Lower Columbia River Salmon Recovery Region · 2019-11-16 · for Mid-Columbia steelhead, Lower Columbia River Chinook, and Lower Columbia River coho. The project is ranked as first

Appendix M Regional Area Summary Lower Columbia River Salmon Recovery Region

2018 SRFB Funding Report 1

Lower Columbia River Salmon Recovery Region

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board Executive Director 11018 NE 51st Circle Steve Manlow Vancouver, WA 98682 (360) 425-1555www.lcfrb.gen.wa.us [email protected]

http://www.lcfrb.gen.wa.us/

http://www.lowercolumbiasalmonrecovery.org/



Region Overview

Geography The Lower Columbia River Salmon Recovery Region encompasses Clark, Skamania, Cowlitz and Wahkiakum counties, and portions of Pacific, Lewis and Klickitat counties.

Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA) Grays-Elochoman (25), Cowlitz (26), Lewis (27), Salmon-Washougal (28), Wind (29A), and White Salmon (29B).

Federally Recognized Tribe Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Yakama Indian Nation, The Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, and Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation.

Endangered Species Act Listings

Table 1. Lower Columbia River Salmon Recovery Region Listed Species.

Species Listed Listed As Date Listed Lower Columbia River Chinook Threatened March 24, 1999 Lower Columbia River Coho Threatened June 28, 2005 Columbia River Chum Threatened March 25, 1999 Lower Columbia River Steelhead Threatened March 19, 1998 Bull Trout Threatened June 10, 1998

Salmon Recovery Plan

Table 2. Lower Columbia River Salmon Recovery Region Recovery Plan

Lower Columbia River Salmon Recovery Region Recovery Plan Regional Organization Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board Plan Timeframe 25 years Actions Identified to Implement Plan 364 Estimated Cost $1,257,000,0001 Status In June 2013, NOAA adopted the lower Columbia domain recovery plan2

incorporating the Oregon, Washington, and White Salmon management plans, and the estuary module.

Implementation Schedule A detailed strategy has been completed for implementing habitat actions in the recovery plan. SalmonPORT identifies reach-level restoration and protection needs and priorities, and tracks habitat protection and restoration projects. The system also identifies and

1 Funding For Salmon Recovery In Washington State, D. Canty, March 2011 2ESA Recovery Plan for Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon, Columbia River Chum Salmon, and Lower Columbia River Steelhead, NOAA, June 2013



Lower Columbia River Salmon Recovery Region Recovery Plan provides the ability to track implementation of all recovery plan actions by federal and state agencies, local governments, tribes, non-profit organizations, and other entities.

Web Information Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board Web sites: SalmonPORTand www.lcfrb.gen.wa.us Klickitat County Lead Entity Web page

Region and Lead Entities The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board (Board) was established by State legislation (Revised Code of Washington 77.85.200) to oversee and coordinate salmon and steelhead recovery efforts in the Lower Columbia River Salmon Recovery Region. The law also designated the Board as the lead entity (LE) for the entire region, except for the White Salmon River watershed. The Board serves as the citizen’s committee and final approval authority for the region’s project list.

The Klickitat County Lead Entity was established under Revised Code of Washington 77.85.050 in 1999 to serve a geographic area consisting of WRIAs 29b, 30 and 31. WRIA 29b is a shared watershed, and is contained within the Lower Columbia and Middle Columbia Salmon Recovery Regions. Therefore, a portion of the SRFB project funding allocated to the Lower Columbia and Middle Columbia Salmon Recovery Regions is allocated by those organizations to the Klickitat County Lead Entity, for projects benefitting Lower Columbia and Middle Columbia salmon and steelhead populations.

Regional Area Summary Questions and Responses

1. Internal funding allocations

A. Describe the process and criteria used to develop allocations across lead entities or watersheds within the region.

In 2019, the Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery Region received an allocation of 20 percent ($3.6 million) of the statewide total from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board is the lead entity for 17 of the 18 subbasins in the region, as well as the estuary. Klickitat County serves as the lead entity for the remaining subbasin, the White Salmon River, which supports Lower Columbia River coho and Chinook salmon, Columbia River chum salmon, and Mid-Columbia steelhead. As a lead entity, the Board does not review White Salmon River proposals. The Klickitat County lead entity submits a separate project list to the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board as the regional organization for projects within the shared White Salmon River.


http://www.lcfrb.gen.wa.us/

http://www.klickitatcounty.org/243/Salmon-Habitat-Recovery



Beginning in 2017, the LCFRB decided to allocate, up to 2.7% ($97,200) of the region’s total allocation to the Klickitat Lead Entity for projects in the White Salmon subbasin that support Lower Columbia populations. In 2018, the Klickitat Lead Entity had one project meeting this requirement, which totaled less than $97,200 ($64,230). Klickitat County requested that they have the opportunity to roll-over any unused funds into the 2019 allocation, to provide for more robust project opportunities the next year. This resulted in a carry-over amount of $32,970 that could be added to the Klickitat County 2019 allocation. The Klickitat Lead Entity project for this year’s grant round is a fish passage and habitat design on Spring Creek. Spring Creek provides habitat for Mid-Columbia steelhead, Lower Columbia River Chinook, and Lower Columbia River coho. The project is ranked as first priority on their draft project list. The budget for the project is $121,500, of which $97,200 is designated from the 2019 Lower Columbia regional allocation, and $24,300 is from the carry-over amount from the 2018 allocation. The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board will provide the Klickitat County lead entity $8,662 in carryover funds for the 2020 grant round.

