Skip to main content

FAQs

Frequently asked questions

Responses to commonly asked questions about the project are provided below, grouped by topic. The questions and responses are periodically updated to reflect new information. Union SWCD strives for an open, transparent process that provides opportunities for public comment. If you have additional questions or concerns, or desire more information, please contact us.

Reason For Project 

Why is this project being considered at this time and this location?

Salmon and steelhead populations in the Grande Ronde River Basin have been declining since the early 1960’s and were listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act in the 1990’s. In 2015 federal and state agencies, stakeholders, and non-profit organizations finalized a geospatial prioritization tool called Atlas for restoration actions directed at reducing the risk of salmon and steelhead moving from Threatened to Endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Catherine Creek from approximately 2.5 miles downstream of the City of Union and upstream to the North and South forks of Catherine Creek is a Tier 1 reach (highest priority as evaluated under the Atlas process). The stream reaches upstream of Union provide the best opportunity for restoration benefits for salmon and steelhead.

The District and project partners work closely with private landowners to improve fish and wildlife habitat conditions while providing for and often improving the landowner’s management needs. When these two components combine as a high priority, then project design tasks are initiated and implementation funding is pursued. Investigation of the Buffalo Flats area is in the beginning stage and implementation funding has not been secured, but due to the location, a project in this area ranks high. Habitat limiting factors (e.g., water temperature, hiding cover, spawning gravel quality, etc.) and potential benefits for local residents and agricultural operators, which could include improved farming efficiency and reduced management costs, will be evaluated during the planning and design phase.

How will the project improve fish and wildlife populations?

Studies in Catherine Creek show that fish populations are limited by poor habitat quality, high summer water temperatures, and reduced water quantity. In the Buffalo Flats planning area, Catherine Creek has been moved and straightened between the hillslope and the Medical Springs Highway (OR203). This straightened channel has resulted in increased flood damage and poor fish habitat. In summer, the existing channel is very shallow during low flow and stream temperatures increase to a detrimental level for fish. In winter, the shallow channel is more likely to form ice and contributes to flood problems downstream. In general, the reach is riffle dominated with a cobble and boulder bed, very few pools, and is not suitable for fish to spawn or rear.

A new channel location being considered for this project would seek to directly increase the area where fish could live and create channel conditions that are critical to fish survival. In addition, the project would seek to provide increased floodplain connectivity within the project area for added fishery benefits while also reducing the risk of flood events for neighboring landowners. Increased floodplain connectivity within the project area would allow for areas of low velocity for fish to seek refuge and for fine sediment to filter out along with nutrients, this in turn would allow for increased establishment of trees and shrubs, thereby reducing erosion and increasing shade along the new channel.

The current alignment and location of Catherine Creek is heavily shaded. Why should we move the stream out of the trees and put it in the open meadow where it will receive direct sunlight?

Water temperature is a concern, but shade from stream-side vegetation is not the only influencing factor. The best alternative will be developed for improving long term stream temperature conditions through improved groundwater interactions, reduced channel width during low flows and rapid re-vegetation. Monitoring information collected at the Southern Cross property located upstream of the project site has indicated that the type of project being considered can be done

without raising stream temperatures in the short term. Moving the channel into a broader floodplain and increasing meandering will allow more exchange of surface water with shallow groundwater. Studies in the Umatilla River have shown that increases in this exchange with groundwater create more areas with cool water seeps (refugia for fish) in the summer and may reduce overall heating of the surface water. An increase in bank storage of water will also promote establishment of a healthy vegetation community along the entire project reach to reduce solar impacts.

There appears to already be a shallow groundwater connection under Hwy 203.

District staff and wetland regulators from the Department of State Lands agree there are wetland conditions located northeast of Highway 203 in the project area and a water connection under the highway. Historic channel formations connected to Catherine Creek are apparent in the meadow area northeast of the highway and wetlands are identified on the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) in and around the corrals near the house on the project area. The flow paths of the water are not currently fully understood. In the past the source of this water was believed to be tailwater from flood irrigation ponding in the historic channel formations. In recent years, late season irrigation was reduced, and water is still present in this location in August, suggesting the water source is not irrigation. During several site visits to the project area, District staff have documented several springs or seeps that tend to parallel the power line that bisects the project area. If shallow flow paths move water from Catherine Creek under the highway and to the north this could be catastrophic for highway maintenance and should be investigated immediately. District staff will work with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to investigate shallow ground water paths and the other springs and seeps that occur near the potential highway realignment area. It should be noted these delineated wetlands where water is present in the late summer are the areas that would be reconnected with the active channel during the Catherine Creek phase of the Buffalo Flats project.

Flooding occurs around Little Creek now, why spend money on building what is already happening?

