Docstoc

What information should a proposal Contain

Document Sample
What information should a proposal Contain Powered By Docstoc
					What information should a proposal Contain?

Abstract

The CTUIR Walla Walla River Basin Fish Habitat Enhancement Project, initiated in 1996, is
an ongoing effort to protect, enhance, and restore riparian and instream habitat for natural
production of anadromous salmonids in the Walla Walla River Subbasin. Proposed activities
will focus on the restoration of critical riparian, floodplain, and channel characteristics necessary
to enhance populations of salmonid fish species. Projects proposed for the 2007-09 funding
cycle will be focused on two priority reaches of the basin, the South Fork of the Walla Walla
River, and the South Fork of the Touchet River. Within the South Fork of the Touchet River
(Rainwater Wildlife Area) the project proposes to meet limiting factors identified in the Subbasin
Plan through the placement of LWD and road obliteration. This work will be done in
coordination with the BPA funded Rainwater project (BPA Project 200002600). Two additional
projects are planned for the mainstem Walla Walla River and will include pool enhancement and
riparian and upland restoration. The project is also proposing to continue operations and
maintenance (on 10 streams miles of existing project areas) and project effectiveness
monitoring.

1. Technical and/or Scientific Background

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) are proposing to continue
habitat restoration and protection work in the Walla Walla River Basin. A combination of passive
and active habitat interventions proposed within this document will over time meet
recommendations set forth by the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan for meeting basin goals for focal
species.
Figure 1: Walla Walla River Basin:




In this first section of the document, we will describe where it is we propose to do work in the
basin and why these areas were chosen. We will then show a “need” to do these projects by
providing a list of habitat limiting factors developed primarily by the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan,
and the Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis completed in 2001. A production “potential” for
summer steelhead and spring chinook salmon according to EDT analysis will then be provided.
And finally, some historical information and various supporting documentation will be provided
for the reader.


Work proposed for the period of 2007 through 2009 will be focused on two priority
reaches of the subbasin:

1. The south fork of the Walla Walla River

2. The south fork of the Touchet River

*Detailed project strategies are provided in sections 5 and 6 below.

Why these portions of the basin were prioritized for 2007-09:

South Fork Walla Walla: All of the South Fork of the Walla Walla River is identified as “priority”
for restoration and protection in the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan (page 59). Out of 26 priority
areas in the basin, the South Fork of the Walla Walla River ranked number 3 in “restoration”
potential for spring chinook and number 7 for summer steelhead (Tables 3-2 and 3-4). The EDT
predictions for “protection benefit” ranked the South Fork of the Walla Walla (mouth to Elbow
Creek which includes the proposed project areas) as number 1 for spring chinook and summer
steelhead. And, the project has already identified several landowners within this reach
interested in doing restoration work.

South Fork Touchet: All of the South Fork of the Touchet River is identified as “priority” for
restoration and protection in the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan (page 59). The South Fork of the
Touchet was ranked 12 out of 47 priority reaches for restoration potential for summer steelhead
and 15th for spring chinook. The same reach was ranked 10th for protection of summer
steelhead and 3rd for spring chinook. Work will be done on approximately 8 miles of river habitat
owned by the CTUIR within the Rainwater Wildlife Area.


What habitat factors were considered in the EDT process (and others) as most limiting
salmonid production in the proposed work areas?


Table 1: Habitat Attributes for the proposed work areas on the South Fork of the Walla Walla
River and South Fork of the Touchet River, Walla Walla Subbasin Plan, page 69.




Key limiting factors for the South Fork of the Walla Walla River from mouth to Elbow
Creek (appendix “C”, Walla Walla Subbasin Plan.

1. LWD
2. Confinement
3. Riparian Function
4 Sediment (embeddedness, turbidity and % fines)
5. Key Habitat (pools)
6. Temperature
7. Flow
8. Bed scour


Key limiting factors for the South Fork of the Touchet River (appendix “C”, Walla Walla
Subbasin Plan.

South Fork Touchet River:

1. LWD
2. Confinement
3. Riparian Function
4. Sediment (embeddedness, turbidity and % fines)
5. Key Habitat (pools)
6. Temperature
7. Bed scour

Limiting factors for the South Fork of the Touchet River from the Limiting Factors
Analysis, Kuttel, 2001.

In April of 2001, Kuttel reported that the South Fork of the Touchet River lacked large woody
debris and shade and has highly unstable channels; 67% of streams lacking shade were Type 1
or 2 waters (fish bearing streams). Reckendorf and Tice (2000) characterized the South Fork of
the Touchet River riparian zones as narrow buffers with minimal mature trees providing some
shade. Further upstream in the Rainwater Wildlife Area the riparian zones were comprised of
immature coniferous trees. Canopy closure averaged 38%. Dozens of stumps 12 to 35 inches
were noted in the floodplain (Childs 2001). Viola (1997) and Reckendorf and Tice (2000)
observed 20% of the stream banks eroding. Childs (2001) reported 37% of assessed banks
actively eroding. In 1998, McKinney described channel incision occurring nearly everywhere
and reported channel instability as a problem on approximately 16 miles of banks. Dikes, levees
and roads are reported to have disconnected the floodplain in much of the Rainwater Wildlife
Area (McKinney 1998, Childs 2001). Braiding and confinement caused by roads and dikes
caused a reduction in stream length by approximately 12% between 1937 and 1995
(McKinney). Viola (1997) calculated a mean width/depth ration of 108 following the 1996 flood.
Large woody debris and pools were found to be severely lacking in all sections of the stream
(Childs 2001, McKinney 1998). Where pools are present they are generally shallow with a
mean depth of .75ft (Viola, 1997). “Off-channel habitat is nearly non-existent on the South Fork
of the Touchet River” (Kuttel, 2001). Stream temperatures are reported to be exceeding 65F
from early July to early August (Mendel et.al 2000; Mendel and Karl 2000).


What life-stage benefits (spawning, incubation, rearing, etc.) can be expected for focal
species if limiting factors within proposed work areas are addressed?

Table 2: Working hypothesis (including Life History Stages) for the South Fork of the Walla
Walla River (mouth to Elbow Ck.), Walla Walla Subbasin Plan, page 135.
Table 3: Working hypothesis (including Life History Stages) for the South Fork of the Touchet
River, Walla Walla Subbasin Plan, page 141.




How many summer steelhead and spring chinook salmon can we expect to produce in
the proposed work areas with habitat improvements?

The Walla Walla Subbasin once had a much greater production potential for summer steelhead
than it now displays. Historical abundance was estimated at 16,451 spawners with a
productivity of 14 and 19 returning adults per spawner (Walla Walla Subbasin Plan, page 52).
Current production of summer steelhead is 1,107 naturally produced summer steelhead per
year. With proper functioning condition (i.e. habitat improvements) however, the population
would yield 4,159 adults with a productivity of 3.8 to 4.6 returning adults per spawner. Similar
historical and potential abundance information is provided for spring chinook in Table 4.

Table 4: Walla Walla River mainstem and North Fork Smolt Production capabilities according to
EDT analysis with passive and active habitat interventions (page 185, Subbasin Plan).
Table 5: Touchet River Smolt Production capabilities according to EDT analysis with passive
and active habitat interventions (page 185, Subbasin Plan).




Table 6: Baseline adult population performance parameters for Spring Chinook as determined
by EDT for the South Fork of the Walla Walla and South Fork Touchet Rivers.




Additional Supporting Technical Background Information:

Historical information clearly validates the presence of several now extinct species of salmon in
the Walla Walla River. Annual returns of spring and fall chinook, chum, coho, and sockeye
salmon are reported to have been present at some level (Swindell, 1942). Several historical
journals remark that the Touchet, Mill Creek, mainstem Walla Walla, and various other
tributaries contained strong populations of spring chinook salmon at one time. The last spring
chinook salmon run of any significance was reported in 1925 (Van Cleve and Ting, 1960). By
1955, only 18 spring Chinook salmon were reported to have been captured in the sport fishery
(Oregon Game Commission, 1956 and 1957). Spring chinook were eliminated entirely from the
basin shortly thereafter. The earliest documentation of bull trout in the basin is from Oregon
Creek reports dating back to 1963 (Buchanan et al, 1997). Most streams southeast of Walla
Walla were reported by locals to have had bull trout at one time. Today, the remaining native
fish populations include summer steelhead at severely depressed levels, bull trout, resident
redband trout, reintroduced spring chinook salmon (adult out-plants have occurred in the basin
since the fall of 2000) and various other non-game species. Summer steelhead and bull trout
are presently listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The decline of salmon in the Walla Walla River Basin closely corresponded to the expansion of
land use, particularly agriculture. The earliest noted agriculture in the valley occurred in about
1825 at Fort Nez Perce, near the mouth of the Walla Walla River (Walt Gary, personal
communication). In 1839, the area around Whitman Mission was primarily wheat, corn, onions,
melons, and various other crops (Farnham,1839). Prior to the establishment of Whitman
Mission in 1836, the grass covered hills were thought to be only suited for grazing. But by 1850,
small amounts of cropland were situated along the river bottoms including some irrigation. In
the fall of 1863, a farmer sowed 50 acres of wheat on the upland near Weston and the following
summer collected an average of 35 bushels to the acre. From this point forward, land was
broken out at an accelerated rate and by the late 1870's, Walla Walla County was considered
one of the leaders in cultivated grains (United States Dept. of Agriculture, 1941).

As agriculture in the Walla Walla Valley continued to expand, so too did the availability of large
machinery capable of manipulating the landscape. Harper et al. (1938) indicates that steam-
powered tractors were available in Umatilla County (Oregon) in 1904 and 1905, caterpillar-type
gasoline-powered tractors were introduced from 1907 to 1909, and diesel oil-burning caterpillar
type tractors could be purchased in 1932. Heavy machinery allowed riparian areas to be
cleared for farming and grazing, and extensive stream channel straightening to begin (Figure 2).




Figure 2: Aerial view of Walla Walla River near Lowden Washington depicting stream channel
in 1939 (red dashed line) and stream channel in 1996 (green solid line) (TMDL Draft, 2001).

As the land was cleared for crops, the need for more water expanded. In 1950, Nielson reported
a total of 130 points of irrigation diversion in the basin of which 123 had no protective fish device
of any kind. Numerous historical journals report "sacks of smolts" being collected from the
cropland fields in the spring out-migration months (Van Cleve and Ting, 1960). Early accounts
by local people note that annual returns of spring chinook salmon reduced dramatically following
the construction of nine-mile dam irrigation diversion at Reese Washington in 1905 (Nielsen,
1950; Van Cleve and Ting, 1960). And, Van Cleve and Ting (1960), while summarizing data for
the period of 1935-36, wrote that it would be “practically impossible for spring chinook salmon to
ascend the river under the present system of water use”.
Oregon Clean Water Act:

Under the Federal Clean Water Act, each state develops water quality standards which define
the acceptable level of pollutants and other impacts to individual water bodies. Section 303(d) of
the Clean Water Act requires that every two years a list be prepared of water bodies in each
state that do not meet water quality standards. The Walla Walla River and the two major
tributaries, the Touchet River and Mill Creek are currently on the 1998 Water Quality
Assessments list because they do not meet the following water quality standards:

Table 7: Water quality TMDL’s for the Walla Walla, Touchet, and Mill Creek.

Walla Walla River                          Touchet River                   Mill Creek
Temperature, Fecal coliform, pH,           Fecal coliform and              pH and
PCBs and several pesticide residues        Temperature                     Temperature
(4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDD, Chlordane,
Dieldrin, Heptachlor, Heptachlor
Epoxide, Hexachlorobenzene)



Stream temperatures are a concern for salmonids throughout most of the Walla Walla River
Basin. High temperature is largely the result of agricultural practices and associated habitat
modification. The primary way in which agricultural activities influence temperature is through
the removal of riparian vegetation, irrigation withdrawal, and stream channel straightening
(Oregon Section 303d of the Clean Water Act). Currently, Chinook salmon, steelhead and bull
trout are species listed at risk in the Walla Walla Basin. Sheldon (1988) reported that most
threatened stream fish are in this predicament largely because their habitat has been lost or
degraded in some way, such that the population is no longer able to sustain its numbers and
maintain a healthy, balanced population age structure (Hoverson, draft summary of monitoring
data, 2005).
Figure 3: Walla Walla River Temperature profiles collected on August 15. The line in “red”
demonstrates the current conditions from headwater to mouth (moving left to right across the
chart). The three remaining colored lines predict “potential” stream temperatures with
improvements in habitat and flow (Walla Walla TMDL, 2005).