The balance of the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board regional organization allocation, after deductions for the Klickitat County lead entity project, was allocated to the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board lead entity for projects within the remaining 17 subbasins in the Lower Columbia Region. However, projects in the Lower Columbia region did not use all of the funding, so remaining fund were allocated to other Columbia River basin Lead Entities for benefitting fish in the Columbia River basin. The Snake River Salmon Recovery Board Lead Entity received $64,719 for two projects ($9,469 and $55,250), the Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board Lead Entity received $46,349 for one project, and the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board Lead Entity received $106,859, for a total of $217,927 funding being allocated to other Columbia River region Lead Entities (Table 3).

Table 3. Apportioning of the 2019 Grant Funds by Lead Entity within the Lower Columbia Region

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board regional organization

Dollars Allocated

Klickitat County lead entity $121,500 Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board lead entity $3,260,573 Columbia River Regional projects $217,927 Total Allocated $3,600,000

B. Explain if the project list(s) submitted in your region funds the highest priority projects.

The project ranking and allocation of funding within, and across, the subbasins in the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board lead entity area is accomplished through a habitat strategy and project evaluation and ranking process based on the goals, measures, actions, and priorities of the Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan (recovery plan).3

3 https://www.lcfrb.gen.wa.us/librarysalmonrecovery

https://www.lcfrb.gen.wa.us/librarysalmonrecovery



The Lower Columbia Habitat Strategy4 identifies protection and restoration needs and priorities using the same analytical methods and criteria across the region’s 17 subbasins and estuary. The Board’s project evaluation and ranking process uses the habitat strategy as the basis for assessing a project’s potential benefits to fish. It also applies uniform criteria in assessing each project’s certainty of success and cost. As a result, the ratings and scores for projects are comparable allowing projects to be ranked and funding allocated within and across subbasins. The project evaluation criteria used by the LCFRB ensure that projects address the highest priority species for recovery (e.g., Primary populations), and focus on the highest priority reaches and limiting factors for those species, from a fish population performance perspective. The technical foundation for the habitat strategy, including the project evaluation criteria, are integrally connected to the Recovery Plan’s broader technical foundation. As a result, the project lists submitted by the LCFRB inherently address the highest priority habitat needs as identified within the Recovery Plan.

C. If the highest priority projects were not funded, explain the barriers to implementing the highest priority projects in your region.

As described above, the LCFRB’s Habitat Strategy ensures that projects focus on the highest priority restoration needs. However, Lead Entity capacity funding is continues to be a barrier to updating our Habitat Strategy in a manner that reflects recent recovery status, and in a manner that provides for longer term watershed-based lists of high priority project opportunities across the entire Region. In the Lower Columbia region, the scope of work and tasks involved in developing and implementing a grant round for 17 watersheds cannot be accomplished within our existing $80,000 LE allocation. The number and size of watersheds, anadromous river miles, and number of listed populations, all have a bearing on the cost of completing basic LE functions. The LCFRB is working on an effort to develop a more focused habitat investment strategy to try to develop and implement the highest priority projects within the watersheds in the region. However, given the geographic scope of our region that we manage as one Lead Entity, we already have to supplement the Lead Entity with our Regional Organization funding. This supplementation still only allows us to accomplish the most fundamental LE work of developing and managing the grant round, maintaining a habitat strategy and delivering an annual project list.

D. Do suballocations to lead entities limit your region from getting to the highest priority projects?

Our project allocation, and suballocation to the Klickitat Lead Entity, is not limiting implementation of the highest priority projects in the Region.

2. Regional technical review process

a. Explain how the regional technical review was conducted.

4 www.lowercolumbiasalmonrecovery.org




The Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery region includes more than 1,987 anadromous stream reaches, encompassing 2,566 river and estuary shoreline miles. Each stream reach supports one to six Endangered Species Act-listed salmon and steelhead populations. The Lewis River also supports Endangered Species Act-listed bull trout. Lower watershed reaches, the mainstem Columbia, and the estuary also support out-of-basin populations.

The Lower Columbia region includes two separate lead entity review processes. The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board lead entity relies on the Lower Columbia Habitat Strategy to determine projects are based on and consistent with the goals, measures, actions, and priorities of the recovery plan. The strategy identifies reach-level restoration and protection needs on both a multi-species and individual population basis, and is based on an analysis of species presence, key life history stages affected, and key habitat limiting factors. During project development, the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board staff work with project sponsors to ensure that their proposals are consistent with the priorities in the strategy.

Reaches are ranked using a four-tier approach, with Tier 1 reaches being the highest priority for protection and/or restoration, and Tier 4 reaches being the lowest. A reach’s tier designation is based on the following two factors:

• The recovery priority of the populations (Primary, Contributing or Stabilizing); and

• The relative importance of the reach (in habitat degradation and restoration modeling scenarios) to the performance of each population based on Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) modeling

In addition to ranking reaches, the strategy uses the EDT model to identify and rank:

• The relative importance of restoring or preserving conditions within a specific reach to population performance (Species Reach Potential); and

• Reach-specific habitat restoration needs based on the salmon and steelhead recovery priorities, life history stages and their associated limiting factors. Restoration needs or habitat attribute priorities within a reach are rated as High, Medium, or Low.

As funding has permitted, additional analyses have been conducted within selected subbasins to identify and prioritize potential project sites within priority reaches.

