Statement of Need

2

319 Grant Application – Elk Creek Restoration

Section II BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Section II.A INTRODUCTION

A bank stabilization/fish habitat improvement project on Elk Creek (a 303d listed waterbody), Sanders County, is proposed in this grant application. The main goals for this project are to improve water quality by reducing sediment loads in sediment impaired waters, improve stream habitat and riparian vegetation in order to restore native fish populations, and to implement a monitoring program that documents water quality and fish population improvements resulting from the funded restoration project.
The Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group (LCFWG) is the sponsor for this 319 application and is working closely with the Elk Creek Watershed Council (ECWC) on the proposed project. The LCFWG formed in early 2003 to serve as an “umbrella” organization for the seven existing watershed councils that are engaged in protecting the water resources of key tributaries to the lower Clark Fork River. The group received tax-exempt status in October 2004. The intent of the LCFWG is to carry out a systematic, coordinated river ecosystem approach to watershed management and to maximize collaborative, administrative, technical and financial resources along the lower Clark Fork River. The ECWC was formed in 1995 and has been active since that time to the present. While each of the seven watershed councils functions as its own entity, the councils are combining their collaborative efforts and making best use of available technical, financial and agency resources through participation in the LCFWG. With strong community support, each council is assisted by a watershed coordinator and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to develop and undertake projects (including assessments, and other on-the-ground work), negotiate and oversee contracts, and evaluate monitoring data to determine project results.

Section II.B STATEMENT OF NEED AND INTENT

The lower Clark Fork River and many of its tributaries, including Elk Creek, have been degraded over the years as a result of the construction of dams and reservoirs, road construction, utility rights-of-way, mining, logging, grazing and various forms of streamside development. The cumulative impacts of development in the lower Clark Fork have taken a toll on water quality and fisheries. For over a decade there have been numerous specific watershed planning efforts sponsored by the LCFWG and Green Mountain Conservation District (GMCD), to protect and restore a number of watersheds, including Elk, Prospect, Rock, Whitepine, Pilgrim and Trout creeks and Bull River. All seven of these waterbodies are listed on the 1996 through 2006 303(d) lists. A sediment TMDL for Elk Creek was approved in 1998.

This project will assist in efforts to improve the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Elk Creek, and is a continuation in efforts to eventually remove Elk Creek from Montana’s 303(d) list. The project will also implement and support Montana’s Nonpoint Source (NPS) Management Plan, particularly the goals calling for: 1) Implementation of restoration projects identified in Water Quality Plans/TMDLs, 2) Working with watershed groups to develop water quality restoration plans, and, 3) Monitoring restoration activities for effectiveness and pollutant load reductions. The project will implement recommendations in various Elk Creek watershed assessments and the approved TMDL to reduce non-point pollution, stabilize stream banks, and improve stream habitat and riparian vegetation, and restore native fish populations. Restoration activities will be monitored for effectiveness and pollutant load reductions.

Elk Creek (MT76N003_060) lies within hydrologic unit code 17010213 (lower Clark Fork River), and is a tributary to the lower Clark Fork River (MT76N001_010) which flows approximately sixty miles from the Thompson Falls dam to the Noxon Rapids dam, then to the Cabinet Gorge dam at the Montana – Idaho border. This lower Clark Fork area drains approximately 1,107 square miles. Elk Creek drains an area of approximately 55 square miles. This drainage is home to a number of native fish, including bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout. Watershed assessments containing detailed stream information, geomorphic classifications, physical conditions, channel stability, and fish habitat data have been performed on the Elk Creek drainage. Additional research efforts on Elk Creek and other lower Clark Fork drainages are also being conducted by the following lead agencies and supporters of this project including Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MFWP), United States Forest Service (USFS), United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Avista Corporation.