Status of Oregon Bull Trout (ODFW):

In 1997, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife completed the Status of Oregon’s Bull
Trout which included a review of the Walla Walla River Basin. The report found the decline of
bull trout to be a result of over-harvest, inadequate passage facilities, channel straightening,
timber harvest, irrigation, and livestock grazing (Buchanan et al. 1997, pages 93 and 94). Large
wood was found to be particularly low in the North Fork of the Walla Walla River and on private
lands in general. Other limiting factors for Bull Trout include large wood, stream shade,
floodplain function, bank stability, and migrational connectivity (Buchanan et al. 1997, pages
100-102).

The 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program:

This project is consistent with the vision set forth in the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program by: (1)
protecting existing high quality habitat; (2) prioritizing restoration projects through the use of
watershed assessment; (3) giving priority to restoration actions that maximize the desired result
per dollar spent; (4) implementing proven habitat restoration methods, particularly natural
healing techniques; (5) seeking cost-share (300k secured in 2005 alone) and encouraging the
investment of volunteers; (6) coordinating data collection, analysis and reporting, and adaptive
management to monitor project progress; (7) implementing riparian easements of sufficient
quality to improve and maintain salmon and steelhead production in privately owned riparian
areas and adjacent lands; (8) using native species wherever feasible; and (9) restore
ecosystems not single species focus.
Snake River Recovery Plan:

In October of 2005, the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan was completed.
This process, funded primarily by the State of Washington, is designed to provide an opportunity
to incorporate the best available scientific information with local enhancement efforts (Snake
River Recovery Board, 2005). On page 206, a list of “key limiting habitat factors” are provided
for each geographical area which include the elimination of riparian function, increased
sediment and water temperatures, decreased riparian condition, and major changes in channel
form and function (Snake River Recovery Board, 2005).

State of Washington Reports:

In April of 2001, the Washington State Conservation Commission completed the “Salmonid
Habitat Limiting Factors” for the Walla Walla Watershed (Kuttel, 2001). This 171 page
document included a year long effort by many area fish, wildlife, land, and farm managers. On
page 12 of the document a list of 17 basin-wide recommendations are provided (Draft Statewide
Salmon Strategy, 1998). Of significance and support to this proposal include:

Number 8. Replant native riparian vegetation along streams beginning in the upper reaches of
spawning and rearing areas, then progressing downstream to lower priority migration areas;

Number 9. Improve stream habitat on the upper reaches of spawning and rearing areas by
providing large woody debris, consolidating braided channels, stabilizing eroding banks, and
creating pools;

Number 10. Restore floodplain connectivity and natural channel migration by removing or
setting back levees and removing bank armoring;

Number 11. Continue to identify fish passage problems and correct barriers that restrict access
to useable habitat;

Number 16. Fence livestock out of streams

Number 17. Increase protection of critical salmonid habitat areas.

Management Recommendations for the proposed work area on the South Fork of the
Touchet River from Kuttel 2001.

1. Restore riparian zones on private lands, particularly on the South Fork of the Touchet River.

2. Place LWD in streams to provide instream cover and encourage pool formation.

3. Restrict access to the unimproved dirt road within the Rainwater Wildlife Area.

4. Restore floodplain connectivity.

5. Abandoned roads should be decommissioned and replanted with native vegetation.
2. Rationale and significance to regional programs

Subbasin Plan

The Walla Walla Subbasin Plan was submitted to the NPCC in the fall of 2004. This plan
accomplished among other things an analysis of which areas (“priority areas”) of the subbasin
will provide the greatest biological benefit to a list of “focal species” with habitat improvements
over the next 10 to 15 years (Walla Walla Subbasin Plan, pages ES-4 and 5). The general
assumption of the plan is that habitat improvements will enhance fish populations (NPCC, 2004,
page 129). The “focal species” include spring chinook salmon, bull trout, and summer
steelhead.

Recommended strategies in the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan are based on the use of EDT
scenarios that are intended to predict the results of various restoration approaches. The model
assumes that stream carrying capacity will improve with increases in essential fish habitat.
Therefore, the model allows alternative strategies and scenarios to be compared on an even
playing field (Walla Walla Subbasin Plan, Final Addendum, 2004, page 3). The model is used
to simulate hypothetical "restoration" approaches like those conducted by this project while
holding other mainstem and marine conditions constant. This provides fish managers with an
approximation of what types of strategies will provide the greatest likelihood of success. The
EDT modeling and analysis recommends:

1. Restoration of riparian conditions and function including shade;
2. The establishment of long term or permanent easements;
3. The restoration of large woody debris and habitat complexity;
4. The restoration of flood plain connectivity and sinuosity using direct manipulation of channel
form;
5. The restoration of sediment loads using manipulations of bank, bed load, etc.
6. The restoration of all habitat attributes based on all planned habitat activities.

The resultant data produced a list of 25 priority protection and restoration geographical areas.
The EDT process also provided the most important habitat factors to be addressed in each
priority area. Following is a list of parameters identified for the proposed work areas (South Fork
Touchet and South Fork Walla Walla River).

1. Large woody debris
2. Confinement
3. Riparian function
4. Sediment
5. Key Habitat-pools
6. Temperature
7. Flow (for South Fork Touchet only)
8. Bedscour

An example of how the project is addressing each of these limiting factors may be found in the
table below. All work proposed by this project for the 2007-09 funding cycle is consistent with
recommendations in the subbasin plan.
Table 8. Key habitat limiting factors identified in the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan for the
proposed work areas and actions/strategies that this project is imposing to meet them.

Subbasin Summary           Project Actions/ Management Strategies for Addressing
Limiting Factors for       Limiting Factors
the South Fork Walla
Walla and Touchet
River From EDT
Analysis
Large Woody Debris         Protect and enhance native riparian tree and shrub
                           communities. LWD placement in those areas incapable of
                           producing large wood in the near term. Long term
                           conservation easements that protect naturally recruited
                           wood to the system
Confinement                Levee removal, road obliteration, levee-set-back, wide
                           riparian buffers, shoreline sloping, private landowner
                           education.



Riparian Function          Livestock exclusion fencing, revegetation, management of
                           beaver populations, shoreline sloping, landowner education,
                           long-term conservation easements and/or acquisition.



Sediment-                  Long-term conservation easements, wide stream buffers,
embeddedness               livestock exclusion, native plant revegetation, off-channel
                           livestock watering, weed control, landowner education,
                           encouragement of participation in various farm programs
                           that reduce soil erosion.
Key Habitat-Pools          Revegetation, levee removals and thus improved channel
                           form, instream structures, reestablished channel meander
                           and stable channel form through the use of point-bar
                           enhancement and placement of LWD where appropriate.


Temperature                Enhance and protect riparian vegetation and thus elevate
                           shade, encourage stream meander important for sub-
                           surface flow and reduction in water temperatures. Protect
                           back-water areas, beaver ponds, springs, and areas known
                           to provide hyporheic input. Encourage water conservation,
                           protect instream flows.
Flow                       Reduce stream velocities through improved floodplain
                           function, shoreline sloping, and stream meander.
                           Encourage large wood, point bar enhancement, removal of
                           levees, and restoration/protection of riparian and floodplain
                           corridors.
Bedscour                   Reduce stream velocities through improved floodplain
                           function, shoreline sloping, and stream meander.
                           Encourage large wood, point bar enhancement, removal of
                           levees, and restoration/protection of riparian and floodplain
                           corridors


Generally headwater sections that have experienced less human impact have been prioritized
for “protection” in the subbasin plan. Conversely, mid to upper portions of the basin influenced
by agriculture, roads, homes, etc., are characterized as needing “restoration”. Further limiting
factor analysis is provided for specific geographical areas of the basin beginning on page 22 of
the Final Addendum. This information will be used by the project to guide out-year activities
within specific locations of the basin. For example, riparian restoration and pool enhancement
on the south fork of the Walla Walla River.

Considerable time has been spent ensuring that the goals of this project closely reflect
biological needs of salmonid fish outlined in the Walla Walla River Subbasin Plan. Only
“priority” geographical areas and strategies will be proposed for funding by this project.

Short-term restoration benefits from this project will include native plant community recovery,
increased stream bank stability and stream channel shading. Long-term project benefits include
improved stream geomorphic features, vegetative succession, cooler stream temperatures,
reduced sediment deposition, increased large woody debris recruitment, greater habitat
diversity, increased juvenile and adult salmonid survival, and increased bird, mammal and
invertebrate populations.

NMFS Biological Opinion:

Action 150 of the NMFS Biological Opinion states, “In subbasins with listed salmon and
steelhead, BPA shall fund protection of currently productive non-Federal habitat, especially if at
risk of being degraded…” Conservation easements as well as other cooperative agreements
with landowners and other agencies are a tool utilized under this project to protect and restore
habitat.

Action 153 of the NMFS Biological Opinion states, “BPA shall, working with the agricultural
incentive programs, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per
year”. Our program works closely with the NRCS and local conservation districts on site-
specific projects involving a variety of federal conservation programs. A recent example
includes the removal of a large (more than 3,000 cubic yards and 1000 feet in length) rock levee
in 2005 on the mainstem Walla Walla River. Other ongoing examples of cooperative efforts in
the basin include the removal of a large adult passage barrier on Mill Creek planned for 2006.
The project in cooperation with the Walla Walla Conservation District have secured more than
$300,000 dollars in cost share funding for this effort. The project also cost-shares project
implementation costs with the local NRCS and Conservation district on properties qualified for
CREP but lacking funding for some part of the restoration strategy. For example, the project
might pay for the installation of a livestock fence or assume responsibility for project
maintenance on lands enrolled in the CREP Program. We have found this approach to be
popular with landowners and it provides a considerable cost-savings to implementing agencies.
The 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program:

This project is consistent with the vision set forth in the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program by: (1)
protecting existing high quality habitat; (2) prioritizing restoration projects through the use of
watershed assessment; (3) giving priority to restoration actions that maximize the desired result
per dollar spent; (4) implementing proven habitat restoration methods, particularly natural
healing techniques; (5) seeking cost-share (300k secured in 2005 alone) and encouraging the
investment of volunteers; (6) coordinating data collection, analysis and reporting, and adaptive
management to monitor project progress; (7) implementing riparian easements of sufficient
quality to improve and maintain salmon and steelhead production in privately owned riparian
areas and adjacent lands; (8) using native species wherever feasible; and (9) restore
ecosystems not single species focus.

Snake River Recovery Plan:

In October of 2005, the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan was completed.
This process, funded primarily by the State of Washington, is designed to provide an opportunity
to incorporate the best available scientific information with local enhancement efforts (Snake
River Recovery Board, 2005). On page 206, a list of “key limiting habitat factors” are provided
for each geographical area which include the elimination of riparian function, increased
sediment and water temperatures, decreased riparian condition, and major changes in channel
form and function (Snake River Recovery Board, 2005).

Two Significant State of Washington Reports:

Extinction Not an Option: In 1998, the State of Washington Completed a Statewide Strategy
to Recover Salmon. The goal of the Salmon Recovery Strategy is to restore salmon, steelhead,
and trout populations to healthy, harvestable levels and improve those habitats on which fish
rely (Extinction Not an Option, 1998). Section “D” of the document is entitled “Habitat is the
Key”. Components of this section include changes in agriculture, forest and timber
management, land use decisions, urban storm water, minimum stream flows, clean water, and
fish passage barriers.

Limiting Factors Analysis: In April of 2001, the Washington State Conservation Commission
completed the “Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors” for the Walla Walla Watershed (Kuttel, 2001).
This 171 page document included a year long effort by many area fish, wildlife, land, and farm
managers. On page 12 of the document a list of 17 basin-wide recommendations are provided
(Draft Statewide Salmon Strategy, 1998). Of significance and support to this proposal include:

Number 8. Replant native riparian vegetation along streams beginning in the upper reaches of
spawning and rearing areas, then progressing downstream to lower priority migration areas;

Number 9. Improve stream habitat on the upper reaches of spawning and rearing areas by
providing large woody debris, consolidating braided channels, stabilizing eroding banks, and
creating pools;

Number 10. Restore floodplain connectivity and natural channel migration by removing or
setting back levees and removing bank armoring;

Number 11. Continue to identify fish passage problems and correct barriers that restrict access
to useable habitat;
Number 16. Fence livestock out of streams

Number 17. Increase protection of critical salmonid habitat areas.

Management Recommendations for the proposed work area on the South Fork of the
Touchet River from Kuttel 2001.

