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
Wenas Creek Flow Augmentation and Riparian Restoration

BPA project number   5511200

Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding
Yakama Indian Nation

Sponsor type   WA-Tribe

Proposal contact person or principal investigator
 NameLynn Hatcher
 Mailing addressP.O. Box 151
Toppenish, WA 98948
 Phone509/865-6262

BPA technical contact   ,

Biological opinion ID   

NWPPC Program number   

Short description
This project would promote voluntary restoration of riparian habitat on private agricultural and residential land. In stream flows would improve through implementation of a water conservation plan. To initiate these, a public education/involvement program would introduce and encourage the involvement of landowners and volunteers in restoration, water quality monitoring and long-term monitoring. An engineering study would be conducted to determine the most effective means for meeting existing water rights while maximizing benefits to In stream flows. After identifying willing landowners, water delivery improvements would be made to improve efficiency.

Project start year   1997    End year   2000

Start of operation and/or maintenance   0

Project development phase   Implementation

Section 2. Narrative

Related projects

Project history

Biological results achieved

Annual reports and technical papers

Management implications

Specific measureable objectives
In stream flow monitoring will occur pre- and post-project to determine impacts of irrigation efficiency improvement. Changes in riparian canopy closure will also be measured.

Testable hypothesis
Restoring riparian habitat and increasing In stream flows will improve potential for use by juvenile salmonids.

Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
The hydrograph will be similar to historic; acute discharge of toxic substances to the stream will not occur; a minimum of twenty percent of the landowners in the project area will participate

Methods
In stream flows will be measured with a discharge meter. Changes in riparian canopy will be determined with a densiometer.

Brief schedule of activities
The project would be initiated with the mailing of fliers to landowners. Public meetings would be held to discuss stream functions, irrigation alternatives, and the goals of the project. Past habitat restoration/protection successes that the Yakama Indian Nation has undertaken would be displayed. Landowners would be solicited to voluntarily initiate riparian restoration/protection and irrigation efficiency improvement on their land. After restoration projects have been implemented in years one and two, monitoring would occur in years three and four. Ultimately, field trips would be scheduled to display individual restoration projects.

Biological need
Managers believe rearing habitat for juvenile fish is severely limited in the Yakima River Basin. This project would improve rearing habitat function through increasing riparian canopy closure, improving In stream flows, reducing sedimentation and decreasing substrate embeddedness.

Critical uncertainties
Rearing habitat for juvenile fish is severely limited in the Yakima Basin, so much so that fish managers believe rearing habitat restoration is one of most important actions to restore stock health.

Summary of expected outcome
In stream flows will improve. Native riparian vegetation density will increase. In turn, water quality will improve, in-channel habitat complexity will increase and stream banks will become more stable. Landowners will become more aware of anadromous fish needs and other reasons for managing irrigation water and preserving/restoring riparian vegetation. Ultimately, the project will be used as a local demonstration area to encourage additional landowners to protect and restore streams.

Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation
Individual restoration projects will be developed in consultation with the USDA - NRCS and the WDOE. Cost-share applications will be presented to the USDA - CFSA, the WDNR, the USFWS, and other agencies that administer funding programs.

Risks
Invasive weedy species may out-compete native plantings

Monitoring activity
Monitoring of revegetation success will be done for two years. Weed control and replanting will be done as necessary.

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: 168,000
1998: 168,000
1999: 10,080
2000: 10,080

* 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   Bonneville Dam - Priest Rapids Dam

Recommendation    Tier 2 - fund when funds available

Recommended funding level   $168,000