BPA Fish and Wildlife FY 1997 Proposal

Section 1. Administrative
Section 2. Narrative
Section 3. Budget

see CBFWA and BPA funding recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Title of project
Grande Ronde Subbasin Watershed Restoration

BPA project number   5507000

Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding
CTUIR

Sponsor type   OR-Tribe

Proposal contact person or principal investigator
 NameRick George
 Mailing addressCTUIR
Department of Natural Resources
P.O Box 638
Pendleton, OR 97801
 Phone541/276-3449

BPA technical contact   , EWP

Biological opinion ID   

NWPPC Program number   3.1D.1, 7.6C.5, 7.7

Short description
Conduct watershed planning and education process by identifying problems and developing creative solutions to land use problems impacting water quality/quantity in the Grande Ronde Basin. Implement instream, riparian and wetland enhancement projects for benefits to summer steelhead, spring chinook, and wildlife.

Project start year   1997    End year   

Start of operation and/or maintenance   0

Project development phase   Planning, Implementation, Maintenance

Section 2. Narrative

Related projects
Other efforts also addressing habitat enhancement in the Grande Ronde Watershed include ODFW (project #8402500) and the Grande Ronde model watershed (project #9402700). This project will not duplicate but compliment those efforts.

Project history

Biological results achieved

Annual reports and technical papers

Management implications

Specific measureable objectives
This project is expected to improve water quality in associated streams and therefore increase productivity of spring chinook salmon and/or summer steelhead by improving spawning, incubation, and juvenile rearing habitat. Specific measurable project objectives may include miles of riparian fencing, miles of riparian planting, acres of wetland restoration, etc. Specific measurable project results would include increased stream shading and bank stability and decreased water temperature and streambank erosion.

Testable hypothesis

Underlying assumptions or critical constraints

Methods
Land use practices impacting fish production capability will continue to be identified throughout the watershed through baseline data collection, GIS analysis and coordination with natural resource management entities and private landowners. Long-term solutions to land use problems will be developed cooperatively with landowners and other resource agencies in the basin. Remedial measures will be implemented to reduce or eliminate detrimental land management activities where possible. Physical factors which limit production capability will be addressed through enhancement of instream and riparian habitat.

Brief schedule of activities
Coordinate with landowners and natural resource management entities to: 1) identify land use practices impacting water quality and fisheries; 2) identify actions to address land use impacts; and 3) implement protective and/or habitat enhancement measures including, but not limited to fencing or planting to restore riparian or wetland areas, long term land or grazing leases, acquisition of water rights, acquisition of timber rights, land swaps, change in management strategies or methods, and purchase of lands for fisheries and wildlife benefits.

Biological need
Former and current detrimental land use practices continue to impact anadromous fisheries production in the Grande Ronde River Basin. High summer stream temperatures, nonpoint source pollution lack of native riparian vegetation, low or intermittent stream flows, lack of habitat diversity, and unstable stream channels limit available salmonid spawning/rearing areas throughout the basin. Habitat improvements such as riparian fence construction and revegetation of riparian corridor areas will diversify habitat and improve water quality/quantity conditions for fish and macroinvertebrates.

Critical uncertainties
A critically impacted life history stage (from habitat degradation) currently affecting the natural productivity of spring chinook and summer steelhead is juvenile rearing (egg deposition to smolting). This and other artificial production efforts will be necessary to implement a comprehensive Grande Ronde Basin fisheries restoration program.

Summary of expected outcome
Habitat enhancements implemented under this project will result in the following benefits: 1) increased water table saturation zones and instream flow levels during summer months, 2) slower water velocities and narrower stream channels, 3) more diverse native riparian vegetation communities to assist with bank stabilization, provide recruitable wood for instream cover, increase shading, increase insect drop and filter sediments. These combined benefits will aide anadromous salmonids by improving overall water quality, increasing and diversifying fisheries habitat and increasing potential food sources (macroinvertebrates).

Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation
The restoration of watershed conditions and fisheries resources in the Grande Ronde Basin has been a coordinated effort between tribal, local, state and federal agencies and the agricultural community. Projects have been implemented by the tribes, US Forest Service, ODFW, the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Board, etc. Additional effort is still necessary to address the magnitude of land use impacts on stream habitats. This project will seek to continue coordination efforts to better educate and develop creative solutions to land use practices in the basin. Likely locations of projects where CTUIR has already coordinated with land owners/managers include Meadow Creek, McCoy Creek (EPA funded project being implemented by tribes), Beaver Creek, Catherine Creek, and the mid and upper mainstem Grande Ronde River.

Risks

Monitoring activity
Baseline and post-project monitoring includes photopoints, physical surveys, stream cross-sections, temperature and turbidity measurements. Information will continue to be used to identify watershed health concerns and to assess the short and long-term effects of instream and riparian area enhancements on fish habitat, riparian vegetation recovery, and water quality.

Section 3. Budget

Data shown are the total of expense and capital obligations by fiscal year. Obligations for any given year may not equal actual expenditures or accruals within the year, due to carryover, pre-funding, capitalization and difference between operating year and BPA fiscal year.

Historic costsFY 1996 budget data*Current and future funding needs
(none) New project - no FY96 data available 1997: 150,000
1998: 200,000
1999: 215,000
2000: 230,000
2001: 245,000

* For most projects, Authorized is the amount recommended by CBFWA and the Council. Planned is amount currently allocated. Contracted is the amount obligated to date of printout.

Funding recommendations

CBFWA funding review group   Snake River

Recommendation    Tier 1 - fund

Recommended funding level   $150,000

BPA 1997 authorized budget (approved start-of-year budget)   $150,000