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
Crooked Creek Channel Restoration

BPA project number   5506500

Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding

Sponsor type   

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

 NameNot applicable (Scott Russell)
 Mailing addressNot applicable

BPA technical contact   ,

Biological opinion ID   

NWPPC Program number   

Short description
Re establish a stable meandering channel pattern in channelized reaches and recreate the high quality spawning and rearing habitat of the pre existing condition. Reduce high sediment loads from bank erosion and accelerated land loss associated with this erosion. Establish a competent and functional creek where past disturbance has altered the natural stability.

Project start year   1997    End year   2001

Start of operation and/or maintenance   2001

Project development phase   Planning and Implementation

Section 2. Narrative

Related projects

Project history
This is a theoretical project with no previous work completed. A half mile section of creek was channelized prior to 1927 in relation to road construction and dredge mining. The district has recieved BPA funding for a similar project on the Red River in 1991 and 1995.

Biological results achieved
Fish surveys of Crooked Creek have been conducted in 1987 and 1988 using the Nez Perce basinwide survey methodology. Survey results indicate high existing sediment deposition (cobble embeddedness ranging from 53% to 67%), low pool:riffle ratios (average 20:80), and woody debris deficiency in both the channel and riparian areas.

Annual reports and technical papers
Only available reports are the basinwide surveys conducted in 1987 and 1988 as mentioned above. Discharge data has also been collected.

Management implications
Straightening of channels leads to greater flow velocities and thus higher erosive forces, resulting in downward and outward erosion, especially to fragile meadow environments. Increases in channel erosion can create increased turbidity, and can cause sedimentation in downstream reaches where the stream gradient decreases. In terms of habitat, channelization reduces the structural diversity of streams through the elimination of meanders; smoothing of pools, riffles and irregular bank boundaries; and removal of snags and riparian vegetation. Re establishing original meanders will increase diversity, decrease velocity gradient and near bank stress that causes increases bank erosion and channel degredation.

Specific measureable objectives
Decrease cobble embeddedness, increase bank stability (loss/retention), increase riparian vegetation, improve fish dynamics, restore characteristic velocities, move from existing F channel type (Rosgen) to a C4 condition.

Testable hypothesis
Fish populations, diversity of species, redds, and holding capacity should increase. As channelization often reduces the total channel length and irregularity of the stream margins, the restoration of a more natural meandering, rough boundary form will also provide more surface area and total amount of habitat. Bank vegetation diversity should also increase and become more complex by raising the water table to pre existing condition. Increasing sinuosity by re establishing meanders should decrease streambank erosion and the resulting sedimentation of the stream. Slower velocities should halt the degradation processes and reduce the stream's sediment transport capacity.

Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
High substrate porosity could hamper the ability to dewater old channel and create a new channel. Stream will want to seek old channel, therefore success will rely on competency of substrate material and channel constraints. New banks will need necessary stabilization to hold during high flows.

Response must include 1) brief experimental design including a description of equipment, techniques and materials; 2) statistical analysis; 3) type and number of fish to be used.
1) Design will simulate a C4 channel (Rosgen) where an F channel exists. Original meanders which were closed off during channelization will be reopened to allow the stream to flow into the original channel. Log revetments with vegetation clumps and sod mats will be placed on the outside of meander bends to stabilize banks. Vortex weirs and log deflectors will be placed to divert flow from fragile banks. Equipment necessary will include 235 excavator, mini excavator, D 8 bulldozer, D 6 bulldozer with five or six way hydraulic blade for channel shaping, four 12 yard end dump trucks and two rubber tired frontend loaders.
2) Statistical analysis will include cross sectional analysis as well as population surveys of native fish species.

Brief schedule of activities
1997: Planning would include environmental analysis and gathering of data to support design efforts.
1998: Actual implementation of design would include placing of rock vortex weirs, installing bank stability structures, reshaping channel, terrace construction, vegetation work.
1999: Monitoring of project stability and effectiveness on instream habitat, stream morphology and dynamics.
2000: Continued monitoring efforts and analysis.
2001: Continued monitoring efforts and analysis.

Biological need
The channelized reach of Crooked Creek and the resulting lowered base level in this section appears to have caused bed degredation upsteam of the reach. Likewise, the abrupt change in roughness at the downstream end of the streaightened reach, where the natural meander begins, induces sediment deposition on bars and accelerated retreat of the opposite banks. The woody shrub component has been lost due to active removal; the shallow rooted grasses and sedges which remain contribute little to bank stability or overhanging bank cover. Restoration to a near natural channel that would be in dynamic equilibrium with bankfull flows and sediment loads would provide the capacity and competence adequate to transport supplied sediment through the reach. Also natural flow dynamics would work to maintain diverse, high quality fish habitat components such as deep pools and clean riffles.

Critical uncertainties

Summary of expected outcome
Reduce sediment (large material), improve fish habitat, improve channel complexity.

Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation
NEPA requirements would include an environmental analysis of the project area and the projects affects on TES species. NEPA would have to be completed by 1997 in order to allow time for project consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service. Cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers and the State of Idaho Department of Water Resources is necessary to obtain 404 permits to alter streams.

The risk is if project is not implemented; ongoing scour and degradation of the Crooked Creek channel and its banks, increased sedimentation and lose of stream dynamics due to increased velocity, destruction of fish habitat and lose of habitat diversity are among the risks. Short term introduction of fines could also be a risk.

Monitoring activity
Bank Stability photo points, bank pins, Phan Kauh surveys.
Sediment Monitoring cross section surveys, pebble counts, RSIs.
Population Dynamics Redd counts, fish composition surveys.
Vegetation Surveys Eco data plots, visual success in immediate bankfull and
in flood plain area.

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: 30,000
1998: 409,500
1999: 50,000
2000: 20,000
2001: 10,000

* 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   System Policy

Recommendation    Tier 3 - do not fund