Summary:  Asotin Creek remains an important Snake River tributary for anadromous salmonid production in Washington; it has been designated as a reserve for wild steelhead under current WDFW management policy.  Charley Creek, an upper tributary, historically has some of the highest densities of juvenile steelhead in southeastern Washington according to WDFW fisheries surveys.  

ESA listed stocks of summer steelhead, bull trout and spring Chinook, along with resident rainbow trout, utilize the watershed.  Indigenous anadromous fish species most actively targeted for management are summer steelhead, bull trout, and spring Chinook salmon.  The goals for these species are to restore sustainable, naturally producing populations to support tribal and non-tribal harvest and cultural and economical practices while protecting the biological integrity and genetic diversity of these species in the watershed.  The broad general strategies used to achieve the habitat objectives include protecting and restoring prioritized habitat through the use of in-stream, riparian, and upland best management practices.  Without cooperation and partnerships at the local level, implementing these practices to improve in-stream, riparian and floodplain function and processes, on lands predominantly in private ownership, will not be successful.
__________________________________________________________________

Background:  Asotin Creek, a tributary to the Snake River at Rm 145, drains approximately 325 square miles of Asotin and Garfield Counties.  Headwaters originate in the Blue Mountains (6,200 ft) and flow east into the Snake River (800 ft) at Asotin, WA.  Located in WRIA # 35, the highest priority WRIA in southeastern Washington according to the state's "At-Risk Stock Significance Map (WDFW)," Asotin Creek is part of the Governor's Snake River Salmon Recovery Region.

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

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

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

Additional Actions:  Project management activities in 2014 will also encompass the following major tasks and initiatives:
  -  Complete the final aspects and evaluation of the ongoing repair and rehabilitation of the prior constructed meander on George Creek, to restore habitat function through improved floodplain "roughness," and channel conditions (Phase II): to include further planting of terrace "catch lines" and improvement to breached areas as spillway overflow sites (Phase III); but especially to promote the floodplain development process through extensive revegetation throughout the project area; and
  -  Evaluation of the Hardened Feeding Station (Manure Management) demonstration project, implemented in the prior-year contract (see 59991 at WE: M):  intended as a pilot in 2013, the installed hardened livestock feeding area and waste containment facility has moved operations to an area outside of the riparian zone, in which the normally concentrated amounts of animal waste generated during seasonally required feeding can be managed, collected, processed and disposed.  
  -  Reduced Tillage, No-Till, and Direct Seeding: continuation and expansion of incentives for Residue Management and CRP Take-out.   Incentive payments are tailored principally to compensate for a loss of crop-yield in the initial period after switching from conventional, deep-tillage farming methods (3-5 years).  The purpose is to encourage landowner participation and eventual buy-in to less-invasive cropping practices for the long-term (after 5 years).  
     These programs are in a period of transition; the initial program period was for three years, and the District would like to extend for an additional two years. Some landowners have made the investments in new equipment to support minimum-till and direct-seed practices after the incentive period; in other circumstances, soil condition and quality improvements are just beginning to show the benefits of continuing these practices for individual landowners.  Additional flexibility allows the District to tailor incentive periods to individual circumstances; total payment levels are expected to diminish as acreages roll-out of the Program in year-4 or year-5; newly enrolled year-1 acres total about 350 in FY14, and are projected to continue to diminish as the incentive program winds-down.  Care should be taken not to create a disincentive when adjusting payment periods, or otherwise disadvantage those landowners who "early-adopt" on-farm residue management practices that promote soil retention and reduced run-of.  
___________________________________________________________________

Management Considerations:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

4)  Tree Planting Projects: General requirements and specifications [WEs: H-N]

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

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

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

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

     e)  Specific areas that are candidates for tree planting are unknown until the landowners contact the District.   Knowledge of the planting availability by the landowner is based upon advertising of available programs and the District working with the local landowner.  The landowner works with the District on a voluntary basis once the landowner indicates that planting is needed or desired.  The District evaluates the site, in conjunction with NRCS staff, to determine the best planting species mixture and location of the specific site.

5)  CREP - Streambank Reserves [WE: O]: FSA farm program incentives are not always neatly aligned with individual landowner requirements.  Standardized program implementation rules can have unintended or inadvertent consequences: rigidly-applied fence requirements may isolate otherwise usable areas of pasture or fail to align with ownership boundaries.  Some additional BPA cost-share to supplement CREP fencing incentives can assist the District in navigating around or within FSA rules and requirements that do not fit the circumstances on the ground.  The purpose served is a better place to put the fence - aligned to the opportunity presented by landowner needs and interest - when FSA dollars won't build in a particular location within the constraints of CREP.  The outcome is a larger riparian buffer in the stream corridor, and a more effective managed distribution of cows to water-access, by virtue of a more thoughtful placement of a fence-line than would otherwise occur in the absence of BPA support.

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

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

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

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

     e)  Specific areas that are candidates for fencing are unknown until the landowner contacts the District.  Knowledge of the fencing availability by the landowner is based upon advertising of available programs and the District working with the local landowner.  The landowner works with the District on a voluntary basis once the landowner indicates that fencing is needed or desired.  The District evaluates the site, and the habitat protection or improvement purposes to be served, in conjunction with NRCS staff, to determine the best fencing strategy, type and location or alignment for the specific site.

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

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

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

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