FY07-09 proposal 200729500
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Crow Creek BPA Powerline Channel Restoration Project |
| Proposal ID | 200729500 |
| Organization | US Forest Service: Lolo National Forest |
| Short description | This project will focus on restoring approximately 1/2 mile of Crow Creek to a more proper functioning channel. Work will include extensive revegetation, reconstruction of the channel to more natural conditions, and addition of habitat structures. |
| Information transfer | |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Jennifer Copenhaver | US Forest Service | jcopenhaver@fs.fed.us |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Jennifer Copenhaver | US Forest Service | jcopenhaver@fs.fed.us |
| Brad Liermann | Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks | bliermann@blackfoot.net |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mountain Columbia / Clark Fork
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 47.5264 | -115.5578 | Crow Creek | Project location is directly below the forks of the West Fork and East Fork Crow Creek and proceeds approximately 1/2 mile downstream. |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Bull Troutsecondary: Westslope Cutthroat
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 2A1 for Coeur d' Alene Sub basin | Protect and restore native, locally adapted, naturally reproducing bull trout to a level that will support annual harvest in the Coeur d’ Alene Subbasin by 2020. (Third priority) | Intermountain | Strategy a - Improve riparian conditions. Strategy b - Increase channel stability; reduce fine sediment. Strategy c: Increase instream habitat diversity. |
| Objective 2A2 for Coeur d' Alene Sub Basin | By 2015, protect and restore remaining stocks of native resident westslope cutthroat trout to ensure their continued existence in the basin | Intermountain | Strategy a: Improve riparian conditions; increase channel stability. Strategy b: Increase habitat diversity. Strategy c: Reduce fine sediment. Strategy f: Reduce stream temperatures Strategy g: Decrease pollutants |
| Subbasin Objective 1B1 for Pend Oreille Sub Basin | Protect, enhance, and restore native fish habitat function to maintain or enhance ecological diversity and long-term viability of native and desirable nonnative fish species, including westslope cutthroat and bull trout, using a watershed-based approach. (High priority) | Intermountain | Strategy d: Implement fish habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement measures using a variety of means including acquisition, conservation easements, landowner cooperative agreements, or other measures. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Increase Instream Habitat Complexity | Add large woody debris and other habitat structures | Work that adds natural materials instream to create habitat features or to improve channel morphology. Includes J-hooks, barbs, vortex weirs, and large woody debris (LWD). Can include work to stabilize or maintain a streambank, such as riprap. If structures are being added primarily to overcome a fish passage barrier, use WE# 184: Install Fish Passage Structure. If replacing or maintaining an existing structure use WE# 186: Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage. | 7/15/2007 | 9/1/2007 | $10,000 |
|
Biological objectives Objective 2A1 for Coeur d' Alene Sub basin Objective 2A2 for Coeur d' Alene Sub Basin Subbasin Objective 1B1 for Pend Oreille Sub Basin |
Metrics * # of stream miles treated: 0.5 miles of large woody debris placement |
||||
| Increase Instream Habitat Complexity | Increase pool/riffle ratio | [Work Element Description Not Entered] | 7/15/2007 | 9/15/2007 | $10,000 |
|
Biological objectives Objective 2A1 for Coeur d' Alene Sub basin Objective 2A2 for Coeur d' Alene Sub Basin Subbasin Objective 1B1 for Pend Oreille Sub Basin |
Metrics * # of stream miles treated: .50 |
||||
| Plant Vegetation | Plant Vegetation | Install plants for purposes such as erosion control, roughness recruitment, shading, restoring native habitat, forage enhancement, road removal. May be riparian or upland and includes seeding. If maintaining vegetation, use WE# 22: Maintain Vegetation. | 7/15/2007 | 7/15/2009 | $20,000 |
|
Biological objectives Objective 2A1 for Coeur d' Alene Sub basin Objective 2A2 for Coeur d' Alene Sub Basin Subbasin Objective 1B1 for Pend Oreille Sub Basin |
Metrics * # of riparian miles treated: 1.0 |
||||
| Realign, Connect, and/or Create Channel | Create channel with natural width/depth ratios | Active attempts to directly add sinuosity, meanders, side channels, and/or offchannel habitats (e.g., sloughs or oxbows). May include reconnection of historical channels (either via excavation or diversion of existing streamflow), excavation of new channels, and/or significantly improving the functionality of existing channels (e.g., creating a "natural" spawning channel for chum). | 7/15/2007 | 9/7/2007 | $10,000 |
|
Biological objectives Objective 2A1 for Coeur d' Alene Sub basin Objective 2A2 for Coeur d' Alene Sub Basin Subbasin Objective 1B1 for Pend Oreille Sub Basin |