The strategy is incorporated in the online database SalmonPORT. This database includes an interactive map of salmon recovery and watershed health projects associated with a reach, description of species present, and factors affecting their recovery. SalmonPORT also links specific assessments, strategies and design documents to each subbasin.

As a Lead Entity for the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) habitat protection and restoration grants in the Lower Columbia River region, the LCFRB annually solicits, evaluates, and ranks project proposals submitted to the SRFB for funding consideration. The 2019 Salmon Recovery grant round also included funding for the



Cowlitz River Restoration and Recovery (CRR) Fund, in conjunction with Tacoma Power. As described in the CRR Implementation Strategy (Tacoma Power 2017), the goal of the CRR Fund is to assist in the protection and recovery of ESA listed populations consistent with the recommendations of the Washington Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish & Wildlife Upper Cowlitz Subbasin Plan (LCFRB 2010, Vol. II.F). The CRR Fund is intended to support activities that will protect and promote recovery of listed species in lieu of construction and operation of volitional upstream passage facilities on the Upper Cowlitz River. Therefore, the CRR is focused on restoration and recovery of Cowlitz listed salmonid species originating in the upper basin, upstream of Barrier Dam.

In 2019, the LCFRB integrated review and evaluation of habitat projects seeking CRR Program funding within its annual SRFB grant program for salmon recovery projects as described in the LCFRB Salmon Recovery Grant Manual. Applicants seeking CRR funding for habitat projects generally followed the guidance and processes described in the LCFRB Salmon Recovery Grant Manual with additional or different details specific to the CRR funding. Applicants that applied for both funding sources followed the guidance and processes described in LCFRB Salmon Recovery Grant Manual. The LCFRB project grant application process applies to applications for CRR Program funds with or without proposed SRFB match.

Applications for CRR Program funding for habitat projects must be made through the LCFRB. The LCFRB Board reviewed, ranked, and submitted funding recommendations to the Cowlitz Fisheries Technical Committee (FTC) and its CRR Subcommittee. Tacoma Power’s FERC license also requires that CRR Program funds be made available for hatchery-associated projects meeting specific criteria, but those projects are not reviewed by the LCFRB.

Tacoma Power plans to make available up to $3 million in grants from the CRR Fund in 2019. This may be distributed between both habitat projects (through the LCFRB grant round) and hatchery-associated projects (through Tacoma Power).

The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board adopted its updated 2019 Salmon Recovery grant round schedule, policies, and habitat strategy on December 7, 2018, and the CRR policies and procedures as an Appendix to the manual on February 1, 2019. The call for projects was announced December 12, 2018. Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board staff held three grant round information workshops on January 15, February 27, and March 6. Staff, with sponsors, conducted in-office project consultations (pre-proposal meetings) through the end of February. In March, seven sponsoring organizations submitted thirteen draft applications for consideration, with one qualifying for the CRR program. Following submittal of draft applications, LCFRB staff prepared project summaries, draft Reach/Population scores and ratings, site visit itineraries, and developed information to support special consideration requests submitted by sponsors.

Project reviewers were provided draft application materials prior to site visits, which occurred over four days at the end of April and in early May. Members of the LCFRB, Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), one RCO grant manager, and two SRFB Review Panel members attended. Guests included staff from Congresswoman Jamie



Herrera Beutler’s district office. Virtual tours relying on maps, photos, videos, and other project information were conducted for eight projects. Post-site visit debrief discussions also occurred to help pinpoint major questions, positives, and concerns across reviewers. TAC feedback on draft applications were finalized a draft application review meeting later in May.

On May 21 and 2, the TAC conducted a formal review of the draft applications. The goal of this review is to assist project sponsors in preparing final applications that are technically sound and complete. Project sponsors were provided the opportunity to present their proposals and discuss them with the TAC. The TAC offered detailed comments to guide sponsors in preparing their final applications.

Special consideration may be requested if an applicant believes that the LCFRB Habitat Strategy does not accurately characterize fish presence or utilization at the project site. It is the applicant’s responsibility to explain at the pre-proposal meeting why they believe special consideration is warranted. LCFRB staff coordinates with the applicant and the agencies to obtain relevant data for the TAC’s review. The TAC considers the documentation during the draft application review. This year, five of the proposals requested special consideration for either one or more species-reach presence because of new information on fish use. The TAC approved four of the requests.

Thirteen final applications meeting SRFB and LCFRB requirements were submitted in June, by seven different sponsor organizations. Combined, these proposals requested almost $4.5 million in grant funds and identified over $4.8 million in matching dollars, and targeted a wide variety of habitat types and populations across the region. The TAC reviewed final application materials, and submitted scores and deliberations to staff in July, based on the LCFRB Evaluation Criteria and TAC Scoring Questions for Certainty of Success and Cost scoring categories. In preparation for the TAC Project Ranking meeting, staff compiled TAC deliberations and redistributed these to the TAC along with a preliminary ranked project list, with scoring statistics. The ranked project list was approved by the Board with twelve projects recommended to receive full funding and one alternate project.

The Klickitat Lead Entity Region Salmon Recovery Strategy is the basis for project prioritization and work schedule development; project evaluation criteria incorporate strategy priorities. This strategy has a priority matrix containing priority sub-basins and reaches with associated rational, impacted species, life history significance, limiting habitat features, action priority ranking, specific habitat actions and rational, habitat forming processes, community interests, and the source of the information if applicable. This strategy and matrix are updated annually, or as needed if not annually, to reflect project completion and new information and data. All projects submitted for the 2019 Salmon Recovery Funding Board grant round are specifically identified or address habitat issues identified in the Klickitat Lead Entity Region Salmon Recovery Strategy. The Strategy was updated in 2015 to include monitoring projects.