1. Restore riparian zones on private lands, particularly on the South Fork of the Touchet River.

2. Place LWD in streams to provide instream cover and encourage pool formation.

3. Restrict access to the unimproved dirt road within the Rainwater Wildlife Area.

4. Restore floodplain connectivity.

5. Abandoned roads should be decommissioned and replanted with native vegetation

3. Relationships to other projects

The CTUIR manages fish habitat programs in the Grande Ronde (199608300), John Day
(20003100), Umatilla (198710001) and Walla Walla River Basins (199604601). All of these
programs focus on watershed health and riparian/instream enhancement to meet the goals of
the subbasin plan and ultimately the restoration of harvestable and sustainable fish populations.
Habitat projects within the CTUIR meet each week to discuss areas of concern, project
approach, monitoring ideas, funding opportunities, etc. Often, project equipment and personnel
is shared to reduce cost. Examples include the sharing of four-wheelers, planting tools, and
personnel during the busy spring and fall planting periods. The project also coordinates with the
CTUIR Walla Walla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project in the
development of scientifically sound monitoring methods and the analysis of long-term project
data (please see appendix A).

Habitat restoration is one part of a comprehensive strategy to restore native fish to harvestable
and self-sustaining populations in the Walla Walla Basin. Other ongoing efforts include various
research projects, natural production monitoring and evaluation, artificial production, and flow
enhancement. Restoration and protection efforts conducted by this project rely on the
recommendations, findings, and activities of all other projects in the basin at some level.
Coordination with other projects occurs within the Snake River Recovery Planning Group, the
Walla Walla Watershed Council, the Mill Creek Group, the Technical Oversight Team,
Watershed Alliance, and the Priority Projects Group.

In 2000, the “Priority Projects Group” was formed in an effort to streamline the implementation
process, improve project quality, and reduce cost. The group is attended by representatives
from the CTUIR, the Walla Walla Conservation District, the Tri-State Steelheaders, and the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Potential projects are generally brought to the
group by the local Conservation District. Projects are then ranked and the responsibility for
implementing them is divided among each of the participants. An example of this process
played out in the fall of 2005 in which a large rock levee was removed from within the floodplain
on the mainstem Walla Walla River at McDonald Road. The levee was removed to reduce
channel confinement and improve floodplain function. The CTUIR took the lead on the project
and secured all of the implementation funding and federal clearances. The WDFW obtained all
of the state and local permits. And finally, the Tri-State Steelheaders (a local club representing
steelhead fisherman) completed all of the revegetation work. A fairly complex project was thus
completed in a timely manner by sharing the work and cost with several agencies.

Other cooperators in the basin include the Snake River Recovery Board (SRRB). The SRRB
represented by a broad range of agency and local interests is working cooperatively to meet the
needs of fish in the Snake River Region. The SRRB, funded primarily by the State of
Washington, is guided by the Snake River Recovery Plan, completed in October of 2005. This
group has provided more than 300,000 dollars in cost share to this project in recent years (web
page: http://www.snakeriverboard.org/). Cooperation is also ongoing with the Walla Walla
Watershed Alliance. This group is represented by area business operators, agriculture, and
technical expertise. Through funding provided by the NRCS, the Alliance awarded the project
50,000 dollars in 2005 for the removal of a passage barrier on Mill Creek (web page:
http://wwwalliance.org/index1.tpl).

Depending on the type of work being completed the project will also coordinate with the Oregon
Division of State Lands, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife, United States Corps of Engineers, United States Fish and Wildlife Service and
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA). The project also works very closely with
Bonneville Power Administration, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the local
Watershed Council.

The project also coordinates with the CTUIR Native Plant Nursery. Native plant cuttings and
seeds are collected at various locations in the Walla Walla River Basin and grown out at the
nursery. This arrangement provides the project with a convenient source of local high quality
native plant materials for restoration areas.


4. Project history

This project first received funding from the BPA in 1996 with the first full year of operation
occurring in 1997. Past annual project costs requested from BPA have ranged from $190,856
in 1997 to $277,617 in 2005.

The “initial” need of the project was an understanding by fish managers in 1996 that large
portions of habitat in the Walla Walla River Basin for salmonid fish had been lost.
It’s worth mentioning briefly that since this project began in 1996, approximately eight miles of
stream restoration/protection work has been completed. All of the past accomplishments and
current long-term conservation easements fall within areas “recently” defined in the Subbasin
Plan as being priority for restoration and/or protection. It has always been and will continue to
be the direction of this project to focus on those portions of the basin capable of providing year-
round spawning and rearing habitat and those activities expected to provide the greatest
biological benefit.

A list of major accomplishments completed by the project include:

1. Eight miles of critical salmonid habitat has been signed into long-term conservation
easements;

2. More than one million dollars has been secured as cost-share to BPA funds;
3. Secured non-BPA funding (approximately $150,000) and purchased 46 acres of land which
includes 0.5 stream miles on the South Fork of the Walla Walla River. This area is considered
“priority” for restoration and protection in the subbasin plan and will be managed indefinitely for
the benefit of native fish and wildlife and water quality;

4. Removed a 1000 foot rock levee (more than 3000 cubic yards of rock) on the mainstem
Walla Walla River. All of the implementation costs were paid for through outside cost-share
secured by the project, nearly $60,000 dollars;

5. In 2006, the project will be repairing a major adult passage barrier at Gose St. on Mill Creek
in 2006. This barrier is considered to be an “imminent threat” in the subbasin and thus receives
the highest of priority. With the cooperation of the local conservation district, the project has
secured more than $300,000 dollars in cost share for this effort. The project is currently in the
final stages of design.


Table 9. List of accomplishments made during the 1997 to 2005 funding periods:


Achieved Results         Value              Significance to Goals of Subbasin Plan

Cost-share secured       1,000,000 or       Cost-share has allowed the project to complete a
                         more (300,000+     larger number of projects improving riparian
                         in 2005)           conditions, water quality, and ultimately survival of
                                            juvenile and adult fishes.
Long term                8                  Cons. easements ensure restoration dollars are
conservation                                protected, that the goals of the easement are met,
easements secured                           and that the landowner has some “ownership/cost
                                            share” in the project.
Stream miles             8                  Conservation easements prevent activities within
protected in cons.                          the protected areas such as livestock grazing, use
easements                                   of herbicides on native plants, removal of live or
                                            dead trees, the building of roads, etc.
Riparian and upland      272                Riparian and upland areas are critical for
acres currently in                          providing stream shade, insect drop, LWD,
protection                                  channel diversity, thermal regulation, wildlife
                                            cover, and sediment filtering.
Riparian plants          100,000+           Riparian plants are critical in meeting the priority
planted as rooted                           objectives in the subbasin plan for stream
stock                                       temperatures, shade, and LWD component.
Riparian plants          50,000+            Riparian plants are critical in meeting the priority
placed as cuttings                          objectives in the subbasin plan for stream
                                            temperatures, shade, LWD component, and
                                            channel diversity
Acres seeded to          60+                Native grasses eliminate invasive weeds,
native grass                                agricultural run-off, soil erosion, sediment input,
                                            changes in stream temperatures, and provide
                                            year-round cover and food for a terrestrial
                                            species.
Miles of livestock       7                  Livestock exclusion is an integral part of restoring
exclusion fence                             riparian vegetation to project areas and meeting
                                    objectives for stream temperatures, LWD, and
                                    channel diversity, bank protection, sediment
                                    reduction, shade, etc.
Weed control          100 approx.   Weed control measures are necessary to
(acres)/year                        eliminate populations of aggressive weeds that
                                    otherwise prevent reintroduction of native riparian
                                    and upland plant species.
Annual Reports of     8             Reports provide a source of information for other
Progress                            projects and allow for adaptive management
                                    strategies to be developed for out-year efforts.
Log V-                9             LWD is a major lacking component in most
Weirs/revetments                    portions of the basin as a result of extensive
                                    logging. LWD meets one of the “priority”
                                    strategies in most cases. LWD helps prevent bank
                                    erosion, encourages pool development and
                                    channel diversity.
Root wads placed as   10            LWD is a major lacking component in most
LWD                                 portions of the basin as a result of extensive
                                    logging . LWD helps prevent bank erosion,
                                    encourages pool development and channel
                                    diversity, and provides cover for a life stages of
                                    salmonids.
Rock Vortex Weirs     10            Rock weirs are constructed to ensure that
                                    desirable channel features are not lost as a result
                                    of head-cutting and channel jumping.
Rock Barbs            8             Barbs are often used as a compromise with
                                    landowners wishing to confine the river with rock
                                    levees. Rock barbs can provide valuable
                                    instream habitat, particularly when LWD is
                                    incorporated into the design.
Figure 4: In October of 2005, the project removed a 1000 foot rock levee on the mainstem
Walla Walla River. A small portion of the levee is seen in the “before” photo on the left looking
east that had been pushed up against the river’s edge preventing lateral movement
(confinement) and access to the floodplain. The photo on the right captures the same location
after levee removal.




Fig 5: This photo is looking east along a portion of the rock levee removed from the floodplain in
October of 2005. The levee had been constructed by the previous landowner in the early 1980’s
and had confined the stream channel. The levee was more than 1000 feet in length about 6
feet in height and contained more than 3000 cubic yards of rock. The floodplain behind the
levee will now be able to function during high flow events. Two cost-share partners (Tri State
Steelheaders and the WDFW) will be re-planting the site this winter.

Project Effectiveness Monitoring and Adaptive Management:

Implementation Monitoring

Implementation monitoring efforts focus on evaluating whether a project was carried out
successfully, and quantifying the physical effects of a habitat action on the environment.
Implementation monitoring is mensurative only, and is not dependent upon a randomized
experiment per-se. Some of the products associated with implementation monitoring are
principally descriptive in-nature, while some implementation performance metrics are suitable
for statistical analysis. However, the impacts of actions on physical stream attributes will be
compared to reference geographic areas in the context of a Before-After-Control-Inference
design to quantify changes over time correlated with management actions, versus those
associated with natural variability. In addition, basic documentation of project performance (e.g.
number of miles of fencing, etc.) will be used to assess the intensity of management
performance in each geographic area.


Effectiveness Monitoring and the Evaluation of Program Performance

A number of monitoring and evaluation guidance documents have been published since the last
provincial review of BPA supported projects (e.g. (EPA 2002, Hillman and Giorgi 2002,
Ruckelshaus et al. 2002, Hillman 2003, Jordan et al. 2003, NPPC 2004). This wealth of
literature includes a broad spectrum of ideas regarding which performance metrics are most
powerful, and how they should be applied and interpreted locally and/or regionally. The
biological reality of this topic is that salmon and their ecosystems are complex; thus there are a
large number of approaches to salmonid performance metrics that can be considered “correct”,
“reasonable”, or “applicable”.

The most promising lessons for salmonid monitoring were recently summarized in the ISRP’s
recent retrospective (ISRP 2005). In addition, the Interior Columbia Technical Recovery Team
(ICTRT) has re-summarized and begun to apply the basic categories of performance metrics as
part of salmon restoration and recovery (TRT 2004, 2005). The TRT recognized a set of four
common suites of indicators that represent the basic building blocks of evaluating performance
in salmonid populations:

   1.   Abundance – the number or biomass of fishes at a given life-cycle in time and space
   2.   Productivity – the rate of salmonid production through time
   3.   Spatial Structure – the distribution, range, and connectivity of a population
   4.   Diversity – genetic, phenotypic, and life-history diversity

The CTUIR Walla Walla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation, the WDFW, and
ODFW are collaborating to test the hypothesis that salmonid performance increases in treated
priority geographic areas as compared to reference geographic areas that do not receive
extensive habitat actions. In addition, the M&E project assesses the performance of Umatilla
populations as a whole and in comparison to other Columbia Plateau stocks, and assists in the
evaluation of provincial and Columbia Basin performance. The monitoring and evaluation
program uses a mixture of probabilistic and census surveys of natural production performance
metrics. For a detailed description of the methods and experimental design please see the
proposal for that project.

The project conducts effectiveness monitoring on a portion of the projects signed into long-term
conservation easements. Not all project areas include monitoring efforts because of the
considerable amount of time and expense associated with this task. Beyond that, we feel that a
sub-sample of projects selected for monitoring is providing us with the information we need to
make sound out-year management decisions. It should be understood that there are aspects of
habitat restoration that may limit immediate quantifiable success. Measurable ecological
benefits associated with habitat restoration often require years to come to fruition. And,
biological outcomes, particularly those that are measurable, may be difficult to quantify and
directly credit to restoration efforts. Habitat restoration is a slow business at best and although
some sites will provide measurable indicators almost immediately, others may take a decade to
produce similar results.

Monitoring the effectiveness of restoration actions requires measuring the response of physical
(e.g. stream channels, fish habitat) and biological changes (e.g. fishes) (Roni, 2005). Pre and
post project monitoring and evaluation parameters have been in use by the project since the
first year of operation. Monitoring data from project areas is clearly showing “measurable”
beneficial changes to fish habitat within project areas. These benefits when compared to the
anticipated biological outcomes developed in the EDT Analysis in tables 2-5 clearly show the
project is making a difference for focal species.

