Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 20102

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Research/Evaluate Restoration of NE Ore Streams and Develop Mgmt Guidelines
BPA Project Proposal Number 20102
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Oregon State University and University of Oregon
Business acronym (if appropriate) OSU/UO
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name J. Boone Kauffman
Mailing Address Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
City, State, Zip Corvallis, OR 97331
Phone 5417371625
Fax 5417373590
E-mail Boone.Kauffman@orst.edu
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Blue Mountain
Subbasin Grande Ronde
 
Short Description Research/evaluate approaches to the restoration of freshwater salmon and riparian wildlife habitats. Quantify the biophysical responses of both passive and active restoration projects. Establish reference reaches of value for the normative river concept.
Target Species This proposal has relevance to the restoration of normative conditions of habitats for all resident and anadromous fishes in low order tributaries of the Columbia Basin as well as for riparian-dependent wildlife species


Project Location

[No information]


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal


NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: Measure 205- Coordinated implemenatation monitoring and evaluation
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses:
Other Planning Document References This research project will help to elucidate many of the goals, as well as address the gaps in our knowledge of freshwater habitats specified in chapters 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, and 11 in Return to the River (ISG 1996). We have worked closely with personnel of the Wallowa-Whitman, Umatilla, and Malheur National Forests and USFS-PNW Research station for > 10 years. Much of the work will be conducted on public lands under their managment. We have received a commitment from the WWNF (Paul Boehne) for assistance in project implemetation. In additon, we have contacted private landowners, other federal agencies, and Umatilla tribal specialists (Allen Childs) concerning this proposal. This research will also be conducted on private ranches where tribes, ODFW, and BPA have implemented restoration/habitat enhancement projects. All have given a positive response. As this is a research project, our actions on the ground are expected to have minimal influences or negative impacts on the resource.


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous


Section 2. Past Accomplishments

n/a or no information


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
Development of ecological approaches to restoration of fish habitats (FY98) This has been an ongoing small research project examining riparian responses to restoration activities in the Upper Grande Ronde Basin. Much of the ground work for this proposal originated from the results of this project. No


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Characterize and quantify the biotic, geomorphic, and hydrologic processes and structural features of intact reference reaches. These reaches could then serve as potential goals (or endpoints) for restoration/enhancement activities. a. Identify and establish permanent transects and sampling stations at intact stream reaches to serve as regional reference reaches
1. b. Measurements to describe the structure, function, and processes, of intact streams-hydrological, geomorphic and ecological. This includes descriptions of fish and invert communitires, riparain vegetation, stream channel and valley bottom characteristics.
2. Quantify the geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic responses, and the rates and mechanisms of ecosystem change at sites undergoing: (a) passive restoration alone; and (b) sites with a combination of passive and active restoration approaches. a. Measure the environmental effectiveness of projects in terms of restoring important fish habitat features and those components of the riparian/stream ecosystem that sustain fish habitat.
2. b. Measurements of environmental responses at project sites and evaluate their effectiveness based upon their hydrogeomorphic/stream channel configurations such as those developed by Rosgen (1994)
2. c. At restoration/enhancement sites, measure the changes in riparian vegetation that are important influences on fish habitat (cover, composistion, strucutre, nutrient inputs, water quality etc.,).
2. d. Measure geomorphological and hyrdrological processes and features important to fish-pools, depths, channel width, channel diversity, sediment retention, etc.,
2. e. Measure changes in the aquatic biota- fish and invertebrate assemblages
3. Based upon research results, develop management recommendations based upon these research results which can be used to predict which type of approaches will yield the highest probability of successful restoration of aquatic habitats. a. Analysis of data to determine under which geomorphic, hydrologic, ecologic, and land management scenarios do various restoration approaches have the highest probability of success.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 10/01/99 09/01/00 Intact reference reaches described 20.0%
2 10/01/99 09/01/00 Restoration project research established; Initial responses described 0.7%
3 06/01/99 09/01/00 Intial recommendations formulated 0.1%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel Includes investigators, research associate, 6 grad students, summer field crews $140,884
Fringe varies depending upon position $ 23,787
Supplies field equipment, computing supplies, lab costs, etc., $ 11,757
Capital Total station surveying instrument and accessories $ 15,000
Travel field work, per diem and travel to professional meetings $ 16,570
Indirect 43% on campus and 26% off campus $ 67,561
Other Graduate student tuition $ 34,377
Total Itemized Budget $309,936


