Walla Walla Subbasin Priority Strategies

Prepared by the Oregon members of the Walla Walla Subbasin Planning Team on October 4, 2005

Related link: Map of priority protection and restoration areas (220k PDF)
 

The Walla Walla Subbasin Planning team submitted a Final Addendum to our Walla Walla Subbasin Plan on November 26, 2004. This Addendum was a response to review comments and focused primarily on the development of a Prioritization framework. Section 1.3, starting on page 9 states the following:

Aquatic habitat and species prioritization in the Walla Walla Subbasin is organized around four general tiers of priority:

1. Imminent threats to Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed aquatic focal species, regardless of where they occur in the Walla Walla Subbasin, are addressed as a first priority in the project prioritization process. Imminent threats include three types: a) passage obstructions, b) fish screens, and c) dry stream reaches.
2. The second priority in the project prioritization process is to address habitat or artificial propagation factors that are currently impacting survival or abundance of fish species in priority restoration and protection areas. Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) analysis is used to identify priority restoration and protection areas of the subbasin as well as habitat factors that can be preserved or improved and will provide the most benefit to focal aquatic species. It is important to note that while EDT analysis was used to identify priority restoration and protection areas for steelhead and spring Chinook, areas that contain bull trout also need to be addressed in this priority category.
3. The third priority for the project prioritization process is projects that are not in an EDT identified priority reach, but do contain spawning and/or rearing ESA-listed focal aquatic species.
4. The fourth priority in the project prioritization process is projects that are not in an EDT identified priority reach and that do not currently contain spawning and/or rearing habitat, but have the potential to support this type of habitat with improvements to that area.

The third and fourth priority tiers do not imply that the priority geographic areas agreed upon in the May 2004 Version of the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan should be disregarded. Selection of projects for implementation in non-priority areas will be an exception and require strong justification demonstrating why they should be selected instead of projects in priority areas.

Imminent Threat-type projects are a first priority. These projects must address effects caused to an ESA listed focal species. These types of projects can be located anywhere in the subbasin (not just priority restoration and protection areas). They must address at least one of the following:

• Passage obstruction that causes migration delay or completely blocks migration. A full description of this type of imminent threat is found in section 7.3.1 of the May 2004 Version of the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan (page 148-150). The list of potential passage obstructions in Table 7-4 is believed to be inclusive, but other passage obstructions may be identified over time that meet the criteria for this priority. Note that passage obstructions have different effects on different species and life history stages, and may be crucial at certain times of the year and not as important at others. Projects addressing this type of priority must fully explain the need for the barrier removal in terms of species, life stage, and time of year.
• Unscreened or inadequately screened water diversions. A full description of this type of imminent threat is found in section 7.3.1 of the May 2004 Version of the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan (page 150-151). As noted in section 7.3.1, many of these types of imminent threats have been documented, and these lists are available, but other screening problems may be identified over time that meet the criteria for this priority.
• Dry Stream Reaches. Dry or low stream flows during certain seasons of the year can be an imminent threat as defined here. A full description of this type of imminent threat is found in section 7.3.1 of the May 2004 Version of the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan (page 151). Many of these types of imminent threats have been documented, and these lists are available, but other problems may be identified over time that meet the criteria for this priority.

In reviewing proposed projects that address Imminent Threats, the following criteria will be applied to determine the order of ranking for any list of proposals. These criteria will be considered equally important in ranking projects:

• Projects that benefit multiple ESA-listed focal fish species will be given a higher priority. Next in priority will be projects that address a single focal species and other species. Lowest priority under this criterion will be projects that only address one ESA-listed focal species.
• The location of the project in the subbasin will affect priority. The intent of this criterion is to acknowledge that the benefits that would be derived from projects can be related to the location of a project. It is generally assumed that passage projects lower in the subbasin provide more benefits for migrating fish than projects higher in subbasin. Therefore, lower projects are generally a higher priority, but exceptions to this general priority can be funded if fully justified.
• A project that addresses a dry stream reach in the upper portion of the subbasin may provide more benefit than a passage project lower in the subbasin. This type of exception may be affected by time of year as well. Another exception involves bull trout. Because bull trout generally occur in the upper portions of the basin, projects that address this species need to be given equal priority to projects that address salmon passage lower in the subbasin. If an exception is found for a project evaluated under this criterion, it must be fully explained and justified.
• A project that addresses an imminent threat that causes a greater relative mortality or adverse effect is a higher priority than those that have a lower relative beneficial effect. For example, a project that addresses a passage obstruction that causes 20 percent mortality to 50 percent of the population being addressed is a higher priority than a project that addresses a passage obstruction that causes 10 percent mortality to 50 percent of the population.
• A project that addresses actions called for under an approved recovery plan (such as those being developed for bull trout and summer steelhead in the Walla Walla Subbasin) should also be given higher priority.