In 2000, we developed a guiding document entitled “Habitat Monitoring Protocol”. This working
draft document is used by the project to guide out-year monitoring work and ensure
consistency. A considerable amount of time was spent in developing this guide with the
assistance of the CTUIR Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation senior research
biologist.

The analysis of monitoring data combined with research information gathered by others and
weekly meetings among CTUIR habitat project leaders, provides us with the tools necessary to
make educated out-year adaptive-management decisions.


Parameters currently being monitored and analyzed over time include:

Longitudinal survey-data is collected by walking the length of the stream within the project
area and measuring the length of each habitat unit. Habitat units are identified to pools, glides,
riffles, rapids, or cascades for example. This information allows the project to monitor physical
changes in channel form over time. If for example pools are lacking, how deficient is the stream
when compared to a reference reach or literature recommendations?

Longitudinal Profile-data is collected through the use of a laser level. Longitudinal profiles
measure approximately 300-500 feet along the channel or 20 times the channel width at bank
full (Harrelson et al. 1994). A tape measure is stretched from the top of the profile to the ending
point downstream. The starting point is at “0” and elevation changes in the stream bed contour
are measured at “0+the 00”. For example, a position 50 feet downstream from the starting point
would be “0+50 at x-height”.
                                                                                    Blue Creek
                   90



                   85
  Elevation (ft)




                   80
                                                                                                                                            y = -0.0244x + 89.837

                   75



                   70



                   65
                              0            100             200               300                           400                      500                          600                  700
                                                                                   Channel Distance (ft)
                                                                                                                 bed        water srf     Terrace        Water         BKF   ---   x-section




Figure 6: Longitudinal data collected on the Blue Creek Project Area, 2002.


Cross section survey-this information is collected at 2-10 (depending on project length)
permanent monitoring points at various locations on the stream length. Transects are taken
perpendicular to the stream’s thalweg and generally continue outward on each shoreline to a
point above bank-full width. Transects should include at least 20 measurements and are best
established at straight sections of the stream between meander bends. Cross-sections allow
the project to better understand channel formation changes over time. Generally a trend toward
a single thread channel narrowing and deepening is most desirable for salmonid health, channel
stability (stable form over time), and water quality.

                                                      Riffle Blue Creek, Cross Section 1 (furthest upstream)


                              104
                              103
                              102
                              101
             Elevation (ft)




                              100
                               99
                                  98
                                  97
                                  96
                                  95
                                  94
                                  93
                                       0         10              20                       30                           40                           50                        60
                                                                      Width from River Right to Left (ft)



Figure 7: Cross-section data collected on Blue Creek in July of 2005.

Riparian vegetation-vegetation counts are repeated at portions of the riparian corridor every
three years. Survey locations are marked with metal fence posts. The survey is done by
stretching a measuring tape perpendicular to the stream flow, away from the channel, to the end
of the transect. At every meter interval, predominate vegetation types are categorized along
that one-meter portion of the transect. Tree and shrub height is estimated to the nearly 10
meters. For example, the data sheet may look like the following:
From 0m – 2m:         S (shrubs), height <10m.
From 2m – 7m:         G (annual grasses and herbs)
From 7m – 15m:        T (trees) height 10-20m

This process is repeated on the opposite side of the stream. If necessary, additional notes on
any important observations (i.e.: large weed infestations, recent evidence of fire, etc.) are
included. This information will be used to determine percent ground cover, and proportional
vegetative composition indices. Mature vegetation provides shade, cover, large wood
recruitment, insect drop, and roughness during high flow periods and deep roots for soil
retention.

Shade-using the concave spherical densiometer, shade coverage is measured within the
stream channel. While standing at the thalweg along the transect, four readings are taken,
facing upstream, downstream, to the right bank and to the left bank. Information will be used to
better understand how past and present restoration practices are impacting changes in canopy
cover and channel form.

Photo point- slide photos are taken from one end of the transect across the floodplain for the
purpose of long term vegetative monitoring. This information provides a valuable visual source
for public education and restoration progress over time.
Some example photo-points from project areas are provided below.

               August 1998                                      July 2001




                                        August 2003




Figure 8: Mainstem Walla Walla River photo point series collected between August of 1998
through August of 2003. This field is approximately 18 acres in size. The large weed barrier
mats were placed by the project in 2001 and are 40 feet by 100 feet. Native grasses have been
seeded around the mats. The mats were purposely laid out in a “random” form to best replicate
natural plant succession and are designed to decompose after five years. The mats have
improved survival of native plants from less than 10% to more than 80% in most cases.
Figure 9: Weed barrier mats in October of 2002 on the left; the same weed barrier
mats in October of 2004 on the right.




    Figure 10: This photo was taken on a weed barrier mat planted within a project
    area on the mainstem Walla Walla River in October of 2004. The dense canopy
    is comprised of primarily native cottonwood trees. These plants were started as
    tublings (about 8 inches tall) and reached this stage of growth after just four
    growing seasons. The mats are forcing invasive weed species out such as reed
    canary grass, conserving soil moisture, improving floodplain conditions, and have
    dramatically enhanced habitat for terrestrial species.
Figure 11: This photo was taken within a project area on the mainstem Walla
Walla River near Whitman Mission in October of 2004. Four years ago this field
was comprised entirely of invasive non-native weeds. The noxious weeds were
chemically/mechanically removed and a mix of native grasses including Great
Basin Wild Rye were seeded into the field. Broadleaf herbicides and mowing
were used to control weeds within the developing grass stand. The
reestablished native grasses have eliminated invasive weed species and soil
erosion and enhanced habitat for terrestrial species. The project is now
preparing to reintroduce tree and shrub species into appropriate portions of the
field. The project currently has more than 60 acres of native grasses
reestablished in project areas in the basin.
               May 1998                                     July 2001




Figure 12: Blue Creek Riparian Project Area photo-points taken between 1998 and 2001. This
project area was severaly damaged during the flood of 1996. Restoration work included a long
term conservation easement, root wad revetments, minor channel work, and the placement of
several thousand willow and cottonwood cuttings. Hundreds of rooted stock plantings were also
planted. Abundance of juvenile salmonid fish at this site doubled in the year following restoration
work. Note the significant recovery of riparian vegetation and channel narrowing that has
occurred with restoration. By the summer of 2005, the vegetation had returned so heavily that
photo-points at these locations were no longer possible.
Stream temperature-water temperatures are collected with a calibrated thermometer at the
center of the channel. Basin wide temperature monitoring is being collected by the CTUIR
Walla Walla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project and many others.

Land use- the predominate land use of adjacent terraces and hill slopes not part of the riparian
zone is noted. This information elevates understanding of current and potential channel and
vegetative conditions.

Woody debris-this classification system allows for five possible wood classes, each
categorizing the complexity and amount of woody debris. By comparing this information to
“standards” developed by the USFS, the project is better able to plan future restoration
strategies. It’s worth noting that some systems have evolved in the absence of large wood.
Other areas may not function properly with the addition of wood because of alterations and
constraints to channel and floodplain.

Bank stability-this exercise involves a qualitative description for the observed stability of both
the right and left bank using the classification system developed by the ODFW in 1993 (Moore
et al., 1993). This information provides understanding of the level of channel stability over time
and the effectiveness of other on-site restoration practices.

Substrate- determine the percent distribution of substrate material into the six size classes
shown below. Estimate the distribution relative to the total area of the habitat unity (wetted
area). Round off each class to nearest 5-percent.
       1. Silt and fine organic matter
       2. Sand
       3. Gravel (pea to baseball; 2-64 mm)
       4. Cobble (baseball to bowling ball; 64-256 mm)
       5. Boulders
       6. Bedrock

Fish Population Assessments-these are conducted once pre-project (generally in September)
and then once every three years thereafter by the NPME staff with the CTUIR (electro-fishing).
The data is used to better understand the impacts of habitat restoration on species composition,
length frequency, and changes in abundance. The project may choose to not sample in some
years because of concern for listed species.

Table 10: An example of monitoring data collected from a project area on the mainstem Walla
Walla River (surveyed August 2001).

 Category                  Parameter                            2000                 2001
 Channel Description       Water Temp. (C)                      17.0                 13.7
                           Land Use                       Rural Residential    Rural Residential
                           Wetted Width (m)                     16.2                 13.7
                           Bankfull Width (m)                   18.5                 18.5
                           Wood Class (#)                         1                    2
 Substrate                 % Fine                               30.0                  0.0
                           % Gravel                             33.3                 36.7
                           % Cobble                             30.0                 56.7
                           % Boulder                             6.7                  6.7
                           % Bedrock                             0.0                  0.0
 % Shade                   % Shade Upstream                        7.7                  12.5
                           % Shade Right Bank                     44.3                  46.5
                           % Shade Downstream                      8.7                  15.3
                           % Shade Left Bank                      25.3                  61.4
                           % Shade Average                        21.5                  33.9
 Vegetation Cover          % No Vegetation                       10.9%                 12.7%
                           % Annual grasses/herbs                86.6%                 69.7%
                           % Perennial grass                      0.0%                  6.7%
                           % Shrubs                               1.3%                  0.4%
                           % Deciduous dominated                  1.0%                 10.4%
                           % Mixed conifer/deciduous              0.0%                  0.0%
 Habitat Units             % Dry                                  0.0%                  0.0%
                           % Glide                               34.4%                 23.3%
                           % Riffle                              59.5%                 54.0%
                           % Riffle With Pockets                  0.0%                  0.0%
                           % Rapid                                6.1%                  6.4%
                           % Cascade                              0.0%                  0.0%
                           % Pool                                 0.0%                  0.0%
                           % Lateral Scour Pool                   0.0%                 16.3%
                           % Plunge Pool                          0.0%                  0.0%
                           % Straight Scour Pool                  0.0%                  0.0%
                           % Trench Pool                          0.0%                  0.0%


5. Objectives

Proposed project objectives (1 through 5) are provided below followed by bulleted work
elements and a brief description of how each element will be completed.

Objective 1: Identify, select, and design habitat restoration projects that provide long-term
benefit to biological systems, watershed limiting factors, and the salmonid fish relying on them.

Identify and select projects

      Identify, prioritize, and select potential project sites through watershed assessment,
       subbasin plan, public outreach, landowner contact, interagency communication, and
       personal observation.

      Conduct brief on-site visits to project areas; identify habitat factors most limiting
       salmonid production.

      Review list of project with staff, discuss any concerns, prioritize, develop final list of
       projects to be implemented

Obtain Conservation Easements

      Obtain easements with landowners in priority GA’s as they become available.
Produce design and/or specifications

      Develop project design for the placement of whole trees and road obliteration for project
       area on the South Fork of the Touchet River. This WE will be completed in coordination
       with the CTUIR Rainwater Ranch Project.

Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation for South Fork Touchet River Project

      Develop and secure all state, local, and Federal permits necessary to complete this WE.
       This WE will also include correspondence with the BPA Compliance Group and the
       CTUIR Cultural Resources Dept.

Produce design and/or specifications

      Develop project design for the removal of invasive weeds and reintroduction of native
       plants in the riparian and upland corridor on the South Fork of the Walla Walla River-
       Kentch Property

Produce design and/or specifications

      Subcontract for design of instream structures on the mainstem Walla Walla River

Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation for South Fork Walla Walla Instream
Work

      Develop and secure all state, local, and Federal permits necessary to complete this WE.
       This WE will also include correspondence with the BPA Compliance Group and the
       CTUIR Cultural Resources Dept.

Coordination (seek cost-share funding)

      Develop and submit grants/proposals to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board in the
       State of Washington and the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Board through the
       Columbia River Inter Tribal Fish Commission. Various other State and Federal sources
       may also be pursued as part of this effort during any month of the year. Cost share
       funds that are secured by this project are used exclusively for project implementation
       which allows administrative and personnel dollars provided by the BPA to go further.

Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report

      Document and assist as necessary the BPA Environmental Compliance Group for
       planned projects. This includes various permit applications, ESA clearances, NEPA
       clearances, maps, surveys, etc.

Objective 2: Implement fish habitat enhancement and restoration actions including passive and
active methods to improve anadromous fish habitat and water quality.
Manage and Administer Project

      Oversight of whole tree placement and road obliteration work activities on the South
       Fork of the Touchet River.

Manage and Administer Project

      Oversight of instream pool development work on South Fork of the Walla Walla River.

Manage and Administer Project

      Oversight of weed control application by contractors at South Fork of the Walla Walla
       River-Kentch.

Objective 3. Conduct routine maintenance to project areas signed into long-term conservation
easements to ensure long term goals and objectives are met.