The intent of this project is not to specifically create flooding, but rather to restore natural functions and physical processes of a river channel and floodplain. These functions and processes occur during flooding to create physical conditions that promote long term stability and sustain good water quality and habitat. The proposed channel planform would directly increase the area where fish could live and create channel conditions that are important for fish survival. In addition, increased floodplain connectivity within the project area will provide fish benefits while potentially reducing the risk of flooding events for neighboring landowners. Increased floodplain connectivity would provide areas of low flow velocity for fish to seek refuge and for fine sediment and nutrients to be deposited, resulting in increased establishment of trees and shrubs, reduced erosion, and increased shade along the new channel. In the current condition, the form of the channel and floodplain do not allow it to act naturally during those high flow events. The flooding that occurs requires an unusually high flow event for water to overtop the banks. This typically results in streambank erosion and damage to the channel and floodplain. This project is intended to restore conditions to create a channel and floodplain form that is more resistant to damage and sustainable in the future.

The Little Creek channel has been straightened from the meandering planform that originally developed in the low gradient meadow. In addition, the channel was simplified by removing side channels and discouraging the development of any new side channels and flood channels. By straightening and simplifying the channel form, the channel gradient is increased because there is less distance between the upstream and downstream ends of the reach. The increased gradient and increased flow volume now trapped in the channel results in increased erosive power and the ability to move larger gravel/rock material during high flows. This has resulted in erosion of the channel bed and lowering of the bed elevation in relation to the floodplain surface (defined as entrenchment). Once the channel bed becomes lower within its banks, a larger and deeper flow is contained within the banks before spilling into the floodplain, leading to even greater erosive power and more erosion of the channel bed until a confining geology layer is reached. In this entrenched condition, Little Creek is less connected to the floodplain, less water is available for bank stabilizing riparian plants, and less water is stored in the meadow soils for late summer release (decreasing low flow quantity). When extreme high flow events occur and the channel is filled high enough for water to spill over the banks and into the floodplain, the water is usually concentrated at single points and creates erosion and damage.

If the project is supposed to improve conditions for fish, why are fish being killed at the upstream weir?

Only hatchery fish might be killed at the upstream weir, in the event that too many hatchery fish return to the river. In 1995 the State, Tribes, and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) agreed upon a hatchery augmentation program that would supplement dwindling Chinook populations in Catherine Creek and the Upper Grande Ronde River. The goal of this program was to support wild fish and not replace them with hatchery fish. For this reason, rules were established to control the number of returning hatchery fish that were allowed above the adult fish collection facility (the weir) on Catherine Creek. Data collected since the beginning of the program indicated that hatchery Chinook jack salmon (3-year old fish) were returning to the weir at a much higher rate than wild salmon jacks. Allowing these young hatchery jacks to spawn in large numbers would compete with and threaten the wild Chinook salmon population. Therefore, in years when the amount of hatchery jacks returning to the weir exceed a threshold, the extra jacks are removed from the spawning population (this has not happened in the last 6 years).

About the Project (Partners, Funding, & Local Benefits) 

Which creek is the priority? Are Catherine and Little Creek separate projects?

The Buffalo Flats Floodplain Planning Project is a restoration planning project with an approach to holistic floodplain management that encompasses both Catherine Creek and Little Creek and includes the associated active and historically active floodplain surfaces for both creeks. In other words, Catherine Creek and Little Creek are both part of this single project that is being designed in several distinct components. Data collection to inform design has covered the entire floodplain including both Catherine and Little Creeks. The project design is currently in the conceptual design phase and has been moving forward for both Catherine and Little Creeks. Restoration design in the Little Creek portion of the project area (northern portion of the meadow area) lacks the complexities of the Catherine Creek portion of the project and has progressed faster in the production of assessment and design products. The Little Creek 15% concepts were completed in July 2021, 30% designs were completed in February 2023, and 80% Preliminary Design package was completed in November 2024. The Catherine Creek portion of the project area (southern portion of the meadow) has considerably more infrastructure to consider, which includes Oregon State Highway 203, underground and aboveground utilities, and building structures. These elements have slowed the overall design process and require additional assessment and planning.

The Buffalo Flats project area occupies the entire meadow owned by Buffalo Peak Land & Livestock, and both Catherine Creek and Little Creek have been included equally in planning for restoration actions since the beginning of this planning effort. The Project Fact Sheet dated August 25, 2020 stated:

“The Union Soil and Water Conservation District (District) is leading a planning effort to investigate the physical and biological conditions of Catherine Creek and Little Creek upstream of Union, Oregon.”

“The project area includes approximately 300 acres of the historic floodplain of Catherine Creek and Little Creek as they enter the Grande Ronde Valley.”

In addition, the information provided in presentations to local organizations and groups and on the District website at www.unionswcd.org has been consistent with a message that both Catherine Creek and Little Creek are part of this planning effort.

What entities are involved with this project?