In determining how much funding to allocate to projects up to the maximum 2.7% described above, the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board regional organization conducted a high level review of the project proposed to ensure it would benefit Lower Columbia populations. This was not an in-depth technical or biological review, as those elements are addressed through the Klickitat County’s lead entity process. The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board determined that the White Salmon project submitted by the Klickitat lead entity would benefit Lower Columbia salmon populations, especially coho, which are designated as Primary in the Lower Columbia recovery plan.

b. What criteria were used for the regional technical review?

All projects are evaluated and ranked using the same criteria by the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. Each project’s ranking is based on its benefits to fish, certainty of success, and cost.

The habitat strategy provides the basis for determining a project’s benefits to fish. Specifically, the evaluation of a project’s benefits to fish is based on:

• The ranking of the target reaches;

• The importance of the habitat needs or attributes addressed by the project; and

• The estimated effectiveness of a project at protecting or restoring the targeted habitat attributes.

The extent to which a project addresses key habitat attributes and their effectiveness is based on the review of the project and related data by Board staff and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Additionally, the size of the area being treated, the number of targeted high priority populations (multi-species benefits), and the project objectives and approach are considered. To allow a comparison among projects, the size of the area being treated is measured in standardized “habitat units,” which generally are equivalent to 500 feet of stream length.

The TAC may also give a project special consideration when a sponsor provides information or data that indicates the habitat strategy does not accurately capture or reflect site conditions, fish usage or reach potential. This grant round, the TAC gave special consideration to four projects because of an increase in knowledge about fish use of project reaches.

A project’s certainty of success is based on TAC review of the project using the following criteria:

• The project’s objectives and scope;

• Technical approach;

• Coordination and sequencing with other recovery work;

• Technical, physical, legal, or funding uncertainties;

• Sponsor capabilities;



• Community and landowner support; and

• Stewardship;

The TAC also evaluates each project to determine if the cost is reasonable relative to the work performed and the likely benefits. This evaluation is based on professional judgment taking into consideration labor, material, and administrative costs in comparison to past projects. The following questions guide TAC cost evaluation:

• Is the requested amount reasonable relative to the likely benefits? Projects receiving a High rating must demonstrate exceptional benefit for the cost;

• Has the sponsor obtained significant in-kind or cash match beyond the required minimum for the project type;

• Is the total project cost reasonable relative to the amount and type of work being proposed;

• Are costs well described and justified; and

• Are more appropriate fund sources available for the project?

Projects are given High, Medium, or Low ratings for benefits to fish (BTF), certainty of success (COS), and cost as well as numerical scores (Table 4). Projects are placed in four groupings based on their ratings and are then ranked within their group using their numerical score to generate a lead entity ranking of projects. If a project receives a Low rating in any category, it is not recommended for funding unless there are other factors that outweigh the low rating, such as potential benefits for the Lower Columbia Intensively Monitored Watershed program.

Table 4. Project Rating Groups

Final Rating BTF / COS / Cost

Group 1 H/H/H

Group 2 M/H/H, H /M/H, H /H/M Group 3 M/M/H, H/M/M, M/H/M Group 4 M/M/M

Group 5 Projects with a low rating will not be considered for SRFB funding. Within their established authority, the board may move a project within the fundable range. In doing so, the Board must adopt findings to support their decision.

This approach ensures that projects targeting high priority stream reaches for one or more Primary population(s) rate higher for funding than projects targeting stream reaches used only by lower priority populations. If projects were ranked only by their numerical scores, projects focusing on restoration of high priority reaches used only by a single Primary population would rank lower than projects focusing on lower priority reaches and/or multiple lower priority populations. This practice is also the reason why a project in a higher priority group may have a lower numerical score than a project in a lower priority group.



c. Who completed the review (name, affiliation, and expertise) and are they part of the regional organization or independent?

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board Lead Entity Projects are reviewed by the Board’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and submitted to the Board, who reviews the recommended ranking and approves the final list. The Board may remand issues back to the TAC or amend the list based on policy considerations such as community support, economic impacts and social and cultural issues.

Technical Advisory Committee The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established pursuant to Revised Code of Washington 77.85.200. The principle role of the 11-member TAC is to advise the Board on technical matters relating to habitat protection and restoration. By statute, the Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, Transportation, and Natural Resources are required members. The Board added additional members from federal and state agencies, local government, and private business to augment the breadth and depth of technical expertise in 2019. Table 5 below lists current TAC members.

Conflict of Interest The Board recognizes that, given TAC experience and expertise in fish-related issues, some members may have knowledge of or some connection to a proposal. It is the policy of the Board that TAC members conduct an unbiased review of the proposals. If, for any reason, a member believes that he or she cannot be unbiased, the member is expected to recuse himself or herself from the process. If a TAC member stands to gain personally if a proposal is funded, this is a legal conflict of interest and the TAC member must recuse himself or herself. In response to concerns raised regarding the 2018 grant round, the LCFRB updated its long-standing conflict of interest policies before the 2019 grant round. Updates included a blanket (rather than case by case) limitation on TAC members scoring projects from their own organizations, and improvements to scoring statistic tracking and distribution.