Maintain Terrestrial Structure

      Identify fences in need of repair; perform fence maintenance as needed on seven miles
       of livestock exclusion fencing within project areas. This may involve replacing fence wire,
       poles, etc.

Plant Vegetation

      Plant native trees and shrubs within project areas on Patit Creek, mainstem Walla Walla
       River, (Lampson, Lofthouse, McCain, Kentch), South Fork Touchet River (Rainwater),
       and Blue Creek.

Maintain Vegetation
    Control of noxious and competitive weeds within project areas as needed.

Landowner Agency Coordination
    Hold attend landowner/agency meeting as necessary. Coordinate with landowners to
     develop program. Coordinate with landowners on project concerns/needs.

Objective 4: Conduct effectiveness monitoring and evaluation to assess progress towards
goals and objectives and to identify adaptive management needs.

Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data

      This WE involves the collection, generation, and entering of effectiveness monitoring
       data at project areas on Blue Creek, Couse Creek, and the mainstem Walla Walla River.

Analyze/Interpret data

      Analyze long-term monitoring data; compare results to previous years, other CTUIR
       habitat projects and physical and biological specifications provided in literature. Meet
       with habitat project leaders within the CTUIR and discuss ways to improve project
       approach. The analysis of this information provides the project with the data needed to
       make out-year management decisions, adaptive management.

Objective 5: Provide information transfer and continued learning through the completion of
quarterly and annual reports of progress and sharing of project methods, results, and
discussion.

Produce Annual Report
    Develop quarterly reports of progress as per contract specifications between the CTUIR
      and BPA.

Produce Status Report
    Provide project status in Pisces Format as needed.
    Develop annual report of progress as per contract specifications between the CTUIR
      and BPA that will include among other things details of accomplishments for work
      elements in the SOW.

Table 11: The table below is intended to clarify the new project areas we propose to do work
in and show a clear link between our proposed project actions (column 3) and limiting factors
(for these same areas, column 4) in the subbasin plan.

Proposed      Priority          Objectives     Proposed       Limiting       Time-line
Project       Restoration                      Project        Factors for
Location      Area in                          Actions        the Proposed
              Subbasin                                        Project Area
              Plan?                                           in Subbasin
                                                              Plan
South Fork    Yes for           Increase       The            Embeddednes    Implementation
Touchet       restoration and   LWD and        addition of    s              planned for
River         protection        pools          approximat     LWD            2007-2009.
                                               ely 400        Pools          Maintenance will
                                               whole trees    Riparian       occur in these
                                               and the        function       areas thereafter.
                                               obliteration   Confinement
                                               of             Water Temps
                                               approximat     Bedscour
                                               ely 3 miles    Summer Flow
                                               of riparian
                                               road bed.
South Fork    Yes for           Improve        Revegetati     Embeddednes    Revegetation
Walla         restoration and   riparian       on and         s              planned for
Walla River   protection        function,      weed           LWD            2007-
Kentch                          LWD, pools     control on     Pools          maintenance and
                                and water      approximat     Riparian       replant if
                                temps          ely 15         function       necessary will
                                through        acres of       Confinement    occur through
                                revegetation   riparian       Water Temps    2009.
                                of riparian    habitat        Bedscour
                                areas                         Summer Flow

South Fork    Yes for           Elevate        Design and     Embeddednes    Implementation
Walla         restoration and   LWD, and       install        s              is planned for
Walla         protection        pools with     instream       LWD            2008 and
Instream/Ri                     the addition   structures     Pools          beyond.
parian                          of instream    in confined    Riparian       Completion date
                                structures     areas of       function       will depend on
                                               the south      Confinement    the availability of
                                               fork walla     Water Temps    funding,
                                               walla river.   Bedscour       landowner
                                                              Summer Flow    support and
                                                                             state/federal
                                                                             permit
                                                                             clearances.




6. Methods

New work proposed for the 2007-09 period:

Habitat enhancement activities proposed for the 2007-09 period are planned within the South
Fork of the Touchet River and the South Fork of the Walla Walla River. The project also
proposes to continue operations and maintenance within existing project areas (those currently
in riparian conservation easements with the CTUIR). Below is a list of the proposed activities
followed by a more detailed narrative of project “need” and expected “benefit”.

Proposed Project Number 1:

South Fork of the Touchet River-Rainwater Wildlife Area (more than 8,000 acres owned by
the CTUIR and managed exclusively for the benefit of fish and wildlife and open to public use):

Proposed Activities:

A. All work will be done in cooperation with the BPA Funded “Rainwater Wildlife Area”.
B. Obliterate approximately 3 miles of valley-bottom road;
C. Riparian and upland planting in those areas disturbed by road removal and channel
enhancement
D. Minor stream channel restoration work will be necessary because the South Fork of the
Touchet River is flowing within the road bed in some areas.
E. Place approximately 400 whole trees within the stream channel of the South Fork of the
Touchet River.

Project Need:

The 8,678-acre Rainwater Wildlife Area was purchased by the CTUIR in September 1998 under
the NPPC Fish and Wildlife Program for the purpose of providing perpetual protection to fish
and wildlife resources. Since 1999, CTUIR fisheries staff have documented baseline habitat
conditions and developed resource objectives through the management plan development
process. The Draft Rainwater Wildlife Area Watershed Management Plan (CTUIR, March 2001)
documents existing conditions, desired conditions and objectives, and management strategies
for achieving desired future conditions.
The Rainwater Wildlife Area was clear-cut logged and heavily grazed for more than a century.
As a result, the stream corridors are lacking the channel form benefits provided by the
recruitment of large wood. Logging efforts also included the construction of a number of roads,
many of which have already been removed by the project. The bottom three miles of the project
area along the South Fork of the Touchet River still contains a draw-bottom road which we
propose to remove during the 2007-09 funding cycle. The road is causing a disconnect in the
stream channel and preventing proper side-hill drainage and riparian and floodplain function.
It is our intention to mimic natural recruitment of whole trees in a forested riparian ecosystem
with the addition of whole conifer trees throughout the 7 miles of stream reach in the project
area. Approximately 300 of the trees have already been purchased with a total of 400 trees
planned for the final project. The trees will be distributed throughout the 7 mile reach with 3-5
pieces per complex placed on point-bars, gravel bars, and also in braided reaches to encourage
the formation of a single stream channel thread. The wood will be placed in a manner
consistent with the natural movement of large wood in a forested ecosystem and will follow the
experience and literature recommendations of similar projects completed by the CTUIR in the
Umatilla Basin and elsewhere. Because there are no roads in the uppermost four miles of this
project area a helicopter will be used to place the trees. In the lower three miles of the stream
with road access a cat-track excavator will be used to position the trees. Following this work,
the project intends to obliterate the valley bottom road and construct a number of grade control
structures and cross-vanes to protect project investments.
The stream surveys, mapping, tree placement and road removal engineering will be contracted
out in 2006 and 2007. Funding for the project will be provided by this project, the Rainwater
Ranch Project (BPA Project 200002600), the Pacific Coastal Salmon Funding Board, and the
Snake River Recovery Board in Washington.

Anticipated Benefit:

Proposed Project           Limiting Factors         Proposed Project       Limiting factors
Area                       from EDT                 Actions                addressed
South Fork Touchet-        LWD                      The project intends    LWD
Rainwater Wildlife Area    Confinement              to place more than     Confinement
                           Riparian Function        400 whole trees in     Riparian Function
                           Sediment                 the stream and         Sediment
                           Key Habitat (pools)      remove one mile of     Key Habitat (pools)
                           Temperature              road within the        Temperature
                                                    stream bed.


Proposed Project Number 2:

South fork of the Walla Walla River-Kentch Property

Proposed Activities:

A. Control noxious within floodplain and riparian corridor; remove trash and large sections of
blackberry bushes;
B. Prepare soil within floodplain and riparian corridor areas for reestablishment of native trees,
bushes, and grasses;
C. Purchase plant materials;
D. Plant native trees and shrubs

Project Need:

In 2001, the project leader wrote several grants and successfully secured funding to purchase
this 46 acre property on the South Fork of the Walla Walla River. A combination of Casino and
Pacific Coastal Salmon dollars were used to buy the property. The property will be managed
indefinitely for the benefit of native fish and wildlife and remains open to the public. Proposed
work for the project site in the 2007-09 funding cycle includes the removal and control of
noxious weeds and reintroduction of native riparian and upland plants.

The stream at this location is ranked as “priority” for restoration and protection and contains
strong populations of resident redband trout, steelhead, and bull trout during all months of the
year. Limiting factors for the property include embeddedness, LWD, pools, riparian function,
confinement, water temperatures, bed scour, and summer flow (Final Addendum, page 31).




Figure 13: The photo on the left is looking east within the project area on the South Fork of the
Walla Walla River in 2004. The photo on the right, within the same project area, is looking east
across the riparian and upland portion (currently a pasture) of the proposed work area. The
project intends to remove the stands of blackberry bushes seen in the photo on the right, control
the invasive noxious weeds (cheat grass, thistles, etc.) and reestablish native riparian and
upland plant species.

Anticipated Benefit:

Proposed Project          Limiting Factors         Proposed Project       Limiting factors
Area                      from EDT                 Actions                addressed
Kentch Property-          LWD                      Noxious weed           LWD
Riparian restoration      Confinement              control, riparian      Riparian Function
                          Riparian Function        restoration, pool      Sediment
                          Sediment                 enhancement            Key Habitat
                          Key Habitat (pools)                             Temperature
                          Temperature                                     Bed scour
                          Flow
                          Bed scour



Proposed Project Number 3:

South fork of the Walla Walla River-Instream/Riparian

Proposed Activities:

1. Coordinate with the ODFW and Walla Walla Watershed Council in the development of
project design and landowner contact. The work will focus on private lands on the South Fork of
the Walla Walla River. We will focus our efforts on those sections of the South Fork most
needing restoration work (identified in the habitat survey data collected by Hoverson in 2005).

2. Mail out letters to landowners on the South Fork of the Walla Walla River and invite them to
participate in stream restoration work on their property.

3. Conduct landowner scoping meetings; identify and select project locations;

4. Develop long-term conservation easements with landowners;

5. Develop project design for participating landowner locations. This may be done by the CTUIR
hydrologist or sub-contracted out and paid for with cost-share funding;

6. Secure all necessary state, federal, and local permits;
7. Secure all materials and supplies

8. Implement projects

Project Need:

In the summer of 2005 a physical survey of approximately 10 miles of the South Fork of the
Walla Walla River was completed by staff of the CTUIR Walla Walla Monitoring and Evaluation
Project. This survey was done in an effort to better understand the factors most limiting
salmonid fish in the priority reach and design out-year habitat and natural production restoration
and monitoring approaches to meet these needs.

Findings of the survey: Throughout privately owned lands on the South Fork of the Walla Walla
River (approximately 10 stream miles) extensive levee construction and straightening has
occurred as a means of flood control. This has eliminated considerable river length and reduced
habitat quality. Habitat has been simplified and the relationship between the floodplain and river
is now less functional. Steep gradient and levees has resulted in excessive fast water habitat
where velocity and substrate size act as limiting factors to fish at different life stages. Pool
habitat has been virtually eliminated and replaced by long sections of riffle habitat; levee
removal is not an option in most cases because of adjacent homes, farms, roads, etc. This has
left one of the most productive sections of the Walla Walla River Basin compromised as a result
high stream velocities, inadequate pool habitat and LWD. We propose to enhance adult holding
areas and juvenile abundance through the construction of pool habitat within the confines of the
existing levees (Hoverson, draft, 2005). Primary pools as defined by the subbasin plan (page xii
of the glossary) made up approximately 4% of the survey area (the subbasin goal is 20%). A
study conducted by Nakamoto 1994 on the New River in California found 42% of holding
summer steelhead were using water greater than 1 meter in depth. Habitat used by spring
chinook in the middle fork John Day River were almost exclusively pools (McIntosh, et al. 1995).




Figure 14: Aerial view of proposed work area on the South Fork of the Walla Walla River. The
“yellow points” on the map are “primary pools”, those greater than or equal to one meter in
depth found during the habitat survey completed by the CTUIR in 2005. The number of pools in
this section of the river represents approximately 4% (10 primary pools in eight miles of stream)
of the total surface area, 20% is the management goal in the subbasin plan.


  Table 12: Ranking of Aquatic Habitat Variables of the SF and WWR based on ODFW and
  Walla Walla Subbasin Plan Benchmarks.

