200729500 - Crow Creek BPA Powerline Channel Restoration Project
Sponsor: US Forest Service: Lolo National Forest
Budgets: FY07: $50,000 | FY08: $0 | FY09: $0
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.
Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)
Funding category: Expense
Recommended budgets: FY07: $0 | FY08: $0 | FY09: $0
ISRP final recommendation: Response requested
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.
Response loop edit
See the sponsor's revised proposal from the response loop. You'll be taken to CBFWA's proposal system in Section 10 where most sponsors uploaded revised narratives or other responses to the ISRP comments.
State/province recommendation: No recommendation
Review group: Mtn Col
Recommended budgets: FY07: (n/a) | FY08: (n/a) | FY09: (n/a)
Comment: 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.