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $309,936
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $309,936
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%


Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable


Reason for change in scope

Not applicable


Cost Sharing

Not applicable
 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $326,249 $343,420 $361,495 $380,521
Total Outyear Budgets $326,249 $343,420 $361,495 $380,521
 

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: There are no foreseeable constraints


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Austen, D.J., P.B. Bayley, and B.W. Menzel. 1994. Importance of the guild concept to fisheries research and management. Fisheries 19(6):12-20. No
Beschta, R.L., W.S. Platts, and B. Kauffman. 1991. Field review of fish habitat improvement projects in the Grande Ronde and John Day River Basins of eastern Oregon. BPA, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR. DOE/BP-21493-1. 53 pp. No
Beschta, R.L. 1997. Restoration of riparian and aquatic systems for improved aquatic habitats in the upper Columbia River Basin. Pp. 475-491. IN: D.G. Stouter, P.A. Bisson, and R.J. Naiman (eds). Pacific Salmon and their Ecosystems: Status and Future No
Bisson, P.A., and Montgomery, D. R., 1996. Valley segments, stream reaches, and channel units. In Hauer, F.R., and Lamberti, G.A., eds., Methods in Stream Ecology, p. 23-52. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press). No
Case, R.L. and J. B. Kauffman. 1997. Wild ungulate influences on the recovery of willows, black cottonwood and thin-leaf alder following cessation of cattle grazing in Northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 71:115-125. No
Ebersole, J.L., Liss, W.J., and Frissell, C.A., 1997. Restoraton of stream habitats in the western United States: restoration as reexpression of habitat capacity. Environmental Management 21: 1-14. No
Elmore, W. and J. B. Kauffman. 1994. Riparian and watershed systems: Degradation and restoration. pp. 212-232. IN: Vavra, M., W. A. Laycock and R. D. Pieper (eds.). Ecological Implications of Livestock Herbivory in the West. Society for Range Manage No
Green, D. M. and J. B. Kauffman. 1995. Succession and livestock grazing in a northeastern Oregon riparian ecosystem. J. Range Management. 48:307-313. No
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., and Potyondy, J.P., 1994. Stream channel reference sites: an illustrated guide to field techniques. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-245 No
Hirsch, C.L. 1995. Seasonal shifts in rebind trout use of pools and their microhabitats in three central Oregon Streams. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. No
Hokanson, K.E.F. 1977. Temperature requirements of some percids and adaptations to the seasonal temperature cycle. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34:1524-1550. No
Independent Scientific Group. 1996. Return to the Ri ver: Restoration of salmonid fishes in the Columbia River Ecosystem. Northwest Power Planning Council. Portland, OR No
Kauffman, J. B., W. C. Krueger and M. Vavra. 1983. Effects of late season cattle grazing on riparian plant communities. J. Range Manage. 36:685-691. No
Kauffman, J. B., W. C. Krueger and M. Vavra. 1985. Ecology and plant communities of the riparian area associated with Catherine Creek in northeastern Oregon. Oregon State Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 147. 35 p. No
Kauffman, J.B., R.L. Beschta, and W.S. Platts.1993. Fish habitat mprovement projects in the Fifteenmile Creek and Trout Creek Basins of central Oregon: Field review and management recommendations. BPA, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR. DO No
Kauffman, J.B., R.L. Beschta, N. Otting, and D. Lytjen. 1997. An ecological perspective of riparian and stream restoration in the western United States. Fisheries 22(5):12-24. No
Li, H.W. and J.L. Li. 1996. Fish Community Composition. Pages 391-406 in F.R. Hauer and G.A. Lamberti (eds). Methods in stream ecology. Academic Press, N.Y., N.Y. No
Li, H.W., G.A. Lamberti, T.N. Pearsons, C.K. Tait, J.L. Li, and J.C. Buckhouse. 1994. Cumulative effects of riparian disturbance in small streams of the John Day Basin, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123:627-640. No
Li, H.W., T.N. Pearsons, C.K. Tait, J.L. Li and R. Gaither. 1991. Approaches to evaluate habitat improvement programs in streams of the John Day Basin. Completion Report to the Research Section of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. No
Lyons, J. 1992. The length of stream to sample with a towed electrofishing unit when fish species richness is estimated. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:198-203. No
Lytjen, D.J. 1998. Ecology of woody riparian vegetation in tributaries of the Upper Grande Ronde River Basin, Oregon. MS Thesis Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 76p. No
Magilligan, F.J., and McDowell, P.F., 1997. Stream channel adjustment following elimination of cattle grazing. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33: 867-878. No
McDowell, P.F., and Magilligan, F.J., 1997a. Response and recovery of stream channels following removal of cattle grazing. In Wang, S.S. Y., Langendoen, E.J., and Shields, F.D., Jr., eds., Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision: Stabilizat No
McDowell, P.F., and Magilligan, F.J., 1997b. Natural and management influences on pool development. Eos (Transactions of the Amer. Geophysical Union), Fall 1997 annual meeting, abstract. No
Merritt, R.W., and K.W. Cummins. 1984. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Kendall Hunt Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa. No
Montgomery, D.R., and Buffington, J.M., 1997. Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage basins. Geological Society of America Bulletin 109: 596-611. No
Moore, K., Jones, K., and Dambacher, J., 1997. Methods for Stream Habitat Surveys, version 7.1, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Production Program, Corvallis, OR. No
Moyle, P.B. and B. Herbold. 1987. Life-history patterns and community structure in stream fishes of western North America: comparisons with eastern North America and Europe. Pages 25-32, in W.J. Matthews and D.C. Heins (eds) Community and evolutionary eco No
Platts, W.S., et al., 1987. Methods for evaluating riparian habitats with applications to management. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-221. No
Poole, G.C., Frissell, C.A., and Ralph, S.A., 1997. In-stream habitat unit classification: inadequacies for monitoring and some consequences for management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33: 879-896. No
NRC. 1992. Restoration of aquatic ecosystems. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 552 pp. No
NRC. 1996. Upstream: Salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 452 pp. No
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199. No
Rosgen, D., 1996. Applied River Morphology. (Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology, Inc.) No
Tait, C.K., J.L. Li, G.A. Lamberti, T.N. Pearsons, and H.W. Li. 1994. Influences of riparian cover on benthic community structure in high desert streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 13(1):45-56. No
Thorne, C.R., Allen, R.G., and Simon, A., 1996. Geomorphological river channel reconnaissance for river analysis, engineering and management. Transaction of Inst. Of British Geographers NS 21: 469-483. No
U.S. Forest Service, 1996. Stream Inventory Handbook, Level I & II, Pacific Northwest Region, version 9.5. USDA Forest Service. No