  HABITAT VARIABLE                  UNDESIRABLE         MODERATE        DESIRABLE
  Primary Pool Area > 1 meter
  avg depth                                4%
  Riparian Canopy (%)                                                            (39)
  Gravel Substrate (%)                                                           (51)
  Fine Sediment (%)                                                               (9)
  Channel Shade (%)                        (46)
  Woody Debris (Pieces/100m)                  (3)
  Width:Depth Ratio (W/D)                    (34)

In 2006, the project will be conducting scoping meetings designed to identify landowners on the
South Fork that may be interested in having pool restoration work done on their property. This
effort in combination with a questionnaire mailing is expected to provide the project with a list of
willing landowners. Several landowners within this reach have already expressed interest in
participating.

Anticipated Benefit:

Proposed Project           Limiting Factors         Proposed Project        Limiting factors
Area                       from EDT                 Actions                 addressed
South Fork Walla Walla     LWD                      Pool enhancement,       LWD
Instream/Riparian          Confinement              riparian restoration,   Riparian Function
                           Riparian Function        long-term               Sediment
                           Sediment                 conservation            Key Habitat (pools)
                           Key Habitat (pools)      easements               Temperature
                           Temperature                                      Bed scour
                           Flow
                           Bed scour


Operations and maintenance proposed for the 2007-09 funding period:

The project currently has eight miles of stream signed into long-term conservation easements.
We have found that frequent maintenance is imperative to ensure project success. Some
routine maintenance examples to project areas are:
1. Livestock exclusion fences;
2. Control of invasive weeds with both chemical and mechanical means;
3. Re-plant riparian areas as needed;
4. At times provide a connection point between the project leader and landowner;
5. Oversee project maintenance activities that are contracted out such as mowing, spraying,
fertilizing, etc.


Monitoring and Evaluation Planned for the 2007-09 funding period:

Generally monitoring strategies are repeated at a portion of project areas every three years.
Please see “Section 4, Project History” above for a complete description of project monitoring
methods and approach.

Project Objectives and Methods/Work Elements:


Landowner Conservation Easements

All CTUIR habitat projects implemented by this project are first protected by long-term (minimum
15 years) or perpetual Conservation Easements. Only those areas deemed “priority” by the
subbasin plan are considered. Landowner easements are designed to protect the resource, the
landowner, the investments of CTUIR, and the project’s funding sources (primarily Bonneville
Power Administration). Easements are very descriptive, clearly defining the project location,
riparian corridor width, livestock exclusion fence placement if any, and the expectations and
goals of all parties. Under these agreements, landowners are restricted from certain land use
activities within the enhanced riparian corridor area, such as grazing, removal of vegetation and
use of weed or insect control measures. The CTUIR works closely with the landowner to
address their management needs (such as livestock water gaps, stream crossing sites, weed
control, etc.) into to final conservation easement. Once signed by both CTUIR and the
landowner, easements are notarized and filed at the County Courthouse. Therefore, easements
transfer to new landowners in the event that the property ownership changes.

Environmental Clearances

Habitat projects typically require a variety of environmental clearances depending on the
restoration action. Depending on the proposed action, the state and federal permitting process
can require a year or longer to complete for each proposed project. Consultation with NOAA
and USFWS as a requirement under the Endangered Species Act is coordinated with the BPA
Environmental Compliance Group. Any proposed instream work activities in areas currently
supporting listed species or providing critical habitat for them require ESA consultation when
federal funding is utilized.

The project also coordinates with CTUIR's Cultural Resource Protection Program (CRPP) at
proposed habitat enhancement sites involving ground disturbance (fence construction, instream
work, etc.) to obtain cultural and historical clearances. This is required under Section 106 of the
National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA

Active Restoration/Enhancement Strategies and Natural Channel Design Concepts:

Scientific literature supports the carefully evaluated installation of instream structures (Roper et
al. 1998). The addition of structures or large boulders to create pools or cover can increase fish
populations in cases where these attributes are lacking (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). House and
Boehne (1985) found that the installation of instream structures into the altered habitats of the
East Fork of Lobster Creek, Oregon led to increased spawning and rearing use by coho salmon
and steelhead at the improvement sites. Solazzi et al. (1992) found that instream habitat
improvements including the installation of channel spanning log structures to create pools and
alcoves led to a significant increase in over winter survival of coho salmon in Lobster Creek,
Oregon.

Active restoration focuses on restoring naturally functioning floodplains and stream channels,
riparian zones, and wetlands. Alteration of stream channels through road and railroad
construction and channelization (“flood control”) and extensive riparian timber harvest was a
common practice historically in the Walla Walla subbasin. The legacy of these anthropogenic
alterations is readily apparent in many stream reaches within the subbasin. Active remediation
techniques using plantings (Chaney et al. 1993; ISG 1996), bioengineered, or other instream
structures may also improve habitat, and may be required when natural processes are
dysfunctional or unlikely to result in recovery within a desired time frame (Huntington 1994;
NMFS 1997; Roper et al. 1998).
The Rosgen (1996) assessment process for determining the stable channel form of a subject
stream is utilized to compare a series of metrics between unstable treatment stream and a
stream reach of similar classification in a stable condition. Metrics include bank full dimension,
width: depth, channel form, gradient, valley form, and soil types. Use of this assessment tool
can improve the success rate of applying improvements for fish enhancement.

An underlying premise in developing and designing projects any successful restoration project is
that the hydrologic and geomorphic function of the stream must be thoroughly considered in
order to accomplish long-term, self sustaining habitat restoration. Fish habitat improvement is
not done without understanding/assessing the streams ability to derive the desired outcome
(Rosgen 1996). Active restoration is based on identifying the most probable state of the natural
stream channel (Leopold 1994) by first identifying the valley type (Rosgen 1996) and then
identifying the appropriate channel type associated with the valley and the current watershed
conditions (Rosgen 1994). Design criteria is developed from data collected at a reference reach.
Reference reach (Rosgen 1998) data is collected from a stream reach representing conditions
similar to project area.

An additional active approach to address limiting factors associated with instream habitat
diversity is large wood placement in forested riparian reaches. It is well documented that large
wood debris is a key component of quality fish habitat (Bisson et al. 1987), greatly influences
the structure and function of stream ecosystems (Sedell et al. 1988; Bilby and Likens 1980), and
greatly influences stream channel form and fluvial processes (Keller and Swanson 1979). Large
woody provides a host of benefits in forested riparian areas including promoting floodplain
stability, providing “roughness” in the floodplain to trap and store fine sediments, provide
complex aquatic habitat, and natural channel morphology. The basic design approach is to
mimic natural large woody debris recruitment in systems still exhibiting the effects of legacy
timber harvest in the subbasin. Wood additions and other floodplain enhancements are guided
by the principles of natural channel design. Upstream and downstream conditions are
evaluated, and bank full width, gradient, sinuosity, and meander belt width are all considered
when determining sites for woody debris additions. Wood debris configurations are modeled
after naturally occurring configurations found within the subbasin. This approach has been
utilized on several past projects including the Meadow Creek and Upper McCoy Creek
enhancement projects with demonstrable benefits. (Section Project History, Results).

Revegetation efforts are usually undertaken on individual projects following completion of major
construction efforts. Vegetation plan designs are developed concurrent with natural
channel/restoration designs. Planting is only being done during dormancy periods. Both fall
and spring planting has been utilized. A wide variety of methods can be prescribed including:
fall seeding with appropriate grass/forbs mixes to take advantage of fall moisture and winter
snow cover sedge/rush plugs and mats, whole willow root wad installation, barefoot seedlings
(shrubs and trees), containerized tublings, live stakes (salix spp.) using both manual and
mechanized (stinger/trenching) techniques. Common as well as specialized techniques are
applied and based on experience and site specific conditions encountered on individual project
areas.

Road drainage improvement and obliteration/decommissioning of floodplain roads, railroads,
and dikes is also utilized to restore floodplains and riparian areas under this project to reduce
sediment delivery and reconnect streams to their floodplain. Road drainage improvement
involves installation of water bars to divert water from the road prism and to prevent
concentrated water flow on the road which can create gullies, washouts, and culvert failures.
The number and location of water bars is determined on-site and is based on gradient and
location of the road. Commonly dips and bars are excavated every 50 feet, and span the width
of the road prism. Outlets are located on stable terraces where feasible. Other road
improvements undertaken include rocked stream fjords and installation/improvement of other
stream crossings such as culverts and if necessary bridges. Road work efforts are coordinated
through the local Oregon State Forestry program administrator for Best Management Practices
(BMP’s) and cost share funding where available.

Passive restoration techniques have proven effective in improving riverine/riparian habitats
along grazed streams (Chaney et al. 1993; Platts 1990; NMFS 1997). In a field review of BPA
projects Beschta et al. (1991) stated that “Corridor fencing resulted in the most successful
examples observed of vegetation recovery, diversity of channel morphology, and improved fish
and wildlife habitat.”

Project Implementation

All restoration efforts are focused on meeting limiting factors identified in the subbasin plan. In
general passive techniques such as livestock exclusion and revegetation have been conducted
in project areas. Projects requiring more aggressive approaches such as the manipulation of
stream channels and shorelines are reserved for sites that fail to respond otherwise. For
example, much of the upper Walla Walla River in Oregon has been confined by roads, homes,
farms, orchards, and a large rock levee. A “natural” meander form, riparian corridor, pool
frequency, presence of large wood and thus rearing and holding habitat for adult and juvenile
fish, and functioning floodplain have been eliminated from this stream. Returning the river to its
historic condition is not an option. It is under these conditions that the project feels more
aggressive instream interventions that are designed by qualified engineers are appropriate.

Livestock exclusion fencing remains an important tool in the protection of sensitive riparian
zones. Sensitive riparian areas are attractive to livestock as they provide a source of shade,
water, and abundant feed. Over-grazing leads to loss of native vegetation, displacement of
native fish and wildlife species, bank erosion, loss of shade, and bank failure among other
things. Livestock fences are constructed with the maximum amount of riparian and floodplain
corridor width made available to us by the landowner. Private fence contractors meeting all
license, insurance, and experience requirements are hired to build livestock fences. Fence
design generally follows specifications provided by the USDA in an effort to be consistent with
other conservation programs and the migrational needs of wildlife. Small fence projects, routine
maintenance, and livestock water-gaps are handled by CTUIR project technicians.

Native plant tree and shrub species are used for restoration of riparian and upland project
areas. Potted plants and tublings are obtained through the CTUIR Native Plant Nursery. Live
cuttings (willow primarily) are collected at or near the project site and installed by trenching or
stinging them into the soil with the use of a cat-track excavator. Willows placed in this manner
require no maintenance and have proven very successful. When necessary newly planted trees
and shrubs (rooted stock) are watered from July through September with a 300-gallon tank and
sprayer mounted on a flat-bed pickup.

When appropriate we reestablish stands of native grasses to upland areas as part of our
restoration process. Once established, grasses provide excellent cover for wildlife species and
control of soil erosion and noxious weed species. Grass seed is obtained from area suppliers
and includes a mix of species that represent historic composition.

The CTUIR hires licensed chemical applicators through a competitive bidding process to
chemically treat noxious weeds in existing project areas; some spot-spraying is completed by
project staff. All chemical applications are consistent with Oregon Revised Statute
(ORS).570.505 and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Regulations.

Table 13. Objectives, methods (work elements) and a brief description of each method for
proposed work in the for the Umatilla Habitat Project

       Objective               Methods/(PISCES Work                Methods Description
                                       Elements)
1. Identify, select, and    Identify and select projects   Identify, prioritize, and select
design habitat                                             potential project sites through
restoration projects that                                  watershed assessment, subbasin
provide long-term                                          plan, public outreach, landowner
benefit to biological                                      contact, interagency communication,
systems, watershed                                         and personal observation.
limiting factors, and the                                  Conduct brief on-site visits to project
salmonid fish relying on                                   areas; identify habitat factors most
them.                                                      limiting salmonid production.
                                                           Review list of project with staff,
                                                           discuss any concerns, prioritize,
                                                           develop final list of projects to be
                                                           implemented
                            Obtain Conservation            Obtain easements with landowners in
                            Easements                      priority GA’s as they become
                                                           available.
                            Produce design and/or          Develop project design for the
                            specifications                 placement of whole trees and road
                                                           obliteration for project area on the
                                                           South Fork of the Touchet River.
                                                           This WE will be completed in
                                                           coordination with the CTUIR
                                                           Rainwater Ranch Project.
                            Produce Environmental          Develop and secure all state, local,
                            Compliance Documentation       and Federal permits necessary to
                            for South Fork Touchet River   complete this WE. This WE will also
                            Project                        include correspondence with the BPA
                                                           Compliance Group and the CTUIR
                                                           Cultural Resources Dept.
                            Produce design and/or          Develop project design for the
                            specifications                 removal of invasive weeds and
                                                           reintroduction of native plants in the
                                                           riparian and upland corridor on the
                                                           South Fork of the Walla Walla River-
                                                           Kentch Property
                            Produce design and/or          Subcontract for design of instream
                            specifications                 structures on the mainstem Walla
                                                           Walla River
                            Produce Environmental          Develop and secure all state, local,
                            Compliance Documentation       and Federal permits necessary to
                            for South Fork Walla Walla     complete this WE. This WE will also
                          Instream Work                    include correspondence with the BPA
                                                           Compliance Group and the CTUIR
                                                           Cultural Resources Dept.
                          Coordination (seek cost-         Develop and submit grants/proposals
                          share funding)                   to the Salmon Recovery Funding
                                                           Board in the State of Washington and
                                                           the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery
                                                           Board through the Columbia River
                                                           Inter Tribal Fish Commission.
                                                           Various other State and Federal
                                                           sources may also be pursued as part
                                                           of this effort during any month of the
                                                           year. Cost share funds that are
                                                           secured by this project are used
                                                           exclusively for project implementation
                                                           which allows administrative and
                                                           personnel dollars provided by the
                                                           BPA to go further.
                          Produce/Submit Scientific        Document and assist as necessary
                          Findings Report                  the BPA Environmental Compliance
                                                           Group for planned projects. This
                                                           includes various permit applications,
                                                           ESA clearances, NEPA clearances,
                                                           maps, surveys, etc.
2. Implement fish
habitat enhancement
and restoration actions
including passive and
active methods to
improve anadromous
fish habitat and water
quality.