Buffalo Peak Land & Livestock, LLC (landowners) and the District are the primary proponents of the project. Project partners that will aid with technical project development and implementation are the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), Trout Unlimited (TU), and the Grande Ronde Model Watershed (GRMW). Ancillary partners also include Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission (CRITFC), Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), and Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). Additional stakeholder groups that will be included in the planning process will be neighboring private landowners where additional project work may occur and include Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Eastern Oregon Livestock Show (EOLS), irrigation companies (State, Prescott, and Swackhammer ditch companies), Union Sportsmen Club, Union County, City of Union and all interested members of the public. The Buffalo Flats Focus Group, which is further described under Question #12, will also be engaged in the planning and design process.

What is the source of funding for the project and could it be used for other purposes?

Funding for this project and other fish habitat improvement projects in the Catherine Creek Basin come from a variety of sources which can include BPA, Reclamation, the State of Oregon, and many others. These funds are specifically designated for salmonid population recovery and fish habitat improvement work in Catherine Creek and other basins as part of ESA compliance activities required to operate the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). These programs have been ongoing since the 1990’s and cooperate closely with local partners like the District. The funding is available to create improved fish habitat and cannot be spent for other purposes.

The District has a long history of working with landowners and project partners in the agricultural community to develop solutions for reducing flooding risk and addressing erosion problems. The District assists landowners by providing technical support, developing project approaches and plans, and securing implementation funding. Finding available funding is often the most difficult step as there are not many sources readily available for flooding issues.

Although the funds for the Buffalo Flats project may have limitations, the District and project partners are exploring ways to design the project to improve the current flooding conditions below the project area through restoration. Floodplain restoration in meadow systems has been shown to reduce the flood flow peaks (also known as flow attenuation) by creating more streambank storage (Ahilan et.al. 2018). Initial results from the hydraulic model specific to Little Creek indicate that some attenuation, or temporary storage of flood flow can be achieved.

Products from this design could be useful for other entities and projects outside of the Buffalo Flats project. The design process involves a thorough hydraulic modeling analysis and evaluation of potential effects of moving or modifying the Catherine Creek and Little Creek channels. The hydraulic model used to predict flood conditions for this project is the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineer’s River Analysis System (HEC-RAS). This model has a long history of development and is respected in the engineering community as a well-tested and accurate numerical hydraulic model. Concepts that increase flooding risk or flood elevations will be discarded. Specifically for the Catherine Creek portion of the project, an option to maintain the existing channel as an overflow or relief channel will be considered as an alternative. The selection of a preferred alternative will consider the interests of all stakeholders and specifically the flood concerns of the local community. The selected alternative will not increase the existing risk of flooding and in fact is anticipated to reduce such risk.

Who will benefit from this project?

The project is intended to showcase successful outcomes for both ESA-listed salmon and agriculture. The primary restoration funding for the project is tied to improvements for ESA-listed fish; therefore, funds are intended to benefit fish. However, other stakeholders are likely to benefit as the project team will work with all impacted stakeholders to provide effective solutions. Some other potential benefits may include:

  • Improved irrigation infrastructure (i.e. potential for improved ditches, pipes, diversions)
  • Improved highway Infrastructure (i.e. potential for a raised highway, new bridges with better alignment and conveyance, or relocation of the highway)
  • Improved flood control for the highway and City of Union (i.e. potential for new levees, decreased risk of damage from ice flows and floodwater)
  • In addition to some of these potential benefits, other benefits could include direct and indirect expenditure of funds in the local community, along with updated and improved flood hazard maps for the City of Union.

To be very clear, the landowners do not receive any funding for completing this project or agreeing to have the design actions implemented on their property. The landowners have chosen to volunteer their time, resources, and property involved in the project at their own expense. There are other programs that may provide funding more directly to landowners, but those are not directly related to the Buffalo Flats Floodplain restoration planning addressed with this Fact Sheet. Examples of other direct funding programs include the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) through NRCS, land conservation easements offered through land trusts or other conservation entities, and water rights leasing or sale. The fact that Buffalo Flats restoration planning is happening may improve the potential for these other programs to be implemented but does not provide any guarantees.

Project Timeline and Schedule 

When did project discussions and development begin?

Project discussions began with the first site visit to the property by the District and the landowner in August of 2018. The project scope began development in March 2019 and the District assembled the planning team in partnership with Reclamation. A complete progressive project timeline is available upon request.

When will the local community have an opportunity for input to the project design?

Public engagement for this project will focus on informing the public about project goals, project design, and anticipated environmental effects, while seeking to understand and alleviate public concerns related to downstream flood risk and other perceived potential impacts. It is understood that while members of the public cannot dictate professional engineering practices and application of science, they can and will be concerned with how the project may affect them, their families, their financial interests, and their community. While this project occurs on private land and is, therefore, not subject to public decision-making, it is a project that seeks to alter the floodplain and improve fisheries habitat. As such, the public has a genuine and legitimate interest in how this project affects them as it is implemented, and as these waters leave private lands. The complete Public Outreach Plan is available at www.UnionSWCD.org and describes opportunities for stakeholders and the local community to receive information, provide feedback, and voice concerns.