Section 7. Abstract

Abstract

While large expenditures have been spent on the recovery of native salmonids and their habitats in the interior Columbia Basin, a paucity of information exists on the site potential of riparian/stream ecosystems (i.e., the actual endpoint of the restoration). Restoration requires detailed understanding of the interactive biophysical attributes and processes that control the survival of salmonids (ISG 1996). We know little of the biophysical processes and patterns of recovery following the implementation of passive and active restoration. The specific outcome of this research study will be to provide fish and restoration managers with the information necessary to implement the most appropriate restoration approaches in the most appropriate reach types that will re-establish the biophysical processes necessary to create productive fish habitats. The overall objectives of this research will be met through two experiments: (1) quantify the biotic, hydrologic, and geomorphic characteristics of intact ecosystems; and (2) quantify the biophysical responses or patterns of recovery following the implementation of restoration activities. Specifically, we will quantify the rate and nature of hydrological, geomorphic, and ecological processes following passive restoration alone, and in combination with active restoration approaches. Both experiments will be conducted in a variety of stream reach types (gradient, elevation, stream order, floodplain width etc.,). A suite of restoration techniques will be examined (e.g., fencing, rechannelization, channel reconfiguration, instream structures, revegetation etc.,). We will quantify changes for the first five years following the implementation of restoration. Ecosystem changes will be compared with paired untreated (control) reaches as well as with intact reference reaches. This research will entail intensive field measurements of channel, stream, aquatic and vegetation characteristics annually.


Reviews and Recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

This project has not yet been reviewed

Return to top of page