Table 5. Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board Technical Advisory Committee Membership

Member Affiliation Expertise

Lisa Brown Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Lower Columbia fish biology and management

Nicole Czarnomski Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish habitat restoration and fluvial geomorphology

Jim Fisher Private consultant Bachelor of Science, zoology and chemistry Angela Haffie Washington Department of Transportation Master of Science, environmental sciences

Allen Lebovitz Washington Department of Natural Resources Master of Science in forestry and environmental studies

David Lindley Yakama Nation Fisheries Fish habitat restoration project management

Brett Raunig, Vice Chair Washington Department of Ecology Bachelor of Science, Biology

Sam Lohr U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish Biologist for the Recovery, Assessment, and Planning Team

Doug Stienbarger Washington State University Extension Master of Science, land management

Rudy Salakory, Chair Cowlitz Indian Tribe Master of Science, earth science systems

Scott Sebring, Ex-Officio NOAA-Fisheries Fisheries biology

Open, Ex-Officio Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office Open, Ex-Officio U.S. Forest Service

Citizen Committee The Board serves as the citizen committee and has final approval authority for the lead entity’s project list. The Board is responsible for the resolution of any dispute arising from the TAC decisions. The Board may remand issues back to the TAC for further consideration, or amend the list based on policy considerations as noted above. Table 6 below provides a list of Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board members.

Conflict of Interest As with the TAC, the Board recognizes that, given members’ experience and expertise in fish-related issues, some members may have knowledge of or some connection to a proposal. That does not necessarily prevent a Board member from participating in approving the ranked list. If, for any reason, a Board member believes that he or she cannot be unbiased, the member is expected to recuse himself or herself from the process. If a member stands to gain personally if a proposal is funded, the member must recuse himself or herself. For the record, no conflicts were noted. The LCFRB is currently working on a thorough review and update to our conflict of interest policies, as part of a broader and comprehensive review of all Board policies and bylaws.



Table 6. Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board Membership

Member Affiliation Taylor Aalvik Cowlitz Indian Tribe The Honorable Mike Backman Wahkiakum County Commissioner Lee Grose Lewis County citizen designee The Honorable Gary Stamper Lewis County Commissioner Tom Linde Skamania County citizen designee and Chair The Honorable Richard Mahar Skamania County Commissioner Olaf Thomason, Sr. Wahkiakum County citizen designee The Honorable Gary Medvigy Clark County Councilor Todd Olson Hydro-electric operators representative, PacifiCorp Don Swanson Southwest Washington environmental representative Hal Mahnke Cowlitz County citizen designee, private property designee The Honorable Dean Takko Washington State Senate, 19th Legislative District Jade Unger Clark County citizen designee The Honorable Dennis Weber Cowlitz County Commissioner Open Southwest Washington cities representative

d. Were there any projects submitted to the SRFB that the regional implementation or Habitat

Work Schedule did not specifically identify? If so, please provide justification for including these projects in the list of projects recommended to the SRFB for funding. If the projects were identified in the regional implementation plan or strategy but considered a low priority or in a low priority area please provide justification.

All projects on the Board’s final project list stem directly from the habitat strategy and all projects target high priority populations and high priority river reaches as well (Table 7).

The strategy is based on, and is consistent with, the goals, measures, actions, and priorities of recovery plan. It identifies reach-level restoration and preservation needs on both a multi-species and individual population basis. The strategy is based on an analysis of species presence, key life history stages affected, and key habitat limiting factors. During project development, the Board’s staff works with project sponsors to ensure that their proposals are consistent with the priorities in the habitat strategy. For a number of subbasins, the Board has further refined the habitat strategy by identifying site-specific project opportunities within a given reach. The Board has worked with agencies, sponsors, and landowners to complete several assessment and project identification efforts. These assessments identified site-specific project opportunities, prioritized them according to the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board project evaluation criteria, developed cost estimates, and provided a number of designs in varying degrees for high priority projects. One project on the list this year resulted from past assessments: 19-1253 (East Fork Thermal Assessment).



Table 7. Fish and Priority Tiers for Stream Reaches Addressed by each Project. Fish priorities are identified by recovery desi Primary = P, Contributing = C, Stabilizing = S.

Steelhead Chinook Chum Coho Reach Tiers Rank Project Wtr Sum Fall Spr 1 2 3 4

1 East Fork Thermal Assessment P P P

P P

2 West Fork Grays Design P P C

P P

3 SF Toutle Headwaters Cooperative Design

P

P

P

4 Coweeman, Nineteen, and Skipper P

P

P

5 Washougal River and Timber Creek Restoration

P

6 Wildboy Forest and Kwoneesum Dam Acquisition

P

C

7 Gobar Pond Restoration P P

8 SW WA Nutrient Enhancement Coalition P,C P P C

P,C

9 Cispus-Yellowjacket Restoration Phase III P

S P

P

10 Germany Creek Fish Passage P

P

P C

11 Jones Creek Fish Passage C

C

12 Spillman West Valley Skamokawa

P

13 Erick Creek Culvert Replacement Project C

P

3. Criteria the SRFB considers in funding regional project lists. How did the regional review consider

whether a project:

a. Provides benefit to high priority stocks for the purpose of salmon recovery or sustainability. In addition to limiting factors analysis, Salmonid Stock Inventory, and Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment Program, provide stock assessment work completed to date to characterize the status of salmonid species in the region. Briefly describe.

The consistency of a project with the priorities of the recovery plan is an integral element in the project evaluation and ranking process and criteria. The consistency of the overall project list with the recovery plan is determined based on three factors. Specifically, the project evaluation assesses whether the projects on the list target:

• Priority populations for recovery; • Priority reaches; • Priority limiting factors or habitat attributes; • Benefits to other Columbia Basin stocks5; and • Chum populations outside of the Lower Gorge and Grays River subbasins.

