Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
|
| Section 1: General Administrative Information |
| Process Information: |
| Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized |
Status |
Form Generator |
|
Finalized |
Jennifer Copenhaver |
|
|
| Proposal Type: |
New |
| Proposal Number: |
200729500 |
| Proposal Name: |
Crow Creek BPA Powerline Channel Restoration Project |
| Agency, Institution or 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: |
|
| |
| Project Proposal Contacts |
| Contact |
Organization |
Address |
Phone/Email |
Roles |
Notes |
|
Form Submitter |
| Jennifer Copenhaver |
US Forest Service |
PO Box 429
Plains, Montana, 59859 |
Ph: 406-826-4350
Fax: 406-826-4358
Email: jcopenhaver@fs.fed.us |
Form Submitter |
|
|
All Assigned Contacts |
| Jennifer Copenhaver |
US Forest Service |
PO Box 429
Plains, Montana, 59859 |
Ph: 406-826-4350
Fax: 406-826-4358
Email: jcopenhaver@fs.fed.us |
Form Submitter
|
|
| Brad Liermann |
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks |
PO Box 95
Thompson Falls, Montana, 59873 |
Ph: 406-827-9282
Fax: [fax left blank]
Email: bliermann@blackfoot.net |
Project Lead
|
|
|
|
| Section 2: Project Location |
| Sponsor Province: |
Mountain Columbia |
ARG Province: |
No Change |
| Sponsor Subbasin: |
Clark Fork |
ARG Subbasin: |
No Change |
| Location(s) at which the action will be implemented |
| Latitude |
Longitude |
Waterbody |
Location Description |
County/State |
Subbasin |
Primary? |
| 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. |
Sanders, Montana |
Clark Fork |
Yes |
|
|
| Section 3: Focal Species |
| Focal Species: |
| Primary |
Secondary |
Additional Species |
Bull Trout
|
Westslope Cutthroat
|
|
|
|
| Section 4: Past Accomplishments |
| Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project |
This proposal is for funding a new project, and has no past accomplishments.
|
|
| Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects |
| Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source) |
There are no projects related to this proposal.
|
|
| Section 6: Biological Objectives |
| Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project |
| Biological Objective |
Full Description |
Associated Subbasin Plan |
Strategy |
Page Nos |
| 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. |
10-11 |
| 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 |
10-11 to 10-12 |
| 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. |
18-8 |
|
|
| Section 7: Work Elements |
| Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives |
| Work Element Name |
Work Element Title |
Description |
Start Date |
End Date |
Estimated 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 |
Metrics |
Objective 2A1 for Coeur d' Alene Sub basin
Objective 2A2 for Coeur d' Alene Sub Basin
Subbasin Objective 1B1 for Pend Oreille Sub Basin
|
* # 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 |
Metrics |
Objective 2A1 for Coeur d' Alene Sub basin
Objective 2A2 for Coeur d' Alene Sub Basin
Subbasin Objective 1B1 for Pend Oreille Sub Basin
|
* # 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 |
Metrics |
Objective 2A1 for Coeur d' Alene Sub basin
Objective 2A2 for Coeur d' Alene Sub Basin
Subbasin Objective 1B1 for Pend Oreille Sub Basin
|
* # 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 |
Metrics |
Objective 2A1 for Coeur d' Alene Sub basin
Objective 2A2 for Coeur d' Alene Sub Basin
Subbasin Objective 1B1 for Pend Oreille Sub Basin
|
* # of stream miles treated, including off-channels, after realignment: .50
|
|
|
|
| Section 8: Budget |
|
| Itemized Estimated Budget |
| Item |
Note |
FY 2007 Cost |
FY 2008 Cost |
FY 2009 Cost |
| 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 | $50,000 |
|
|
| Cost sharing |
| Funding Source or Organization |
Item or Service Provided |
FY 2007 Est Value ($) |
FY 2008 Est Value ($) |
FY 2009 Est Value ($) |
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 |
| Project Future Costs and/or Termination |
| FY 2010 Est Budget |
FY 2011 Est Budget |
Comments |
| $2,000 |
$2,000 |
These estimated costs will be associated with additional monitoring that may be completed by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks |
| Future Operations & Maintenance Costs |
| There may be anticipated future costs if there is any additional maintenance needed for structures, additional riparian planting, etc. |
| |
| Termination Date |
Comments |
| 01/01/2010 |
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 |
| Document |
Type |
Size |
Date |
| No revised documents are associated with this request |
| Documents Originally Submitted with this Proposal |
| Narrative for proposal 200729500 |
doc |
7.0 M
|
1/6/2007 |
|
|
Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
|
| Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results |
Account Type:
Expense |
No changes were made to this proposal |
BPA's in lieu Funding Review of new project proposals (August 3, 2006)
[Download letter and table]
|
BPA's in lieu Rating: 1.0
Approx. BPA share of total costs: BPA 70%(43)
Status of Cost Share: Mixed
|
| Notes: Channel reconstruction, assume covered by MOU |
NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006)
[Full NPCC Council Recs]
|
FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$ 0 |
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$ 0 |
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$ 0 |
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0 |
| Budget Type: | Expense |
| Budget Category: | ProvinceExpense |
| Recommendation: | Do Not Fund
|
| NPCC Comments: |
NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006)
[Full NPCC Council Recs]
|
FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$ 0 |
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$ 0 |
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$ 0 |
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0 |
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0 |
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0 |
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0 |
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0 |
| Budget Category: | ProvinceExpense |
| NPCC Comments: |
|
Local or MSRT Comments: Oversight group did not rank this project because there are no federal hydropower impacts and no subbasin plan for the subbasin in which the project is proposed.
|
Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006)
[Download full document]
|
| Recommendation: Response requested
|
| 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. |
Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006)
[Download full document]
|
| Recommendation: Response requested
|
| 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. |
Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.