Metrics * # of stream miles treated, including off-channels, after realignment: .50 |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Construction Costs | $50,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Totals | $50,000 | $0 | $0 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $50,000 |
| Total work element budget: | $50,000 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avista Corporation/Montana Fish, Wildlife and Park | Construction Cost Contribution | $50,000 | $0 | $0 | Cash | Under Development |
| Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks | Permit Aquisition | $2,000 | $0 | $0 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks | Monitoring | $0 | $2,000 | $0 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks | Monitoring | $0 | $0 | $2,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| US Forest Service | Project Oversight, Recommendations | $5,000 | $0 | $0 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| US Forest Service | NEPA Review | $5,000 | $0 | $0 | In-Kind | Under Review |
| Totals | $62,000 | $2,000 | $2,000 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $2,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $2,000 |
Comments: These estimated costs will be associated with additional monitoring that may be completed by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks |
Future O&M costs: There may be anticipated future costs if there is any additional maintenance needed for structures, additional riparian planting, etc.
Termination date: 01/01/2010
Comments: We anticipate that final construction work will be completed FY07. However, if aquisition of permits, NEPA, etc. take longer than anticipated, actual construction may not be completed until FY08. We anticipate that there will be two to three years of monitoring to take place after work has completed.
Final deliverables: Monitoring of the site will include long profile that documents change in channel profile, habitat surveys that document increase in large woody debris, large pools, percent surface fines, and changes in water temperatures. We would like to have monitoring for at least four years, if not every year, to document changes in riparian growth and its effects on stream shade and deliverability of large woody debris to the system.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: The banks appear to be well vegetated and stable. Crow Creek is already well vegetated and has a nice riparian edge, especially considering that there is a power line above the creek, but there may be an issue concerning the width of the channel for specific fish species. The photographs seem to indicate that succession is moving towards a normal environment, especially with a power line present. The ISRP needs more information and a response back concerning the importance of this site and following questions. Are weeds part of the concern in terms of riparian vegetation? Why is this site important (high priority) compared to other areas for this type of work? Is this project really needed? This project may have greater potential to have negative effects than positive effects. Fish surveys have found more fish in this reach than in other local reaches. No explanation was provided as to why the passive recovery of vegetation (at least as much as will be tolerated by the power people) will not be acceptable. There is no presentation of existing analyses to support the proposed work (e.g., what highly convincing evidence can be provided to show that these changes will yield the predicted benefits?). What was the inter-agency strategy that resulted in the high priority assigned to this project? The only information provided was that several agencies got together to provide a strategy of action, this project came out on the top of their list, and the location has no non-native fish species.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: The banks appear to be well vegetated and stable. Crow Creek is already well vegetated and has a nice riparian edge, especially considering that there is a power line above the creek, but there may be an issue concerning the width of the channel for specific fish species. The photographs seem to indicate that succession is moving towards a normal environment, especially with a power line present. The ISRP needs more information and a response back concerning the importance of this site and following questions. Are weeds part of the concern in terms of riparian vegetation? Why is this site important (high priority) compared to other areas for this type of work? Is this project really needed? This project may have greater potential to have negative effects than positive effects. Fish surveys have found more fish in this reach than in other local reaches. No explanation was provided as to why the passive recovery of vegetation (at least as much as will be tolerated by the power people) will not be acceptable. There is no presentation of existing analyses to support the proposed work (e.g., what highly convincing evidence can be provided to show that these changes will yield the predicted benefits?). What was the inter-agency strategy that resulted in the high priority assigned to this project? The only information provided was that several agencies got together to provide a strategy of action, this project came out on the top of their list, and the location has no non-native fish species.