5While out-of-basin populations are not considered in the recovery plan, the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board recognizes the importance of estuarine habitat where upriver stocks use these areas during their migration seasons.



The recovery plan sets three population priorities or categories: Primary, Contributing, and Stabilizing (Table 8). While highest priority is given to Primary populations, it should be noted that the NOAA-approved recovery plan requires improvement since ESA listing in the abundance, productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity for all populations, except Stabilizing, to achieve recovery.

Table 8. Population Classifications

Population Classification Viability Goal Description

Persistence Probability*

P Primary High (H) or Very High (VH)

Low (negligible) risk of extinction (represents a “viable” level)

95-99%

C Contributing Medium Medium risk of extinction 75-94%

S Stabilizing Low Stable, but relatively high risk of extinction 40-74% *100-year persistence probabilities. Reach priorities are established in two steps. First, the importance of the reach to each population is rated as High, Medium, or Low based on EDT analysis. Then, reaches are grouped into ranked tiers using the criteria in Table 9.

Table 9. Reach Tier Designation Rules. Reach priorities (High, Medium, or Low) are based on Ecosystem Diagnosis and Trea (EDT) results.

Reaches Rule Tier 1 All high priority reaches for one or more Primary populations.

Tier 2 All reaches not included in Tier 1 and which are medium priority reaches for one or more Primary species and/or all high priority reaches for one or more Contributing populations.

Tier 3 All reaches not included in Tiers 1 and 2 and which are medium priority reaches for Contributing populations and/or high priority reaches for Stabilizing populations.

Tier 4 Reaches not included in Tiers 1, 2, and 3 and which are medium priority reaches for Stabilizing populations and/or low priority reaches for all populations.

Additional consideration is given for other upper Columbia Basin populations using the tidally influenced reaches of tributary streams and the importance of such reaches to these populations.

The TAC also evaluates benefits to high priority populations based on the degree to which proposals target key life history stages and associated limiting factors for each population, and have the proper scope and technical approach to achieve biological goals and objectives. The certainty that a project will deliver benefits to high priority stocks is also evaluated through Certainty of Success criteria that address project coordination, sequencing, constraints and uncertainties, sponsor qualifications, community support and stewardship.

b. Addresses cost-effectiveness. Provide a description of cost-effectiveness considered.



The TAC considers the cost of a project during its evaluation of final applications. The consideration of cost is based on professional judgment taking into consideration labor, material, and administrative costs in comparison to past projects. The following questions guide the TAC ’s cost evaluation:

• Is the requested amount and total project cost reasonable relative to the likely benefits? High scoring projects should demonstrate exceptional benefit for the cost;

• To what extent has the sponsor obtained significant in-kind or cash match beyond the required minimum for the project type;

• Is the total project cost reasonable relative to the amount and type of work being proposed;

• Are costs well described and justified; and

• Are other appropriate fund sources available for the project?

c. Provides benefit to listed and non-listed fish species. Identify projects on the regional list that

primarily benefit listed fish. Identify projects on the regional list that primarily benefit non-listed species.

All projects on the 2019 list primarily benefit listed salmon and steelhead species (Table 7).

d. Preserves high quality habitat. Identify the projects on the list that will preserve high quality habitat.

Project 19-1215 (Kwoneesum Creek Forest and Dam Acquisition) will acquire 1,288 acres of Wildboy Creek forest for habitat conservation and future restoration, and Kwoneesum Dam, enabling future removal of the dam to open 6.5 miles of habitat in Wildboy Creek and West Fork Washougal River.

e. Implements a high priority project or action in a region or watershed salmon recovery plan. Identify where and how the project is identified as a high priority in the referenced plan.

See response to question 2D. All projects on the Board’s final project list stem directly from the regional recovery plan and all projects target high priority populations (Table 7). In addition to the regional recovery plan, one project originates from a subbasin watershed assessments, which further refine the regional habitat strategy to site-specific project opportunities: 19-1253 (East Fork Thermal Assessment).

f. Provides for match above the minimum requirement percentage. Identify the project’s match percentage and the regional match total.

All 2019 projects met minimum match requirements (Table 10). All projects with less than 15% match are design-only proposals or benefit the Lower Columbia Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) Program.



Table 10. SRFB Grant Requests and Match for the 2019 Project List. Rank numbers are only included for Lower Columbia Fis Recovery Board Lead Entity projects.