                          Manage and Administer            Oversight of whole tree placement
                          Project                          and road obliteration work activities
                                                           on the South Fork of the Touchet
                                                           River.
                          Manage and Administer            Oversight of instream pool
                          Project                          development work on South Fork of
                                                           the Walla Walla River.
                          Manage and Administer            Oversight of weed control application
                          Project                          by contractors at South Fork of the
                                                           Walla Walla River-Kentch.
3. Conduct routine        Maintain Terrestrial Structure   Identify fences in need of repair;
maintenance to project                                     perform fence maintenance as
areas signed into long-                                    needed on seven miles of livestock
term conservation                                          exclusion fencing within project
easements to ensure                                        areas. This may involve replacing
long term goals and                                        fence wire, poles, etc.
objectives are met.
                           Plant Vegetation            Plant native trees and shrubs within
                                                       project areas on Patit Creek,
                                                       mainstem Walla Walla River,
                                                       (Lampson, Lofthouse, McCain,
                                                       Kentch), South Fork Touchet River
                                                       (Rainwater), and Blue Creek.
                           Maintain Vegetation         Control of noxious and competitive
                                                       weeds within project areas as
                                                       needed.
                           Landowner Agency            Hold attend landowner/agency
                           Coordination                meeting as necessary. Coordinate
                                                       with landowners to develop program.
                                                       Coordinate with landowners on
                                                       project concerns/needs.
4. Conduct                 Collect/Generate/Validate   This WE involves the collection,
effectiveness              Field and Lab Data          generation, and entering of
monitoring and                                         effectiveness monitoring data at
evaluation to assess                                   project areas on Blue Creek, Couse
progress towards goals                                 Creek, and the mainstem Walla
and objectives and to                                  Walla River.
identify adaptive
management needs.
                           Analyze/Interpret data      Analyze long-term monitoring data;
                                                       compare results to previous years,
                                                       other CTUIR habitat projects and
                                                       physical and biological specifications
                                                       provided in literature. The analysis of
                                                       this information provides the project
                                                       with the data needed to make out-
                                                       year management decisions,
                                                       adaptive management.
5. Provide information     Produce Annual Report       Develop quarterly reports of progress
transfer and continued                                 as per contract specifications
learning through the                                   between the CTUIR and BPA.
completion of quarterly
and annual reports of
progress and sharing of
project methods,
results, and discussion.
                           Produce Status Report       Provide project status in Pisces
                                                       Format as needed.
                                                       Develop annual report of progress as
                                                       per contract specifications between
                                                       the CTUIR and BPA that will include
                                                       among other things details of
                                                       accomplishments for work elements
                                                       in the SOW.
7. Facilities and equipment

To reduce cost, this project shares all BPA purchased equipment with the Umatilla Basin
Habitat Enhancement Project (8710001). Some sharing of field equipment also occurs with the
Grande Ronde Subbasin Watershed Restoration Project (9608300) and the North Fork John
Day River Basin Anadromous Fish Habitat Enhancement Project (20003100).

Following is a condensed list of equipment available to this project:

Office supplies include: two desks, two computer stands, two chairs, one file cabinet, one
locking storage cabinet, two Dell Pentium P90 computers, and one HP Color jet Printer.

Vehicles include: (shared with Umatilla Habitat Enhancement) one 4x4 flat-bed GMC pickup,
one 4x4 Ford extended cab pickup, and one 4x4 extended cab GMC pickup.

Field Equipment includes: one four-wheeler and trailer, one smaller trailer with 25 gallon spray
tank, one flat bed trailer, several Hilti Drills and bits, cable, fence posts, fence wire, planting
tools, and miscellaneous other items.

Cameras and instruments include: one digital Canon Camera, one 8mm video camera, one
VHS video camera, one manual 35mm still camera, one spherical densiometer, tape measures,
and slide projector.

Subcontractor equipment includes: All subcontractors (heavy machinery work, planting, etc.)
are expected to provide equipment capable of meeting requirements of task.

Staff Necessary to complete Project Tasks:

1. Project Leader-habitat biologist, project selection, budgets, statement of work, landowner
negotiations, contracts, proposals, environmental clearances, BPA coordination, and employee
supervision.
2. Assistant Habitat Biologist-supervise technicians, project field over-sight, project leader
assistance.
3. 1 FTE habitat technician-planting, weed control, watering, livestock fence maintenance, water
gap maintenance, grass seeding, etc.

Project Personnel:

Name: Jed Volkman
Title: Fisheries Habitat Biologist-project leader
Months funded this project: 9 months (.75 FTE)
Education: BS Fisheries 1990 University of Idaho; Technical Degree Plant Science 1984, Walla
Walla Community College.

Primary Duties:

Project Leader Responsibilities: Administer Walla Walla River Basin
Anadromous Fish Habitat Enhancement Project. Prepare quarterly and
annual reports, work plans, budgets, funding proposals, cost-share grant
applications, purchase requisitions, and construction, implementation
and maintenance subcontracts. Develop, negotiate and secure riparian
easements conservation easements and right-of-way agreements. Develop
and implement pre and post habitat enhancement monitoring programs.
Supervise, train and direct habitat technicians, seasonal employees and
volunteers in implementing, maintaining and monitoring habitat
improvements, preparing correspondence, summarizing data, and purchasing
and maintaining equipment. Serve as Tribal spokesperson for habitat
issues at internal and interagency meetings. Prepare, review and comment
on correspondence related to local, Tribal, state and federal
environmental regulations. Investigate, review and comment on proposed
fill and removal activities, timber sales, range management plans, and
biological assessments and environmental impact statements. Provide
public outreach (preparation and provision of educational materials,
tours, oral presentations, slide shows, and news articles and releases).
Facilitate efforts with landowners and agencies to identify and address
land use practices impacting anadromous salmon habitat.

Employment:

University of Idaho-1987-89; duties included the feeding, maintenance, and care for
experimentally held rainbow trout. Responsibility also included various data collection
processes.

University of Idaho-1989-1991; primary responsibilities included the installation, operation, and
maintenance of radio telemetry equipment for an adult passage evaluation on the Snake River.
Duties also included electro-fishing, redd counts, operation of adult salmonid trap at Ice Harbor
Dam on the Snake River, handling and use of anesthesia (MS222), and various tagging
operations including passive integrated transmitters (PIT), radio transmitters, coded wire tags,
spaghetti tags.

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (1991-present):

Adult Passage Evaluation-four years as project leader/passage biologist-primary responsibility
to evaluate movements of adult salmonids past five diversion dams on the Umatilla River
through the use of radio telemetry. Project responsibilities included project design, equipment
operation/installation, implementation, data collection and analysis, report writing, budget, and
supervision of employees.

Hanford Reach Project-six years (1 month per year, concurrently with the adult passage project
described above) as project leader-duties include: project planning, equipment
acquisition/operation and implementation of project on the Hanford Reach of the Columbia
River. Goal of the project is to capture of 200,000 juvenile fall chinook for coded wire tagging.
Capture of juveniles is accomplished through the operation of jet boat, beach seines and stick
seines. Responsibilities also include data collection and analysis, report writing, SOW/budget,
and supervision of four employees.

Habitat Restoration in Walla Walla River Basin-five years as project leader/habitat biologist.
Project duties include but not limited to: BPA proposals, annual and quarterly reports of
progress, development of statement of work/budget, landowner easements, equipment
contracts, instream work permits (ESA, BPA, WDFW, DSL, etc.), interagency communication,
landowner communication, project design and implementation, and supervision of three
employees.
Recent publications include:
Author of 1992-2000 Columbia River Upriver Bright Fall Chinook Salmon Tagging Study to
Columbia River Inter Tribal Fish Commission.

Author of 1992-1996 Umatilla River Adult Passage Evaluation Annual Report of Progress
submitted to the BPA.

Author of 1997-2000 Walla Walla River Basin Fish Habitat Enhancement Annual Report of
progress submitted to BPA.

Author of the 2001 Walla Walla River Basin Fish Habitat Enhancement Annual Report of
Progress submitted to the BPA.

Author of the 2002-03 Walla Walla River Basin Fish Habitat Enhancement Annual Report of
Progress submitted to the BPA.

Contributor to the Walla Walla Subbasin Review submitted to the Northwest Power Planning
Council.

Recent job completions:
BPA Proposal, Annual Report of Progress, contributor to Walla Walla and Umatilla Subbasin
Reviews, development of contract for planting of 10,000 native rooted stock plants, and contract
training course.

Name: Billy Goodrich
Title: Assistant Fisheries Habitat Biologist
Months funded this project: 6 (.5 FTE)
Education: MS Fisheries, University of Tennessee, Knoxville 2002

Primary Duties:
Assistant Fish Habitat Biologist Responsibilities: Identify private
properties for implementation of habitat enhancement projects and assist
in negotiating and securing riparian easements and conservation
agreements with landowners; assist with project management of stream
restoration activities; complete permit applications to conduct instream
work; write technical reports and biological assessments for ESA
consultations; compile and summarize habitat, water quality, and
biological data; develop funding proposals; prepare educational
materials, displays, and slide presentations for public outreach
efforts; attend internal and interagency meetings; review correspondence
and provide written comment regarding proposed activities that may
affect fish or fish habitat; supervise and assist technicians and
seasonal employees.

Employment

CTUIR Fish Habitat Biologist (August of 2004- Present)
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Pendleton, OR
Duties: Identify private properties for implementation of habitat enhancement projects and assist
in negotiating and securing riparian easements and conservation agreements with landowners;
assist with project management of stream restoration activities; complete permit applications to
conduct instream work; write technical reports and biological assessments for ESA consultation;
compile and summarize habitat, water quality, and biological data; develop funding proposals;
prepare educational materials, displays, and slide presentations for public outreach efforts;
attend internal and interagency meetings; and supervise and assist technicians and seasonal
employees.

American Aquatics LLC Biologist (September of 1999 to August of 2004)
Oak Ridge, TN
Duties: Crew leader for reservoir fish tissue sampling to include data entry and record keeping.
Collection of, analyzing data and authoring the fish section of the 2002 and 2003 Biological
Monitoring Report for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant and co-authoring the 2002
macroinvertebrate section of the report. Partnered with the Department of Energy contractor
CDM, the Kentucky Division of Water during fish and macroinvertebrate collections and the
Kentucky Wildlife Agency. Conducted annual habitat delineations in Paducah, KY and Oak
Ridge, TN. Responsible for the collection and identification of fish, turtles, birds, benthic
organisms, worms, water samples, and algal observations for use in various scientific and
environmental investigations. Collected water quality data for several scientific investigations.
Performed health assessments of deer to determine condition. Responsible for preparation and
custody of tissue samples collected during annual and biannual collections (bone, muscle, fat
and liver) for assay analysis.

Five Relevant Publications or Job Completions:

   1.      Project oversight for recent levee removal.
   2.      Recent completion of American Red Cross Adult CPR and First aid.
   3.      Completed ESRI certified Arc-GIS training at Blue Mountain Community College.
   4.      Conducted planting operations in the South Fork of the Walla Walla River basin.
   5.      Conduct project monitoring in the Walla Walla Basin.

