

mit

tee

dis

cuss

ed r

aisi

ng

pro

ject

ab

ove

th

e fu

nd

ing

line;

pro

ject

sco

re d

idn

't n

ecis

arily

cap

ture

fu

ll va

lue

Dra

ft A

pp

lica

tio

n S

cori

ng

Sum

mar

y

37

project tour june 1-3, 2016 · june 1-3, 2016 buford creek barrier fish passage design project,...

Documents