District staff and the landowners have made efforts from the beginning of planning for this project in 2019 to meet individually with interested community members and local community groups to discuss concerns and provide information. The District began formal outreach in Spring 2019 by meeting individually with groups that have specific management connections to the project or may be directly impacted. The District has met with groups that include the City of Union City Administrator, Union City Council, ditch companies (State, Prescott, Swackhammer, Guild), Eastern Oregon Livestock Show, and the Union Sportsman’s Club. The District has continued to provide information to individuals and local groups as requested, and to the Union City Council as monthly project updates.

The Buffalo Flats Focus Group was formed in 2020 to include community members that represent various interests in the project. Members of the Focus Group include participating landowners, City Council members, ditch company representatives, special community groups, and interested and potentially impacted community members. The first Focus Group meeting was held on September 28, 2021 as the 15% Little Creek Conceptual Design package was completed. The second Focus Group meeting was held on February 23, 2024 to discuss the 30% Little Creek Design. Questions and concerns provided at those meetings are addressed in this Project Fact Sheet and Frequently Asked Questions. The District will meet with the Focus Group prior to any broader public meeting, and in association with key milestones. More frequent meetings will be convened if determined necessary by the District. No additional broader public meetings are planned at this time.

What are the main tasks that will be completed and when will they occur?

Project tasks are completed in two general categories: 1) project planning and design and 2) project implementation and construction. Project planning first involves assessment of the project site and analysis of collected data to understand the existing conditions. The second step is to develop a set of conceptual alternatives to meet project goals and objectives. An alternative selection process is then followed by an increasingly detailed design of the selected alternative. Draft products will be available for comment from all stakeholders and regulatory agencies at design milestones as follows: 15% preliminary concept; 30% conceptual design, 80% preliminary final design, and draft final design.

The design team collected site data and survey information in 2020 and 2021 to aid in the development of design concepts for both Catherine and Little Creeks. The Catherine Creek portion of the project area requires additional assessment and feasibility study because of the location of the highway and other infrastructure. The Little Creek portion of the project is moving more quickly to a design. The 15% concepts and 30% Conceptual Design for Little Creek are available on the District website. The 80% Preliminary Design package will be posted in December 2024. Additional design milestones will be made available. The Final Design package is expected in January 2025 and all regulatory and environmental reviews and permits are expected to be completed and received by April 2025. At this time, construction is expected to occur in Summer 2025.

Design Alternatives and Potential Impacts 

If project actions cause increased flooding of houses and areas in Union, who will be liable and responsible for costs to repair damage or replace structures?

The design team will not select an alternative that increases the modeled risk of flooding downstream of the proposed project area, nor will an alternative be selected that increases flood risk to landowners adjacent to the proposed project area. It is desirable to increase floodplain connectivity within the project area, which should have neutral or positive benefits for downstream landowners and the City of Union.

Have the results from the CC44 Project (Southern Cross and adjacent properties) been positive and is there monitoring information available that will be used to improve the design for Buffalo Flats?

Monitoring results from the CC44 Project Complex (Southern Cross and adjacent properties) have been very positive and have included a reduction in ice formation and a reduction in bank erosion (CTUIR 2018). A large ice flow event occurred in Catherine Creek upstream of the CC44 project during spring 2024 and large masses of ice formed in the channel broke loose and flowed downstream. The ice flow dispersed in the floodplain at the Southern Cross property and did not propagate downstream (CTUIR 2024 personal communication). Other lessons from CC44 about channel form and feature construction have also been learned and will be applied to the Buffalo Flats design for project improvement. The amount of Chinook spawning increased after restoration implementation and juvenile salmonids have been observed using newly created floodplain habitat areas not available prior to project actions (CTUIR 2021). Additional monitoring results over the next few years will be used to improve the design as the Buffalo Flats design develops.

Have the Catherine Creek or Little Creek channels been moved in the past?

Channel straightening has been well documented throughout the Grande Ronde Basin. One of the most significant examples is in the Grande Ronde Valley and the creation of the State Ditch (Figure 3). The State Ditch was constructed in 1869 and drained Tule Lake as well as converting 35 miles of meandering stream into a 9.5-mile ditch. Another major increase in channel straightening took place starting around 1905 with railroad logging in both Catherine Creek and the upper Grande Ronde River. Channels were moved and straightened to accommodate room for the tracks (Union County Historical Society Annual Supplement). In the 1930’s railroad logging started to be replaced by truck logging and the road networks in Union County massively expanded. This culminated in the 1980’s with one of the densest road networks in the Pacific Northwest of 7-8 miles of road per square mile of land in some areas (J. Gildemeister 1999).