A brief history of stream restoration efforts in the Elk Creek drainage follows. A major flood event in 1996 caused substantial bank erosion and channel changes in the Elk Creek drainage, prompting local landowners to form a the Elk Creek Watershed Council (ECWC) and the group retained Watershed Consulting to evaluate stream conditions, identify causes of channel instability, and restore unstable reaches. In 1997 and 1998, Watershed Consulting completed stream restoration at 37 individual sites in both the mainstem and the East and West Forks of Elk Creek. This project was funded mainly by a 319 grant (#270076). Restoration projects included a wide range of individual sites scattered throughout the drainage, including the installation of small large woody debris jams and larger rootwad revetments to stabilize banks, planting of riparian vegetation to restore riparian function, and re-channeling of several braided reaches. A post-restoration analysis of these projects in 1998 found that few structures had “major” or “heavy” damage, although “minor” and “moderate” damage was relatively common.[1] Relatively high flows experienced in 2002 caused significant changes to several additional sites, although a large proportion (approximately 50%) of the projects are still functioning as constructed with only minor changes or no changes at all. Three major bank stabilization projects associated with potential road failure were also completed by NRCS approximately eight years ago. These projects involved rock rip rap and are still functioning as designed. Most recently, a 319 grant (#205047) funded bank stabilization project was completed in the lower portion of mainstem (Platt property) in 2006. The Platt project was intended to reduce fine sediment delivery to the channel, increase aquatic habitat diversity, and augment the riparian vegetation community over approximately 1,500 feet of channel. Fine sediment delivery reduction was pursued by constructing a woody debris jam at the toe of the eroding lacustrine terrace. The jam deflects flows away from the toe of the slope and also provides fish habitat. In addition to the large woody debris jam, two additional log jams, a deflector tree, and a three-tiered soil lift were also placed to increase bank stability. Native plants were planted throughout the project area. The project is functioning as designed per the post runoff monitoring report prepared by River Design Group.[2]

The proposed restoration project on the Springer property was chosen as the highest priority restoration site in the Elk Creek drainage based on annual stream walks, reports from stakeholders, site inspections and discussions with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). This site is obviously the most severely eroding site on Elk Creek, so the TAC recommended it for restoration and the ECWC agreed to pursue funding for the project. The project will have significant long-term water quality benefits to Elk Creek by stabilization of a major sediment source on the East Fork Elk Creek by reducing fine sediment inputs, attainment of TMDL targets and improvement of fish and watershed conditions in the Elk Creek drainage. The addition of riparian vegetation will help lower stream temperatures, allow stream banks to stabilize, reduce the amount of sediment input, increase the amount of large woody debris, improve water quality and increase the complexity of salmonid habitat. It has been estimated by River Design Group that the proposed project will reduce sediment loading in Elk Creek from 56 tons per year to 7.4 tons per year, a reduction of approximately 86 percent. The ECWC will work with the consultant selected to construct this project to develop estimates of whether we are with meeting the TMDL goal of reducing sediment by 50 percent at the mouth of Elk Creek. The ECWC has always made an effort to educate landowners on following best management practices and the importance of providing riparian buffers. The Council has also sponsored riparian revegetation workshops and numerous other public education events to increase awareness of the restoration work that is being done.

As noted above, current watershed conditions, along with problems and causes, have been identified in watershed assessments conducted for Elk, Prospect, Rock, Trout, Whitepine, Pilgrim, Graves and Blue creeks, and for Bull River and Vermilion River. All of these drainages except for Blue Creek, Graves Creek and Vermilion River, have active watershed councils. Based on the watershed assessments performed, restoration projects have been completed in all of the 303d listed waterbodies.

The ECWC and LCFWG understand the need to have a watershed restoration plan (WRP) in place and will hire a consultant to develop a WRP that contains USEPA’s nine minimum elements for a watershed plan. The ECWC and LCFWG have developed various pieces of information over the past decade that can likely be utilized to develop a WRP, but significant additional effort will be needed to fully develop this plan to meet USEPA guidelines. This task will also include the involvement and participation of stakeholders and capacity building in the creation of the WRP. See Section IV, Task 4.