The fish passage barrier presented by Mill Creek Flood Control Channel is recognized as a high priority ?imminent threat? on Mill Creek. Though recognized as a high priority, the Mill Creek scenario presents unique challenges. The City of Walla Walla recognizes that the scope of the necessary funding as well as the role and responsibility of the federal government in the design and construction of the infrastructure places it well outside the traditional funding mechanisms available to communities on a local, state, and even federal level. Given the unique federal nexus of the Flood Control Channel, the City of Walla Walla supports that funding available under the Subbasin Plan be considered to help resolve these challenges.

Priority Areas and Habitat Factors are the second priority tier for projects funded under this subbasin plan. EDT is used to identify the areas and habitat factors that will be addressed for this type of project. The EDT model assesses the relative importance of individual areas (stream reaches) in the subbasin in terms of contributions to fish abundance, productivity, capacity, and life history diversity (collectively known as population performance). Reaches are ranked as high priority for preservation based on current habitat conditions. High priority preservation reaches, if not further degraded, will contribute more to population performance than will reaches with a lower preservation rank. Reaches ranked as high priority for restoration are based on comparisons between current and historic habitat conditions. If restored to historic conditions, high priority restoration reaches will contribute more to a population's performance than reaches ranked as lower priority for restoration. Some reaches are ranked as a high priority for both preservation and restoration. These reaches currently contribute a good deal to population performance, and if restored to historic conditions, would contribute more to population performance than other reaches in the basin that could be restored.

The results of EDT analysis in the Walla Walla Subbasin produced a list of 25 priority protection and restoration geographic areas (see pages 59 and 62 of the subbasin plan). Further, the subbasin planners used the EDT analysis to identify the most important habitat factors to be addressed in each priority area. The following seven limiting factors were key in these areas: sediment (embeddedness), large woody debris, key habitat (pools), riparian function/ confinement, summer water temperature, bedscour, and flow. These factors are addressed by specific measurable biological objectives. In addition, specific types of actions (strategies) that might be taken to address these factors are identified. Projects proposed under this second priority must address priority habitat factors using the types of actions identified in one or more of the priority restoration and protection areas to be eligible for consideration of funding.

For artificial propagation projects, they must address critical factors which limit fish abundance (as agreed upon by the appropriate technical workgroup) or achievement of numeric objectives in one or more of the priority restoration or protection areas. For example, EDT outputs for spring Chinook indicate a high potential for natural juvenile production but adult return potential from natural production alone does not come close to meeting tribal goals for adult natural production and harvest. This out-of-subbasin low survival issue suggests that overall juvenile abundance may be a critical factor limiting achievement of numeric goals and that a hatchery project may serve as a means to make up the ?smolt difference.?

In reviewing proposed projects that address Priority Areas and Habitat Factors, the following criteria will be applied to determine the order of ranking for any list of proposals. These criteria will be considered equally important in ranking projects:

• Projects that provide long-term protection will be a higher priority than projects that provide shorter-term protection, all other factors being equal.
• Projects that address multiple objectives in a priority area will be considered a higher priority than projects that will address a single objective. Projects that address the most objectives will be given highest priority.
• Projects that benefit both terrestrial and aquatic focal species will be considered a higher priority than projects that solely benefit terrestrial or aquatic focal species.
• Projects that affect multiple ESA-listed focal species will be given a higher priority. Next in priority will be projects that address a single focal species and other non-focal species. Lowest priority under this criterion will be projects that only address one focal species and no other species.
• Projects that target limiting factors that have the greatest effect on production of focal species will receive higher priority. EDT analysis of the normalized impact of environmental attributes on steelhead productivity for high priority restoration areas is shown in Appendix G, Table 3 of the May 2004 version of the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan.
• A project that addresses actions called for under an approved recovery plan (such as those being developed for bull trout and summer steelhead in the Walla Walla Subbasin) should also be given higher priority.
• Much of the scientific literature emphasizes the protection of functional habitats and ecosystem processes over restoration efforts because protection strategies are generally less costly and more successful than projects aimed at using resources to restore degraded areas (Beechie et al. 2003, Bilby et al. 2003, Roni et al. 2002 as cited in OWEB 2004). For this reason, projects intended to protect habitat or restore habitat processes such as connectivity will be given a higher priority than projects that are aimed at restoring habitat such as rehabilitating channelized streams or installing instream structures to modify aquatic habitat.
• Relative circumstances for the priority area being addressed by the project will also be addressed. This will take into account the following in assigning a high, medium or low priority ranking for relative circumstances surrounding the proposed project: current habitat conditions in the area, habitat forming processes that are taking place in the project area, extent and potential for threat to habitat conditions if the project is not accomplished, and degree of anticipated historical function protected or restored in the area.

Non-Priority Areas with Spawning and/or Rearing Habitat for ESA-listed Aquatic Focal Species are third priority for project funding in the Walla Walla Subbasin. Eligibility requirements for third priority projects are:

• ESA-listed fish must spawn or rear in the project location, and
• The project must address a habitat attribute identified as a limiting factor in the subbasin plan or a subbasin summary, watershed plan, habitat limiting factors analysis, or other similar document.

