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
Wide Hollow Creek Rearing Enhancement Project

BPA project number   5511800

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
Wide Hollow Creek historically supported a robust run of spawning coho salmon, as well as steelhead. It is likely that high numbers of spring chinook juveniles also reared in lower Wide Hollow Creek. Today, this channel is in extremely poor condition due to floodplain encroachment, routing of untreated storm water into the channel, irrigation, diking and channelization. Summer rearing in this channel is nil due to high temperatures. Sediment and other pollutants levels are also high. Wide Hollow Creek does not meet water quality standards for DDT, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4'-DDD, Dieldrin, Alpha-Endosulfan, Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen and Fecal Coliform. This project would address water quality and habitat problems through the following practices: 1. Install juvenile fish passage at the drop structure; 2. design and implement a storm water management plan for the drainage; 3. enhance rearing habitat by restoring riparian vegetation, relieving floodplain constrictions where possible, adding large woody debris and angular rock to the channel; and, 4. implement a public education and involvement program to involve landowners, school districts and interest groups in water quality monitoring, restoration and maintenance.

Project start year   1997    End year   2000

Start of operation and/or maintenance   

Project development phase   Implementation

Section 2. Narrative

Related projects

Project history

Biological results achieved

Annual reports and technical papers

Management implications

Specific measureable objectives
Fish density will be determined and water quality data will be collected pre- and post-project implementation throughout season of use. Changes in riparian canopy closure will also be measured.

Testable hypothesis
Restoring riparian habitat, improving water quality and adding stream complexity will increase rearing productivity.

Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
The hydrograph will be similar to historic; water quality will remain adequate to support anadromous fish during season of use (i.e. 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
Fish density will be determined by mark and recapture methods. Three reaches will be sampled at three different times during the season of use (early fall through late spring). Equipment will include normal fish sampling tools.

Water quality will be monitored for the following parameters: D.O., temp., BOD, fecal coliform, phosphates and lead.

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. Affected public agencies would also be contacted. Public meetings would be held to discuss stream functions, appropriate management 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 on their land. In-channel structures, such as large woody debris, would be placed at appropriate locations. Flood easements at critical locations would be purchased. Engineering studies would be completed to determine the best approach to address stormwater problems. A stormwater management plan would be written and the end of year one. In year two, further riparian restoration projects would be implemented. The action items identified in the stormwater plan would be implemented. 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 Basin. This project would redress rearing habitat function through increasing riparian canopy closure, improving stormwater treatment and increasing in-channel habitat complexity.

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
Stormwater treatment will improve. Flood impacts would decrease. 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 effectively treating stormwater 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
The stormwater plan would have oversite by affected public agencies. 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. Hydraulics Permit Applications (HPA’s) will be required for all in-channel work requiring heavy equipment. These will be processed two months prior to anticipated work.

Risks
Invasive weedy species may out-compete native plantings. Flooding may remove large woody debris.

Monitoring activity
Monitoring of water quality revegetation success will be done for three 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: 952,000
1998: 1,008,000
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   $952,000