Mapping of both Catherine Creek and Little Creek was conducted by the General Land Office (GLO) shortly after permanent residents in Union, Oregon were established in 1863. By this time most of the beaver population had been extirpated but very little other physical alterations to the channel networks had taken place. According to GLO survey notes as documented by J. Gildemeister (1998), by 1863 a road was constructed along the south side of Catherine Creek to access a sawmill approximately 6 miles upstream of Union, Oregon. This road was later moved to the north side of Catherine Creek sometime in the 1920’s. The GLO maps depict both Catherine and Little Creeks in slightly different locations and occupying a larger footprint in the valley floor.

The Union County Soil Survey identifies alluvial deposits (or soil material deposited by streams) in all the wider valley sections of Catherine Creek from the headwaters to Union, Oregon, including the soils within the Buffalo Flats project area. This indicates that both Catherine Creek and Little Creek moved and deposited sediment across the wide valley floor directly upstream of Union and downstream of the more confined valley reaches.

Historic aerial photographs also indicate changes and movement of the stream channels. The earliest aerial photographs for the project area are from 1937 and show the Catherine Creek channel in its current location, south of Highway 203 (Figure 4). Although the old channel formations located north of Highway 203 in the meadow indicate the channel was straightened and relocated prior to 1932 when Highway 203 was first built. Changes in the plan form of Little Creek can also be seen from the 1937 photograph (Figure 5) as the channel is shown to be much straighter by 1956 (Figure 6). Gildemeister notes that beaver were removed from the Fickle ranch along Little Creek in the late 1940’s, the creek was rechanneled, and the land was leveled and drained. There is current evidence along Little Creek of extensive riprap placed in most of the locations where the stream channel began to erode the banks and avulse into a more meandering path.

Over the past ten years District staff have had many personal conversations with landowners that have long family histories in Union County since the early settlement. Through these conversations we have been able to gain a better understanding of the history of some of the activities that have taken place in the Catherine Creek basin with respect to stream channel straightening and modification. We have been told about several attempts to move the Catherine Creek channel to the south side of the valley floor. Some landowners were successful while other attempts failed to keep the river to the south and up against the hillside. This information is also supported by similar findings documented by J. Gildemeister (1998).

Current evidence of channel straightening and modification activity can still be seen today in the old levees and berms still existing along the channel. Some of these structures have deteriorated and others have been reinforced with riprap over the years. According to the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers (USACE), none of the levees or channel changes upstream of Union were listed in the USACE flood programs. It is assumed that most levees on Catherine Creek were privately constructed to drain wetland areas to improve farming opportunities. Even with the past channel changes and levees in place, several large floods have occurred in the City of Union.

Will a new channel with increased width, more meanders, and slower velocity increase ice formation and damaging winter icing events?

Research evidence suggests complex and meandering channels with a variety of physical features, including pools and large woody material, and channels with groundwater inputs will form less ice than straight and simple channels without a groundwater connection (Buffin-Belanger et.al. 2013). In addition, shallow groundwater inflow (hyporheic discharge) moderates temperature in the channel surface water with cooler water in the summer and warmer water in the winter (Arrigoni et. al. 2008). Ice will continue to form upstream of the project area and will move downstream in Catherine Creek to the project area. The proposed new channel will be built with a better connection to a larger floodplain (overbank flow into floodplains will occur more easily) and better connection with shallow groundwater. It is anticipated that less ice will form in this reach because of better exchange with warmer, shallow groundwater that will moderate stream temperature in the winter. With a more complex and meandering channel, some of the ice that forms within the project area or is transported from upstream reaches will be forced into the floodplain, rather than move into Union. Ice will continue to be transported by Catherine Creek, but the project is expected to help alleviate some of the ice issues that currently persist within the City of Union.

Will the risk of flooding increase in Union or for the surrounding residents? Could the channel be moved back to the original location if increased flooding or damage occurs?

The design team anticipates that flood risk and potential damage will be reduced by the proposed project on both Catherine and Little Creek. Floodplain restoration in meadow systems has been shown to reduce the flood flow peaks (also known as flow attenuation) by creating more streambank storage (Ahilan et.al. 2018). Alternatives will be evaluated with numerical hydraulic models, using the U.S. Army Corps River Analysis System (HEC-RAS), to predict flood conditions. Concepts that increase flooding risk or flood elevations will be eliminated. If additional flood risks arise, they will be mitigated with physical improvements (floodplain berm) such that flood conditions are either better or no worse than the current condition.

An option to maintain the existing channel as an overflow or relief channel will be considered as part of an alternative for the Catherine Creek portion. The design process will involve a thorough hydraulic modeling analysis and evaluation of potential changes that may occur from moving the Catherine Creek channel. The selection of the preferred alternative will consider the interests of all stakeholders and the flood concerns of the local community. The selected alternative will not increase the existing risk of flooding and is anticipated to reduce flood risk.

Will this project change the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone boundaries or maps (Flood Insurance Rate Map [FIRM], Flood Boundary and Floodway [FBFM], and Flood Hazard Boundary Map [FHBM]) in Union?