Name: Randy Bonifer
Title: Fisheries Technician
Months funded this project: 6 (.5 FTE)
Education: Blue Mountain Community College, Pendleton Oregon-one year of general studies,
1977-1978.

Primary Duties:

Fisheries Habitat Technician Responsibilities: Assisting with
pre-construction layout, including staking and flagging proposed fence
lines and equipment access, structure and boulder storage sites; working
with and monitoring daily contractor implementation activities (operated
heavy equipment, fence construction and tree planting contracts);
assisting with post-construction contract inspections; Assessing annual
maintenance needs of previously implemented enhancement projects
(fencing, instream structures, etc.); implementing and maintaining
riparian and instream enhancements (including fence maintenance, seeding
native grasses, planting and watering trees, etc.); collecting stream
temperature, channel cross-section, photo point and macroinvertebrate,
monitoring data; assisting with project purchasing (inventorying
supplies, vendor pricing and preparing purchase requisitions).


Employment:

August 1996 - Present: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian

Reservation, Mission, Oregon

Expertise:

Experience includes: field equipment and material purchases, fence
construction (former fence contractor); property surveying; farming;
machinery operation; vehicle maintenance; habitat inventories; instream
structure maintenance and implementation; supervising and training
seasonal employees

Five Relevant Publications or Job Completions:

1.     Recently completed Coursework in Fish and Fisheries (BI198-01) at Blue Mountain
       Community College along with American Red Cross Adult CPR and First Aid. (11
       weeks).

2.     Provided lay out, transportation for and subcontract pre-bid tour for recent levee removal
       project.
3.     Conducted site specific herbicide applications on basin easements for weed control.

4.     Planted 860 native plants following NRCS standards along the South Fork of the Walla
       Walla River.
5.     Collected photo points for all easements under CTUIR control in the Walla Walla Basin.


Name: James Bill
Title: Fisheries Technician
Months funded this project: 6 (.5 FTE)
Education: High School Diploma 1980.

Primary Duties:

Fisheries Habitat Technician Responsibilities: Assisting with
pre-construction layout, including staking and flagging proposed fence
lines and equipment access, structure and boulder storage sites; working
with and monitoring daily contractor implementation activities (operated
heavy equipment, fence construction and tree planting contracts);
assisting with post-construction contract inspections; Assessing annual
maintenance needs of previously implemented enhancement projects
(fencing, instream structures, etc.); implementing and maintaining
riparian and instream enhancements (including fence maintenance, seeding
native grasses, planting and watering trees, etc.); collecting stream
temperature, channel cross-section, photo point and macroinvertebrate
, monitoring data; assisting with project purchasing (inventorying
supplies, vendor pricing and preparing purchase requisitions).


Employment:

Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation, Mission, OR:

06-1998 to 03-2001 Temporary Employment

03-2001 to present Full time, permanent employee


Expertise:

Experience includes: field equipment and material purchases, fence
construction (former fence contractor); property surveying; farming;
machinery operation; vehicle maintenance; habitat inventories; instream
structure maintenance and implementation; supervising and training
seasonal employees

Five Relevant Publications or Job Completions:

1.     Recently completed Coursework in Fish and Fisheries (BI198-01) at Blue Mountain
       Community College along with American Red Cross Adult CPR and First Aid. (11
       weeks).
2.         Install and remove livestock water crossing barriers at appropriate times.
3.     Conducted site specific herbicide applications on basin easements for weed control.
4.     Planted 860 native plants following NRCS standards along the South Fork of the Walla
       Walla River.

5.     Collected photo points for all easements under CTUIR control in the Walla Walla Basin.

8. Information Transfer

Annual and quarterly reports of progress are provided to the BPA for this project. These reports
include among other things, detailed information regarding projects methods, results, and
monitoring data. This information is available to the public through the BPA website. Project
information is shared within habitat projects of the CTUIR each Tuesday morning. Information
is shared with outside agencies through various forums including the Snake River Recovery
Board, Mill Creek Group, Walla Walla Watershed Council, Priority Projects Group, the
Watershed Alliance, and miscellaneous others. Soon all project data will be available on-line at
the CTUIR web page. We are currently in the process of developing this data base.

The CTUIR possesses a full range of support facilities and services necessary to implement and
manage projects including both technical and administrative staff. Tribal government offices
have been consolidated in recent years within a series of buildings in the Tribal Government
Complex near the Umatilla Reservation center where other community facilities are located.
The Tribal Fisheries Program is located in an office complex with the Tribal Wildlife Program.
Our building contains sufficient private and shared office space for both existing and future
professional and management staff, a fully equipped secretarial services center, a
conference/meeting room, library, and supply storage space.

Tribal offices are electronically interconnected through a LAN network, and feature modern
Pentium computer work stations for each existing staff member. Current software capabilities
include extensive word processing, spread sheet, data base development and management,
and GIS (ArcView) capabilities. In addition, several General Service Administration (GSA)
vehicles (primarily 4X4 trucks) and All Terrain Vehicles and trailers are available to Fisheries
Program staff. Field and sampling equipment has previously been secured to conduct
monitoring and evaluation of project sites (densiometer, auto/laser level, digital cameras, video
cameras, rangefinders, etc).

9. Benefit to Fish and Wildlife Program

Work proposed within this document is being aimed directly at meeting limiting factors of focal
species in priority geographical areas of the basin. Strategies implemented by the project will in
a very short amount of time begin to reduce water temperatures, improve instream cover,
reduce soil erosion, and enhance channel form and function, all of which will lead us to more
fish. Habitat interventions only begin with long-term conservation easements and will thus
provide lasting benefits. However, we also recognize that the efforts of similar habitat projects,
hatchery supplementation, and research will accelerate the recovery of focal species.

Some benefits resulting directly from proposed project activities include:

          increased aquatic habitat in the forms of stream meander and pools,
          Increased stream bank stability,
          reduction of storm flow velocity and channel incision with subsequent build-up of a
           healthy flood plain,
          increased shade canopy from vegetative planting in the riparian zone for reduced
           stream temperature,
          increased habitat for wildlife in the riparian and flood plain of focal watersheds, and
          improved water quality, e.g. water temperature, turbidity, solids, and sedimentation.
          Improved juvenile and adult survival



10. References
Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat Requirements of salmonids in streams.

Buchanan, D.V., M.L. Hanson, and R.M. Hooton1997. Status of Oregon’s Bull Trout. Oregon
        Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Bureau of Reclamation. 1997. Watershed Assessment, Upper Walla Walla River Subbasin Umatilla
    County, Oregon. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Columbia River Office, Yakima Washington.

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. 2001. Walla Walla Subbasin Summary.
    Submitted to the Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland Oregon.
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. 1993. Walla Walla Subbasin Master Plan.
    Submitted to the Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland Oregon.

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, et al. Draft. Walla Walla River Subbasin
    Assessment. Draft copy at office of CTUIR Fisheries, Pendleton Oregon.

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, et al. Walla Walla Subbasin Summary.
    Draft. Submitted to the Northwest Power Planning

Kuttel, M., 2001. Southeast Washington Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Report. Washington
     Conservation Commission.

Mudd, D.R., 1975. Touchet River Study: Part 1, Wildlife, Washington Department of Game Bulletin No.
    4.

Moore, Kelly., Jones Kim., and Dambacher Jeffrey., 1993. Methods for Stream Habitat Surveys:
    Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Aquatic Inventory Project, Version 3.1.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. 2000 Biological Opinion for the Federal Columbia River
     Power System. National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland Oregon.

Northwest Power Planning Council. 1994. 1994 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.
     Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.

Northwest Power Planning Council. 2000. 2000 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.
     Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.

Swindell, E. G. 1942. Report on source, nature and extent of the fishing, hunting and miscellaneous
    rights of certain Indian Tribes in Washington and Oregon together with affidavits showing location
    of a number of usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations. Office of Indian Affairs,
    Division of Forestry and Grazing, Los Angeles, CA.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE)., 1997. Walla Walla River Watershed Reconnaissance
     Report. US Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla, Washington.
United States Department of Agriculture., 1941. Survey Report for Walla Walla River Watershed
     Washington and Oregon. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
     Region 9.
Vancleve, R., and Ting, R., 1960. The condition of stocks in the John Day, Umatilla, Walla Walla,
    Grande Ronde, and Imnaha Rivers as reported by various fisheries agencies. Publisher
    unknown.
Water Resources Commission, 1988. Region Water Plan-Umatilla Basin Subsection, 131 pp.

Childs, A. C., 2003. Grande Ronde Restoration Project Annual Report.

Childs, A. C., 2004. Grande Ronde Subbasin Restoration Project Annual Report.

Childs, Allen. Fish Habitat Biologist, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Pendleton, Oregon. Personal
           Communication.
CRITFC. 1995. Wykan Ush Me Wa Kush, Spirit of the Salmon. Columbia River Basin Salmon Policy. Columbia River Inter-Tribal
           Fish Commission. Columbia Basin Salmon Policy, 1995.

Dice, L.R. 1916. Distribution of the Land Vertebrates of Southeastern Washington. University of California Publication in Zoology
          16: 293-348.

Extinction Not an Option. A Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon, 1998. Washington State Joint Natural Resources Cabinet Sept,
           1998. Author Unknown.

Farnham. 1839. Early Western Travels; Farnham's Travels: Vol. XXVII, Pendleton Public Library, archive.

Gary, Walt. 2003. Washington State University Cooperative Extension Unit, Walla Walla Washington. Personal Communication.

Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. Edited by W.R. Meehan. American
          Fisheries Society Special Publication.

McIntosh, Bruce. 1995. Distribution, Habitat Utilization, Movement patterns, and the Use of Thermal Refugia by Spring Chinook in
          the Grande Ronde, Imnaha, and John Day Basins.

McKinney, C.1998. South Fork Touchet Watershed Analysis. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Forest Practices
          Division.

Mendel, G. and D. Karl. 2000. District Fish Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; Fish Biologist, Washington
         Department of Fish and Wildlife. Personal Communication

Mendel, G., D. Karl, and T. Coyle 2000. Assessment of Salmonids and Their Habitat Conditions in theh Walla Walla River Basin-
         1999 Annual Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program-Fish Management Division. FPA 00-18

Nakamoto, Rodney. Characteristics of Pools Used by Adult Summer Steelhead Oversummering in the New River, California.

Nielsen, R. S., 1950. Survey of the Columbia River and its Tributaries. Part V. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, S.S.R. No. 38.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 1993. Methods for stream habitat surveys: Oregon Department of Fish and
        Wildlife, Aquatic Inventory Project. Version 3.1, April 1993. Kelly M.S. Moore, Kim K. Jones, and Jeffrey M. Dambacher.
        Corvallis, OR.

Oregon Game Commission, 1952-58. Annual Reports. Oregon State Game Commission, Fshery Division.
Oregon Game Commission, 1952-58. Annual Reports. Oregon State Game Commission, Fishery Division.
Reckendorf, F. and Tice, B. 2000. Columbia and Walla Walla County Walk-the-Stream data.

Roni, P., editor. 2005. Monitoring stream and watershed restoration. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. (Corps of
           Engineers, 1997).

Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado.

Sedell, J.R., P.A. Bisson, F. J. Swanson, and S.V. Gregory. 1988. What we know about large trees that fall into streams and rivers.
           U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-229:47-81.

Snake River Salmon Recovery, 2005. Technical Document Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for Southeast Washington, October
         2005.

Swindell, E. G. 1942. Report on source, nature and extent of the fishing, hunting and miscellaneous rights of certain Indian Tribes in
          Washington and Oregon together with affidavits showing location of a number of usual and accustomed fishing grounds
          and stations. Office of Indian Affairs, Division of Forestry and Grazing, Los Angeles, CA.

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Technical Study for the Walla Walla River Basin, Draft. 2001. Department of Ecology,
          Pendleton Oregon.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE)., 1997. Walla Walla River Watershed Reconnaissance Report. US Army Corps of
          Engineers, Walla Walla, Washington.

United States Department of Agriculture., 1941. Survey Report for Walla Walla River

Van Cleve, R., and Ting, R., 1960. The condition of stocks in the John Day, Umatilla, Walla Walla, Grande Ronde, and Imnaha
         Rivers as reported by various fisheries agencies. Publisher unknown.

Viola, A.E. 1-14-1997. Effects of the 1996 flood on steelhead, aquatic and riparian habitat on the Touchet and Tucannon rivers of
          Southeast Washington.

Walla Walla Subbasin Plan, 2004. Submitted to the NPPC by the Walla Walla Watershed Planning Unit and Walla Walla Watershed
         Council.

Water Resources Commission, 1988. Region Water Plan-Umatilla Basin Subsection, 131 pp.

Watershed Washington and Oregon. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Region 9.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:13
posted:10/20/2012
language:English
pages:53