Project ID: 4501
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2019
Submitted By:
102
|
Project Manager: Michael Golden
PM Agency: U.S. Forest Service
PM Office: Dixie National Forest
Lead: U.S. Forest Service
WRI Region: Southern
|
Description:
Support conservation and resiliency of remnant Colorado River cutthroat trout populations in historic habitat by providing for fish passage. Project will replace existing undersized, perched road culvert with a timber bridge and stream simulation, completing a series of five Aquatic Organism Passage projects to reconnect over 10 miles of habitat for remnant populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout.
|
|
Location:
The Hall Creek AOP project is located within Garfield County, Utah on the Escalante Ranger District of the Dixie National Forest approximately 14.5 miles northwest of Escalante, Utah. The project would replace a culvert in the Birch Creek subwatershed where Hall Creek is crossed by Forest Service Road 30150.
|
Budget | WRI/DWR | Other | Budget Total | In-Kind | Grand Total |
$20,000.00 | $132,335.92 | $152,335.92 | $23,960.00 | $176,295.92 |
Item | Description | WRI | Other | In-Kind | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Contractual Services | Culvert removal and replacement contract | $20,000.00 | $132,335.92 | $0.00 | 2019 |
Personal Services (permanent employee) | Engineering and Design work | $0.00 | $0.00 | $14,859.00 | 2018 |
Personal Services (permanent employee) | Contract administration and project inspection | $0.00 | $0.00 | $9,101.00 | 2019 |
Funding | WRI/DWR | Other | Funding Total | In-Kind | Grand Total |
$20,000.00 | $132,335.92 | $152,335.92 | $23,960.00 | $176,295.92 |
Source | Phase | Description | Amount | Other | In-Kind | Year |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
USFS-WRI | N6795 | $9,936.25 | $0.00 | $0.00 | 2019 | |
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) | Funds committed through the Hemingway Foundation for work in the Escalante River watershed. | $0.00 | $20,000.00 | $0.00 | 2019 | |
National Fish & Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) | Funds committed through the Bring Back the Natives Program. | $0.00 | $20,000.00 | $0.00 | 2019 | |
United States Forest Service (USFS) | Funds committed through USFS/Trout Unlimited 1,000 culvert Initiative. In Kind funds are secured. | $0.00 | $27,335.92 | $9,101.00 | 2019 | |
USFWS Fish Passage | $0.00 | $65,000.00 | $0.00 | 2019 | ||
United States Forest Service (USFS) | These In Kind funds have already been expended on the Engineering and Design work, which is completed and uploaded in the attachments. | $0.00 | $0.00 | $14,859.00 | 2018 | |
Habitat Council Account | HCRF | $9,936.25 | $0.00 | $0.00 | 2019 | |
Habitat Council Account | QHCR | $63.75 | $0.00 | $0.00 | 2020 | |
USFS-WRI | A056 | $63.75 | $0.00 | $0.00 | 2020 |
Species | "N" Rank | HIG/F Rank | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout | N2 | R1 | ||||
|
Habitat | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Riverine | ||||
|
||||
Riverine | ||||
|
Comment | 01/25/2018 | Type: 1 | Commenter: Nicki Frey |
Mike, Same comment at 3946, What are the risks that this project will not be successful once implemented? Any? | |||
Comment | 01/26/2018 | Type: 1 | Commenter: Michael Golden |
It is my project so of course there is no risk of failure. Seriously, we have completed over a dozen culvert replacement projects since 2009 and the biggest risk of failure is in the stream simulation. The structure replacement is an upgrade and most contractors know how to put in a bridge or replace a culvert. I think we have a great team in our engineering and hydro shops right now and that all of us have learned a lot of lessons over the years about making sure we are active in project management to make sure stream channel design is implemented accurately for stream simulation. This is a small stream and the channel is rock controlled. Since the structures we're proposed will simulate the step pool structure already present in the stream I think the chance of failure is low. Additionally in other rock controlled streams where we have had some stream simulation failures, the stream itself has resorted the material into a fish passable channel that seems to be maintaining it's geomorphological integrity. | |||
Comment | 01/31/2018 | Type: 1 | Commenter: Clint Wirick |
Great low risk/high reward project! Love to see all the matching funds too. | |||
Comment | 02/07/2018 | Type: 1 | Commenter: Michael Golden |
Thanks Clint! | |||
Comment | 02/07/2018 | Type: 1 | Commenter: Gary Bezzant |
When are you going to get your PhD - you certainly have written enough dissertations;) Just 1 question - what can you tell me about the value of the CRCT in this drainages value as a sportfish? Any creel data or at least a swag on how much use the resource gets as a sportfishery? Ok so that's 2 questions but they are highly related. | |||
Comment | 02/07/2018 | Type: 1 | Commenter: Michael Golden |
The lunker 6-10 inch CRCT in this 0.25-0.5 cfs stream are highly sought after by sportsmen from around the world. This stream gets limited to no fishing pressure that I am aware of. This project would be about providing genetic exchange and resiliency to disturbance for the two remnant populations in the drainage. Good questions Flynn. | |||