NO changes to FEMA maps. The FEMA flood zone boundaries will not be changed by this project. The Little Creek Restoration portion is designed to a zero (0.00) rise in water elevation above existing conditions for a 100-year flood. The hydraulic model results for existing conditions completed by our project engineers has been accepted by FEMA as the baseline condition (Interfluve 2023 personnel communication). In other words, the flood boundaries shown in our model results for the Buffalo Flats project area, and before any construction activities are applied, have been accepted in place of the 1978 Floodplain Insurance Rate Map. The proposed condition model that includes proposed project actions shows no increase of the 100-year flood elevation at all. The design cuts the stream channels and floodplain surfaces to elevations that do not increase the flood elevations.

There are two effective FIRM maps in the Buffalo Flats project area; a 1978 detailed study associated with the incorporated portions of the City of Union and an older, less detailed map for the unincorporated area upstream of Union. The 1978 FIRM defines floodway boundaries for the Base Flood Elevation (100-year flood event), while the less detailed map establishes a regulatory floodplain, but no floodway. The design team will not change current FEMA flood boundaries or maps within the City of Union. Project alternatives that may change the channel location will be contained within the Buffalo Land & Livestock property.

Who will make a determination on potential changes to flood levels and who reviews the hydraulic modeling and analysis results?

Evaluation of flood conditions that include numerical modeling will be performed by the project design team with expertise in hydraulic modeling. Specifically, hydraulic engineers will build the hydraulic model using a high resolution of elevation data points and will analyze results using rigorous scientific standards. The City of Union Floodplain Administrator (City Administrator), Union County (or their state representative), and FEMA will review results and any changes for compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program.

Will the potential for expanding the City of Union in the future be limited by the project taking place within the city boundary?

In accordance with Union City Ordinances the Buffalo Flats project will not limit potential future growth for the City of Union. The private property that could be limited to development within the city boundary is approximately 80 acres located on the northwest portion of the Buffalo Flats project area adjacent to the Eastern Oregon Livestock Show (EOLS) property. Approximately 45% of the 80 acres are currently zoned by the 1978 FEMA flood map as zone A or within the regulatory floodway. In accordance with Union City Ordinance 153.51(A)(1), shown below, this acreage cannot be developed.

§ 153.51 DEVELOPMENT IN REGULATORY FLOODWAYS.
(A) Requirements.
(1) Except as provided in division (B), encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, fences, or other development are prohibited in the regulatory floodway unless certification by a registered professional civil engineer is provided demonstrating through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that such encroachment will not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge.

 

In addition, the 80-acre parcel is currently zoned as A-3 Agriculture-Forest and in accordance with Union City Ordinance 155.045, shown below, cannot be divided into parcels less than 40 acres. These two ordinances in combination limit the development of the entire 80-acre parcel to one residential development and this project will not diminish that from potentially happening in the future.

§ 155.045 AGRICULTURAL/FOREST ZONE (A-3).
(A) Uses permitted outright in an Agricultural/Forest Zone (A-3): any use permitted outright in an A-1 Zone.
(B) Conditional uses: any use permitted as a conditional use in an A-1 Zone.
(C) Lot size requirements: the minimum lot size for new lots or parcels in the A-3 Zone shall be 40 acres.
(D) Development standards: standards in the A-3 Zone shall be the same as standards in an A-1 Zone. (Ord. 369, passed 4-9-1984)

 

The restoration actions being considered for the Buffalo Flats project are also consistent with other City of Union Ordinances. The stated project goals include improving water quality conditions, promoting conditions for restoring ecological function and improved soil health, improving riparian and floodplain vegetation, and increasing storage of water and ice in the alluvial floodplain upstream of developed areas. These goals support statements in the following ordinances:

 

§ 155.03 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
(I) Manage the alteration of areas of special flood hazard, stream channels, and shorelines to minimize the impact of development on the natural and beneficial functions.
§ 155.04 METHODS OF REDUCING FLOOD LOSSES.
(C) Control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage or erosion;
(E) Preserve and restore natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers which carry and store flood waters;

 

The project team will also meet the requirements of Union City Ordinance 153.33 and 153.34 by coordinating with the Floodplain Administrator as designated in 153.30.

Public access along Catherine Creek?

The current location of the Catherine Creek channel is on private property. Public access to Catherine Creek is and will be at the landowner’s discretion. Although Highway 203 is currently adjacent to Catherine Creek, the right-of-way is for the purpose of transportation and does not provide open access to private property for other purposes.

For clarification we have provided the Oregon State Department of Justice’s response below (Hardy and Shepherd 2005). Catherine and Little Creek within the project area are not listed as navigable streams and currently do not meet the criteria described below. 