Section II.C COLLABORATIVE EFFORT

While the proposed restoration project will result in site-specific benefits to the function and fish habitat of Elk Creek, the project is also part of a larger collaborative effort to improve water quality and enhance the fisheries of the lower Clark Fork River ecosystem of western Montana. The following organizations will be cooperating on this project and will be interacting by informal agreement.

1. The LCFWG is the project sponsor and contract executor.
2. GMCD supports the restoration project and will provide technical and administrative assistance.
3. The ECWC and LCFWG are stakeholder led groups that will fully participate in the project.
4. MFWP is expected to provide technical and in-kind assistance.
5. USFS will provide funding and technical assistance.
6. NRCS will provide technical and in-kind assistance.
7. Avista Corporation will provide funding, in-kind and technical assistance.
8. DEQ will provide technical assistance.

As suggested by DEQ, the LCFWG will contact Jo Christensen (BLM) for input on alternative stabilization techniques that might be used on the proposed project.

Support for the seven existing lower Clark Fork tributary watershed councils and their projects, and in particular the Elk Creek Watershed Council has been enthusiastic, with the local property owners, agency and corporate representatives participating. There are approximately 300 people on the various watershed council mailing lists. The above listed agencies have all encouraged the formation of watershed councils and assessment and restoration work in Elk Creek, Prospect Creek, Rock Creek, Whitepine Creek, Bull River, Trout Creek and Pilgrim Creek. These projects have been made possible through cooperation andfunding from MDEQ, Avista Corporation, USFS/Kootenai and Lolo National Forests, MFWP, theNational Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the National Forest Foundation, and others. This cooperative effort continues with the goal of accurately identifying and mitigating the sources contributing to the impairment of Elk Creek. Avista has provided significant amounts of funding for watershed council start-up and administration, assessment work and restoration work. Additional funding for the proposed project will be actively pursued. All of these watershed councils are committed to developing long term watershed plans for the drainage.

Support letters from the following agencies will be attached to the final application.

Section II.D PROJECT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

The LCFWG and its associated watershed councils have a record of collaborating with various entities and has completed or been associated with numerous restoration projects over the past decade. The project proposed in this application will be funded by 319 funds (this grant application), a $6,600.00 donation from Avista Corporation, $18,500 form the Liz Claiborne-Art Ortenberg Foundation (pending), plus in-kind donations for planning, administration and monitoring of these projects to be provided by LCFWG, ECWC, MFWP, Avista Corporation and the USFS. Other grants will also be pursued. Both the LCFWG and ECWC have extensive project planning and management experience.

Costs for this project have been calculated based on preliminary cost estimates obtained from two hydrology consultants and reviewed by the LCFWG Technical Advisory Committee. Costs are based on hourly rates in the State of Montana Term Contract #SPB05-894P. Information concerning costs, sources of funding, products to be delivered, and in-kind donations is found in Section IV (Scope of Work), and in the Budget Table. Contractors approved under the State of Montana Term Contract #SPB05-894P will be used to develop final designs and to implement the project. A hydrology consultant and heavy equipment operator will be chosen to implement the project, with construction scheduled for summer/fall of 2009. The LCFWG will be responsible for project planning and management. All appropriate permits will be obtained prior to beginning on-the-ground activities. All reports and products associated with this project will be conveyed to DEQ per the Scope of Work (Section IV) of this document.

Section III PROJECT COMPONENTS

Section III.A REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

LCFWG will submit quarterly status reports and reports with all billing requests, annual reports detailing all expenses and accomplishments, and a final “stand alone” report for the entire project. Parties unfamiliar with the project will be able to read this report and have a firm understanding of the project from inception to completion, including data collection, photo documentation, analysis of accomplishments, description of any obstacles encountered, recommendations for future projects, and a complete fiscal breakdown of the overall project budget and how 319 funds were expended. All status, annual, and final reports will be submitted in electronic as well as hardcopy format, for inclusion into the Grant Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS). Reports consisting of the compilation and/or analysis of existing data will also be submitted in electronic format, for inclusion in GRTS.