Project

# Lead Entity

Project Name Sponsor SRFB Grant

Request

Match Match %

Project Total

19-1551 Klickitat Fish Passage and Habitat Design on Spring Creek

Yakama Nation $121,500 $0 0% $121,500

1 19-1253 LCFRB East Fork Thermal Assessment

Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership

$150,034 $27,782 15% $177,816

2 19-1216 LCFRB West Fork Grays Design

Cowlitz Indian Tribe

$160,924 $0 0% $160,924

3 19-1212 LCFRB SF Toutle Headwaters Cooperative Design

Lower Columbia Fish Enhancement Group

$174,761 $0 0% $174,761

4 19-1213 LCFRB Coweeman, Nineteen, and Skipper Restoration


$408,545 $72,132 15% $480,677

5 19-1214 LCFRB Washougal River and Timber Creek Restoration


$248,367 $44,300 15% $292,667

6 19-1215 LCFRB Wildboy Forest and Kwoneesum Dam Acquisition

Columbia Land Trust

$500,000 $2,693,597 84% $3,193,597

7 19-1219 LCFRB Gobar Pond Restoration Project


$461,813 $85,000 15% $546,813

8 19-1210 LCFRB SW WA Nutrient Enhancement Coalition


$59,729 $14,500 19.5% $74,229

9 19-1221 LCFRB Cispus-Yellowjacket Restoration Phase III


$599,828 $599,827 33% $1,199,656

10 19-1225 LCFRB Germany Creek Stream Restoration Kosiba

Cowlitz Conservation District

$182,000 $32,450 15% $214,450

11 19-1222 LCFRB Jones Creek Fish Passage


$99,572 $17,600 15% $117,352

12 19-1226 LCFRB Spillman West Valley Skamokawa

Wahkiakum Conservation District

$215,000 $54,250 20% $269,250

13 19-1446 YBFWRB Ahtanum Village Restoration Design

Yakama Nation $46,349 $0 0% $120,000

14 19-1463 SRSRB Asotin Creek PA 06 Design

Asotin County Conservation District

$9,469 $0 0% $85,000

15 19-1497 SRSRB Walla Walla B2B Phase 3 Design

Tri-State Steelheaders Inc

$55,250 $9,750 15% $65,000



16 19-1475 UCSRB Wenatchee River-Monitor Side Channel Construction

Chelan County Natural Resources

$106,859 $148,265 58% $255,124

The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board tracks all match sources, including amounts that exceed the 15% minimum established by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board, in SalmonPORT. Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board policies also require additional match requirements depending on the type, location and sponsorship. Tracking all match is critical in providing a comprehensive picture of how federal and other funds are leveraged at the regional and statewide levels, and in fully capturing the sponsor and community support for salmon recovery efforts.

g. Sponsored by an organization with a successful record of project implementation. For example, identify the number of previous SRFB projects funded and completed.

Six sponsoring organizations have projects on the funding list in 2019. Previously funded and completed projects per organization are detailed below (Table 11). Previously funded projects include both completed and ongoing projects funded through the Salmon Recovery Funding Board.

Table 11. SRFB Project Funding History for all 2019 Project Sponsors (1999 – 2019)*

Sponsor 2018 Project Name 2019

Project Rank

Number of previously funded

projects

Number of completed

projects Columbia Land Trust Wildboy Forest and Kwoneesum Dam Acquisition 6 17 17

Cowlitz Conservation District

Germany Creek Stream Restoration Kosiba 10 19 14


West Fork Grays Design 2

29 14 Gobar Pond Restoration Project 7 Jones Creek Fish Passage 11 Cispus-Yellowjacket Restoration Phase III 9

Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership

East Fork Thermal Assessment 1 6 4


SF Toutle Headwaters Cooperative Design 3

74 57 Coweeman, Nineteen, and Skipper Restoration 4 Washougal River and Timber Creek Restoration 5

SW WA Nutrient Enhancement Coalition 8 Wahkiakum Conservation District

Spillman West Valley Skamokawa 12 18 10



Local Review Process Questions and Responses

4. Local Review Processes.

a. Provide project evaluation criteria and documentation of your local Citizens Advisory Group and Technical Advisory Group ratings for each project, including explanations for differences between the two groups’ ratings.

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board serves as both the regional recovery organization and the lead entity for all WRIAs in the region, except for the White Salmon, for which Klickitat County is the lead entity. The project evaluation criteria for the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board’s lead entity review process are described above in the regional section.

Klickitat Habitat Strategy In the Klickitat County lead entity’s portions of the Lower and Middle Columbia Salmon recovery regions, the Klickitat County lead entity process was followed, including reviews by the lead entity’s Technical Committee. A regional recovery plan has not been developed under Revised Codes of Washington 77.85.090 and 77.85.150 for any portion of the Klickitat County lead entity’s area. However, the White Salmon River recovery management unit is part of the Lower Columbia Domain Plan (NOAA 2013). Projects were evaluated for fit to the Klickitat Lead Entity Region Salmon Recovery Strategy (August, 2013), which is the adaptive management strategy developed pursuant to Revised Code of Washington 77.85.060(2)(e). The Klickitat Lead Entity Region Salmon Recovery Strategy references currently known stock assessment information and assessment work performed within the region, including the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment ESA Recovery Plan that was developed by NOAA-Fisheries (2009). Klickitat Lead Entity Region Salmon Recovery Strategy also cites stock assessment information in the salmon and steelhead recovery plan developed by NOAA-Fisheries for the White Salmon River (WRIA 29b) populations of Endangered Species Act-listed steelhead and salmon (2013). These recovery plans include stock assessments by the NOAA-Fisheries’ lower and middle Columbia regional technical teams.

The Klickitat County lead entity technical review consisted of the following:

• A preliminary project review in which project sponsors met with the technical committee to discuss and refine project concepts and designs.

• A project site tour during which project sponsors presented their projects to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board Review Panel representatives and to members of the Klickitat County lead entity’s Technical and Citizens’ Review committees.

• Project sponsors responded to comments received from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board Review Panel throughout the grant round.



• A final technical committee evaluation in which project sponsors presented their updated proposals and the Technical Committee ranked projects and provided input and feedback to both project sponsors and the Citizens’ Review Committee. The Technical Committee commented on and ranked each project and forwarded consensus comments to the Citizens’ Review Committee.