  1. The United States Supreme Court’s articulation of the criteria for determining state ownership of waterways has been clarified over time. At statehood, the state acquired (with few exceptions) all waterways that were tidally influenced or that satisfied the federal test of title-navigability. Federal and state law limit the discretion of the state to alienate its ownership, to the extent that doing so would interfere with the public use of the waterway for navigation, commerce, recreation, or fisheries.
  2. Even if the bed of a waterway is privately owned, the waterway may be used by the public for certain purposes if it meets the state test of navigable-for-public-use (public use doctrine). A waterway is navigable-for-public-use if it has the capacity, in terms of length, width and depth, to enable boats to make successful progress through its waters. If a privately owned waterway meets this test, the lawful public uses generally include navigation, commerce, or recreation. Recreation in this case includes the use of small boats for pleasure and fishing, as well as swimming. The public may use the land adjacent to a waterway that is navigable-for-public-use as long as the use of the adjacent land is “necessary” to the lawful use of the waterway.
  3. Generally speaking, the public may use state-owned waterways for any use not otherwise unlawful. However, unless state ownership has been confirmed by a judicial decree or the Board under ORS 274.400 et seq., persons who use a waterway believing it to be state-owned incur the risk that it will be held to be privately owned and that their use will constitute a trespass – unless their use is authorized by the public use doctrine.

Hardy, M. and P. Shepherd. April 21, 2005. Navigability of Oregon State Waters. Department of Justice No. 8281

What are the effects of relocating Highway 203?

Several potential benefits for local residents and highway commuters have been identified by ODOT staff, the first of which is construction of a new section of highway paid for through restoration funds and not through state highway funds. The second benefit is that by removing the old highway from the floodplain, riparian conditions will be improved, and road maintenance will be reduced. Additionally, flooding and icing impacts can be reduced, road alignment and safety can be improved by removing two sharp corners, and an elevated road base constructed further north and away from the southern valley side is expected to reduce the amount of snow and ice on the road surface.

The District conducts all project designs as an iterative process. At the beginning or initiation of a project design, general ideas are combined into a list of potential design alternatives. An analysis of these alternatives considers the potential positive and negative outcomes and the proposed project actions are evaluated for meeting project goals and objectives. After critical consideration a preferred alternative is selected to move forward to 30% designs if there is feasible action. In the case of Highway 203, the primary project objective is to move the road out of the floodplain with secondary objectives of improving road conditions, reducing maintenance, and increasing public safety.

The District and project partners agree the road design should be completed with oversight by experienced engineers and technicians working with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). With assistance from the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), three preliminary sketches of potential new routes have been developed and include 1) keeping the road in the current place and constructing additional bridges, 2) routing the road through the middle of the property and connecting to High Valley Road west of the Kofford Road junction, and 3) routing the road through the middle of the property and connecting to Kofford Road north of the junction with the existing highway.

Reclamation is currently coordinating with ODOT to complete a feasibility study to evaluate the conceptual alternatives in detail and determine actions that will be viable and meet project objectives. Results of the feasibility study will be reviewed by the District, Reclamation, the landowners, and other project partners. Alternatives that are determined to meet project objectives and safety requirements will be promoted to design development.

How will noxious weeds be controlled?

Noxious weed control is part of the design and maintenance of all projects the District completes and manages. The District is coordinating with the landowners to meet their goals while getting advice from the Union County Weed Control office incorporate weed management in the vegetation management plan for the Buffalo Flats project area in accordance with local, state, and federal laws and funding requirements (See BPA Vegetation Management Requirements). Weed management will use a two-prong approach to first, minimize invasive plant species establishment and second, remove weeds if encountered. The management plan will include an aggressive revegetation plan that includes planting native trees and shrubs as well as grass seeding in the project area. Invasive species removal will be a part of the management plan and may include manual removal, biological controls, and chemical treatment. The District will conduct regular site visits and continue coordination with the landowners after implementation to ensure that site conditions are meeting objectives and non-native invasive species are being controlled. The weed management plan will be actively implemented during the first three years after project completion and will then be reevaluated to determine if more management actions are needed.

Will mosquito problems be increased by the project?

The potential for stream restoration projects to lead to increases in mosquito populations has been a topic of concern in the past and the District has consulted with staff members of the Union County Vector Control District. According to information from Vector Control, the Buffalo Flats project may provide benefits in reducing the total amount of breeding areas for mosquitoes to reproduce. Three main factors about the Buffalo Flats project area and associated management are potentially beneficial to decreasing mosquito populations through restoration actions and management changes including the temperature regime and flow timing, proposed restoration project channel changes, and changes in irrigation management.

