Comment on proposed FY 2006 budget

The budget is consistent with Bonneville's approved 2005 budget. However, a 6% increase would cover inflation cost that affects daily activities. Therefore an increase in the project budget to $411,916 is very much needed.

Accomplishments since the last review

2002 Conducted comprehensive spawning ground surveys. Collected stream temperature data using automated thermographs Ran a 5 ft. screw trap from November of 2001 to early June of 2002 Characterized and quantified streamflow by maintaining 9 permanent stream gaging stations, along with wading discharge measurements at each station Monitored precipitation at automated stations Monitored a network of photo points Improving grazing management: leased Range Units 7, 8A, 9 and 16, which encompass 140,000 acres Built 24.25 miles of fence to keep livestock out of sensitive areas and in their designated range units Maintained and repaired 70-80 miles of range fence. Rehabilitating incised channels: built 100 structures from biodegradable straw bales to arrest headcuts Enhanced beaver habitat by planting 100 willow cuttings and 300 cottonwoods 2003 Continued the 2002 monitoring activities listed above Revegetation: reseeded dozer lines from previous summer’s wildfires Reintegrating fire as a landscape process: began working with BIA Fuels Management Program to introduce controlled burning. Reestablishing access to floodplains: began planning new projects Improving road drainage: rebuilt a ford and approaches at the upper Seattle Creek road crossing Continued participating in interdisciplinary land management processes 2004 Continued the 2002 and 2003 monitoring activities listed above Reestablishing access to floodplains: contracted and worked with engineer on design and permitting for floodplain downstream from Satus High Bridge Rehabilitating incised channels: built 40 structures from biodegradable straw bales to arrest headcuts in Rentschler Meadow Repaired 1.7 miles of fence excluding cattle from Rentschler Meadow 2005 Continuing monitoring activities listed above Reestablishing access to floodplains: conceptual design is complete and permitting nearly complete; construction should begin August 2005

FY 2006 goals and anticipated accomplishments

Will continue the monitoring efforts described above. This monitoring is providing crucial abundance, productivity and spatial structure data to subbasin planning and steelhead recovery planning. A major side channel reconnection project is scheduled for completion in 2006. A dike is currently blocking Satus Creek from accessing its floodplain. Once the dike is removed, the side channel can function again, dissipating the stream energy of the watershed and increasing the quality and quantity of fish habitat. Planning has begun on removal of another dike in lower Satus Creek.

Subbasin planning

How is this project consistent with subbasin plans?

Please refer to the Yakima Subbasin Management Plan supplement http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/yakima/plan/Supplement.pdf The strategies below, all within the “implementable” category, address Tier 1 limiting factors (see list of factors in Table 2, p. 11), and each strategy is directed at one or more Assessment Units (AUs). The Satus Creek watershed is part of AU #3 (low elevation tributaries). Table 8, p. 26 (population performance), strategy 2 (monitoring). Satus Creek steelhead are an independent population according to NMFS recovery criteria. This project has provided most of what is known about performance of this steelhead population. Table 9, p. 26 (flow), strategies 3 and 4 (floodplain protection and restoration) Table 10, p. 27 (obstructions), strategy 1 (reconnect side channels) Table 11, p. 28 (key habitat quantity), strategies 1 (side channels), 3 (floodplains), 4 (forest roads) Table 12, p. 29 (habitat diversity), strategies 1 (side channels), 3 (floodplains), 8 (easements), 9 (riparian restoration) Table 13, p. 30 (temperature), strategies 1 (riparian restoration), 2 (side channels) Table 14, p. 30 (fine sediment), strategies 2 (road improvements), 4 (tech assistance), 5 (revegetation) Table 15, p. 31 (channel stability), strategies 2 (channel constrictions), 4 (riparian restoration), 7 (revegetation)

How do goals match subbasin plan priorities?

A subbasin plan supplement was submitted November 26, 2004 in response to the Council’s request for clearer linkages among limiting factors, objectives and strategies. The long list of key findings, objectives and strategies in Chapter 4 of the original Subbasin Plan breaks down into three broad categories of limiting factors: (1) Habitat limiting factors, (2) Population performance and response limiting factors, and (3) Institutional limiting factors. The first and second categories of limiting factors are discussed here. Objectives and strategies under Category 2, the population performance and response limiting factors are listed in Table 8 of the supplement. The Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model provided the necessary framework to categorize, summarize, and prioritize habitat limiting factors. Level 3 EDT environmental parameters were selected because the level 3 categories of limiting factors succinctly summarize the key habitat factors limiting the biological potential of focal species. At the level 3 scale, the EDT model defines sixteen environmental parameters that impede the biological performance and response potential of salmonids. Utilizing the results of the EDT model, local expert knowledge, the Subbasin Plan Assessment (Chapter 2), and other tools and resources, the limiting factors were divided into three tiers based on severity of impact to focal species, number of focal species affected, and on geographic extent of the factors. Within each tier the limiting factors are also listed in general priority. The seven Tier 1 limiting factors (Tables 9-15 of the Supplement) have the most impact on aquatic species production potential within the subbasin and should be addressed first. Only Tier 1 limiting factors, objectives and strategies, and only those strategies shown as “implementable” (i.e. capable of being carried out without first resolving a key uncertainty or other contingency) are discussed here.

Other comments