• The Citizens’ Review Committee meeting in which project sponsors presented their projects to the committee and the committee evaluated and ranked projects for the project list with technical input from the technical committee. The Klickitat Technical and Citizens’ Review Committees evaluated ranking based on the following criteria:

• Habitat features and process • Areas and actions • Scientific • Species • Life history • Costs • Scope and approach • Sequence • Stewardship • Landowner willingness • Meets SRFB eligibility criteria • Implementation readiness • Community Issues and Support (Citizens’ Review Committee only)

b. Identify your local technical review team

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board Lead Entity The Technical Advisory Committee members are identified above in the regional section (Table 5).

Klickitat County Lead Entity

Table 12. Klickitat County Lead Entity Technical Advisory Committee Membership.

Member Affiliation Expertise Brady Allen Bonneville Power Authority Fisheries Biologist Diane Driscoll NOAA Fisheries Fisheries Resources Specialist Jill Hardimann USGS Fisheries Biologist Diane Hopster US Forest Service Hydrologist Amber Johnson WDFW Area Habitat Biologist Gardner Johnston Inter-Fluve, Inc. Hydrologist David Lindley Yakama Nation Fisheries Habitat Restoration Specialist Jay McLaughlin Mt. Adams Resource Stewards Timber Harvest Loren Meagher Central Klickitat Conservation District Area Engineer



Margaret Neuman Mid-Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group Program Coordinator Joe Zendt Yakama Nation Fisheries Fish and Habitat Biologist Tova Tillinghast Underwood Conservation District District Manager Dan Richardson Underwood Conservation District Watershed Resource Technician/Firewise Coordinator

(alternate for Tova Tillinghast)

c. Explain how and when the SRFB Review Panel participated in your local process, if applicable.

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board Lead Entity Two Salmon Recovery Funding Board Review Panel members (Jeanette Smith and Michelle Cramer) attended the site visits. Formal comments on the draft applications were received from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board Review Panel and provided to sponsors so feedback could be incorporated in their final applications. Salmon Recovery Funding Board Review Panel participation can provide early notice of issues of potential concern to the review panel and allow sponsors an opportunity to address or resolve these issues in their final applications. Sponsors were required to submit responses to questions in their final applications indicating how and where in the application the comments were addressed. The Board requests that the Salmon Recovery Funding Board and Salmon Recovery Funding Board Review Panel consider the Technical Advisory Committee comments in their project reviews.

Klickitat County Lead Entity The Salmon Recovery Funding Board Review Panel members Jeanette Smith and Ms. Michelle Cramer attended the Klickitat lead entity project tour on June 11, 2019. They received the pre-application packet for each proposed project three weeks prior to the site visits. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board Review Panel provided feedback and questions to each of the project sponsors on June 21st, at which point project sponsors submitted responses to their questions and concerns and updated their Projects in Prism. After the sponsors addressed questions and comments provided by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board Review Panel and those from local committee members the committees convened to evaluate and rank the projects. The Klickitat lead entity coordinator routinely communicated with the Recreation and Conservation Office grant manager regarding general process questions, and questions specific to each of the projects.

5. Local evaluation process and project lists.

a. Explain how multi-year implementation plans or habitat work schedules were used to develop project lists

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board Lead Entity Salmon recovery priorities and actions are guided by the NOAA-approved lower Columbia domain recovery plan for both the Columbia estuary and mainstem, and the subbasin tributaries. The Board’s habitat strategy serves as its 6-year implementation work schedule. It is reviewed annually as described earlier and is consistent with the priorities outlined in the recovery plan. When individual subbasin strategies are completed,



information on site-specific project opportunities are incorporated. This information is captured in SalmonPORT and helps sponsors target high priority areas and restoration types to craft their proposals.

Klickitat County Lead Entity The Klickitat Lead Entity Region Salmon Recovery Strategy is the basis for project prioritization and work schedule development; project evaluation criteria incorporate strategy priorities. This strategy has a priority matrix containing priority sub-basins and reaches with associated rational, impacted species, life history significance, limiting habitat features, action priority ranking, specific habitat actions and rational, habitat forming processes, community interests, and the source of the information if applicable. This strategy and matrix are updated annually, or as needed if not annually, to reflect project completion and new information and data. All projects submitted for the 2019 Salmon Recovery Funding Board grant round are specifically identified or address habitat issues identified in the Klickitat Lead Entity Region Salmon Recovery Strategy. The Strategy was updated in 2015 to include monitoring projects.

b. Explain how comments of technical, citizen, and policy reviews were addressed in finalizing the project list. Were there any issues about projects on the list and how were those resolved?

Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board Lead Entity The public was provided opportunities to comment on both the draft and final proposals. Public comment is also taken at both board and Technical Advisory Committee meetings. There were no comments about specific projects on the list.

Klickitat County Lead Entity The Klickitat lead entity receives Salmon Recovery Funding Board funding from both the Lower Columbia and the Middle Columbia regional allocations, 2.7% this year and 30% respectively. Additionally, 2015 was the first year that the Middle Columbia region allocated funds to the White Salmon subbasin. This year, there is one project in the White Salmon. The first, and highest ranked, project is 19-1551 (Fish Passage and Habitat Design on Spring Creek) for $121,500, of which $97,200 is designated from the Lower Columbia regional allocation from this year, and $24,300 is from banked dollars from last year’s agreement on the allocation with the Lower Columbia Board.

Documents

Lower Columbia River Salmon Recovery Region · 2019-11-16 · for Mid-Columbia steelhead, Lower Columbia River Chinook, and Lower Columbia River coho. The project is ranked as first