The first factor that discourages mosquitoes at the project site is the relationship between the annual temperature regime and the timing of high flow events. Mosquitoes, like all insects, are cold-blooded and incapable of regulating body heat different from their surroundings. Mosquitoes are known to function best at 80°F, become lethargic at 60°F, and barely function below 50°F. Average air temperature data for Union County, Oregon suggest conditions for active mosquitos occur between the months of June and October. Little Creek peak stream flows are typically driven by snowmelt and spring rain events, with the largest flows of record occurring in late winter and early spring as rain-on-snow events (February through April). During most years, peak flow events occur in April and early May but can range from February to Late May. The timing of typical peak flows and project area inundation do not occur at the same time as when average temperatures for optimal mosquito breeding. On some years there could still be significant overlap at the season transitions, although temperatures are usually still getting too cold to allow sufficient time for eggs to be laid and survive to maturity.

The second positive factor for reducing mosquito populations is the design of stream channel formations and how channels will transport water at high flows and then recede during low flows. The creation of a braided network of channels will allow flood waters access to the floodplain and will also allow for an efficient network to keep water moving and return to the main channel as flows recede. The added benefit of creating a connected complex of channels in the floodplain is that these channel networks allow fish to move out into the floodplain and forage on larval insects, including mosquitos.

The third and most significant factor for reducing mosquito outbreaks at the project site is the change in agricultural management and irrigation practices. These changes in management have been initiated and implemented by the landowners and are not directly related to the floodplain restoration effort. Prior to management changes, the project site was flood irrigated through the months of June, July, and August. This practice often left standing water in depressions in the meadow throughout the summer months and provided habitat during the optimal temperature periods for mosquitos to successfully reproduce. According to Union County Vector Control, the reduction of late season irrigation and ponded water has led to a decrease in the number of mosquitoes observed in the area during the past two summer seasons.

Ditch Companies and Water Rights 

Will this project change water rights for water users on ditch networks that are connected to the project area?

  • Irrigation water rights for all irrigators will not be injured by this project. In fact, the project presents opportunities to improve conditions at diversion points and conveyance systems.
  • Certificated Places of Use (POU’s) and diversion rates for water rights in the vicinity of the project site will remain unchanged. Water right holders may have opportunities in the future to restructure aspects of their water rights in exchange for payments from The Freshwater Trust or other entities to improve instream flow.

What effect will the project have on the Prescott, State, Swackhammer, and Guild ditches?

  • No changes will occur to ditches or points of diversion (POD’s) without consent by ditch users.
  • Any changes to the infrastructure, to include diversions, ditches, screens, or access, will be approved by stakeholders (water users or appointed representative) through an alternative design selection process.
  • Ditch users will be involved in design selection and will be provided opportunities to comment on draft design products prior to finalization.
  • If the ditch companies elect to move forward with alterations to intakes or ditch infrastructure as part of this project, the District will assist in pursuing funds for costs of design, permitting, and construction.

How have the ditch companies that may be affected by this project been involved in the process?

The District and landowners have had preliminary discussions with several members of the various ditch companies and are looking forward to engaging in a collaborative process to improve the delivery of water for irrigated agriculture. The project design team is in the preliminary stage of concept development to present to stakeholders, including the ditch companies. As the project progresses into a clearer scope and concepts, the project design team will seek feedback from ditch companies to provide input into project selection.

Will increasing groundwater storage reduce late season irrigation water downstream?

Increasing shallow groundwater storage within the Buffalo Flats project area will not reduce available water downstream but, on the contrary, may increase late season flows and extend the season for water availability. Increased baseflow and increased shallow groundwater storage due to meadow and stream channel restoration has been shown in other places in the West (Hunt et.al. 2018, Tague et.al. 2008). On an annual basis, the total amount of water entering and exiting the project area will remain the same, but the timing and magnitude of discharge may change. If the soil and gravel layer across the Buffalo Flats meadow is connected to incoming flow, it can act as a temporary storage zone for water (similar to a sponge). During high flows the soils and shallow aquifer in the meadow act as a buffer by absorbing more water than is passing downstream; thereby, reducing the peak of high flows. Water is only temporarily stored in the meadow soils and then slowly flows out as surface flow in the channel.

The amount of water storing capacity in the meadow soils is partly determined by the horizontal extent of the connected meadow area and the base elevation of the stream channel. In a lateral perspective, the more area of the meadow that is connected to the surface channels and available for storing water, the greater amount of water that will be temporarily stored and released. In a vertical perspective, a less entrenched channel (less difference between the channel bed elevation and floodplain surface elevation) provides more available storage space in the soil profile. In a straight and entrenched channel, water flows quickly through the reach and downstream prior to the spring irrigation season. The potential for storing shallow ground water is reduced and base flow conditions are quickly reached in the summer months. These are both physical goals of the project for the floodplain area.

Hunt, L.J.H., J. Fair, and M. Odland.  2018.  Meadow Restoration Increases Baseflow and Groundwater Storage in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California.  Journal of the American Water Resources Association 54 (5): 1127-1136.

Tague, C., S. Valentine, and M. Kotchen.  2008.  Effect of Geomorphic Channel Restoration on Streamflow and Groundwater in a Snowmelt-Dominated Watershed.  Water Resources Research 44:W10415.