While projects that fall into this category address important issues, they are not as critical to pursue as projects in the first and second priority tiers. Project proposals that address this priority will be considered on an ad-hoc basis. In order to be funded, a project must score high enough using the ranking criteria specified for second priority projects (Priority Areas and Habitat Factors) and provide sufficient additional justification for funding a project in a non-priority area.

Non-Priority Areas with potential to support Spawning and/or Rearing Habitat for ESA-listed Aquatic Focal Species are fourth priority for project funding in the Walla Walla Subbasin. Eligibility requirements for fourth priority projects are:

• The project must address a reach or reaches with the potential to support spawning and/or rearing habitat for ESA-listed species.
• The project must address a habitat attribute identified as a limiting factor in the subbasin plan or a subbasin summary, watershed plan, habitat limiting factors analysis, or other similar document.

This category acknowledges that there are areas in the subbasin that may be currently degraded but could become valuable habitat for aquatic species if they were targeted with restoration efforts. Similar to the third priority projects, project proposals in this category will be considered on an ad-hoc basis and must score high enough according to the ranking criteria specified for second priority projects and provide sufficient additional justification for funding.

Terrestrial Habitat and Species

Because EDT analysis was not conducted for terrestrial species, there are no priority restoration or protection areas like those identified for the aquatic section. Instead, four focal habitats were selected for the Walla Walla Subbasin: ponderosa pine, eastside interior grasslands, interior riparian wetlands, and shrub-steppe. Focal habitats were chosen to evaluate ecosystem health and establish management priorities at the ecosystem level. In addition, focal species were identified for each of the focal habitats (see pages 98-99 of the subbasin plan). Focal species were chosen in part because of their conservation or management concern status and because they are associated with key habitat elements/conditions that are essential for properly functioning ecosystems. Limiting factors, biological objectives, and strategies were identified for each focal habitat type, keeping the corresponding focal species in mind (see pages 189-201of the subbasin plan).

The three priority tiers used in categorizing aquatic projects can be condensed to two tiers for terrestrial projects:

1. The first priority for prioritization of terrestrial projects is to address habitat factors that are currently impacting the survival of focal species in focal habitats. Key principles used to guide the selection of focal habitats were:

• Focal habitats were identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) at the ecoregion level and reviewed/modified at the subbasin level.
• Focal habitats can be used to evaluate ecosystem health and establish management priorities at the ecoregion level.
• To identify focal macro habitat types within the ecoregion, ecoregion planners used the assessment tools to develop a habitat selection matrix based on various criteria, including ecological, spatial, and cultural factors.

(see Section 4.1.3 in Appendix F of the subbasin plan for more detail)

Limiting factors for each focal habitat were developed (see Section 7.4.1 of the subbasin plan). Since focal species were chosen in part because they are indicators of functioning ecosystems, projects that target limiting factors in focal habitat areas have the potential to improve conditions for multiple species.

2. The second priority for the prioritization of terrestrial projects is projects that do not focus on focal habitats, but do address focal species or other species of concern. These projects must address a habitat attribute identified as a limiting factor in the subbasin plan, subbasin summary, watershed plan, terrestrial assessment, or other similar document. As explained above under aquatic habitat and species, projects that fall under this category are not as critical as first priority projects and must score high enough according to the project ranking criteria (summarized below) to support their implementation.

The majority of the criteria used for ranking projects as outlined in the aquatic habitat and species section above also apply to terrestrial habitat and species. In summary, these criteria include prioritizing:

• projects that benefit multiple ESA-listed focal terrestrial species over projects which benefit single focal species
• projects that address a threat that causes greater relative mortality or adverse effects over projects with lower relative beneficial effect
• projects that provide long-term protection over projects that provide short-term protection, all other factors being equal
• projects that address multiple objectives vs. a single objective
• projects that benefit both terrestrial and aquatic focal species
• projects that protect functional habitats and ecosystem processes over restoration efforts
• projects that score highly when relative circumstances are taken into account (current habitat conditions, habitat forming processes, and extent and potential for threat to habitat conditions if project is not accomplished, etc.)

* In addition to these above-stated priorities and their supporting criteria referenced from the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan Addendum 2004, there is an additional aquatic priority related to artificial production.  The artificial production priority strategy includes the continuation of the ongoing LSRCP steelhead hatchery program in the Washington portion of the Walla Walla Basin and the completion of the planning of the proposed Walla Walla spring Chinook hatchery and implement the hatchery construction to be located at the existing South Fork Walla Walla adult hatchery satellite facility.

* For clarification, the four terrestrial focal habitats for the Walla Walla Subbasin are ponderosa pine, eastside interior grasslands, interior riparian wetlands, shrub-steppe. The top priority habitat is the eastside interior grasslands.

* Research, monitoring, and evaluation of the benefits from the above mentioned activities to the focal species and focal habitats will be critical to informing ongoing restoration and protection strategies.