Comment | 02/12/2018 | Type: 1 | Commenter: Jimi Gragg |
The word...is tenkara. | |||
Comment | 02/08/2018 | Type: 1 | Commenter: Vicki Tyler |
Great low risk/high benefit project. I like how you make some connections to other benefits, such as fire/fuels - travel - to a project that at first seems to be single species focus. Did you say the Escalante Watershed Partnership Group was a part of this effort. You may want to list them as a partner. Okay. Now for the questions. You mention some changes in stream morphology from the current culvert and other actions. Is there a plan to improve the drainage, outside of culverts? Could the changes in the stream meander/pooling/widening not also account for low numbers of CRRT. How certain are you that this culvert is truly the risk to the CRRT and movement? Are there other risks that need to be addressed to assure a population increase and/or movement. You mention "organism" passage. Is there more than this "organism" that needs passage, or is this just a figure of speech, per se. So, is this really the only species benefitting from this project? Creatively, I could think that having "easier/safe" passage for vehicles, and even large ungulates could be a stream sediment benefit. Okay, last question. You mention monitoring every 5-7 years. Isn't that a pretty long period of time. Fish could be gone in that period of time, and you would never even know what had happened? Is there any thought to stepping up the monitoring and seeing if this does indeed benefit the trout? Nice inclusion of other funding partners and description of threats/risk in losing partner $, Thanks Mike! | |||
Comment | 02/09/2018 | Type: 1 | Commenter: Michael Golden |
Ms. Vicki, Thanks for pointing out I forgot to list ERWP as a partner as they have been supportive and their partnership is what led to the TNC funding that is a portion of this project funding. So in 2013 and 2014 the FS spent over $750,000 on vegetation management (including riparian conifer thinning), other AOP projects and road maintenance to improve conditions in the watershed. Additionally the District has additional vegetation treatments for Forest health and fuels reduction planned (Mitchell Springs Vegetation Improvement project - signed Decision) along Hall Creek. If I failed to mention that I will try to remedy in the proposal. Currently the habitat in both for both of the drainage remnant populations in the watershed (Hall Creek and Water Canyon Creek is marginal; however, much of this is natural conditions (low flows). The marginal habitat is probably why CRCT survived here because no one ever thought to introduce nonnative trout. However, the marginal habitat only increases the need for connectivity throughout the drainage to facilitate recolonization following disturbance. In terms of culver being a passage issue...did you look at my pictures? Seriously thought there are criteria developed by researchers in terms of what is passable and not passable to fish and the 3ish foot vertical drop off this culvert is much more than a native cutthroat can navigate. The other biggest risks are drought (see marginal habitat discussion above), introduction of nonnative trout (out of our control) and wildfire impacts to watershed function (see Mitchell Springs Vegetation discussion above). In terms of organisms. these types of projects will help with macroinvertebrate and amphibian passage of road crossings. There are a variety of macros, but amphibian surveys in the drainage have come up with nothing. I would not be surprised if there are tiger salamanders and boreal chorus frogs that we just haven't found yet. The only species benefitting I can list with a straight face is CRCT; however, I bet the Utah Milk Snake and Sonoran Mountain King Snake would benefit if they were present. UDWR controls the sampling regime on CRCT; however we do conduct distributional sampling in between the quantitative sampling schedule if we suspect a disturbance. Thanks for the questions/comments! | |||
Comment | 02/12/2018 | Type: 1 | Commenter: Jimi Gragg |
That's outside the known distribution of the milksnake, in x, y, and z dimensions. Mountain kings occur AFAIK on the west slope of that mountain but I do not know if they have been found in the Escalante drainage. There are many basic, basic remaining questions about that animal.They aren't the least bit riparian dependent, though where they are better-known they are easier to find (more abundant?) around water. This is near the top of their elevational range in Utah - but it could be great climate-change refugia habitat. | |||
Comment | 02/12/2018 | Type: 1 | Commenter: Jimi Gragg |
Any benefit planned or likely to the riparian (Aquatic - Scrub/shrub) habitat? Seems so to me, with restored water/sediment transport balance. | |||
Comment | 02/16/2018 | Type: 1 | Commenter: Michael Golden |
Hey Jimi. The project footprint is pretty small and the riparian area surrounding the stream is fairly narrow. The big benefit is to the stream channel itself and the organism. Maybe some marginal long-term benefits to riparian area immediately surrounding the culvert, but you are aware of my feelings on marginal benefit:-). | |||
Comment | 08/20/2020 | Type: 2 | Commenter: Alison Whittaker |
Thank you for submitting your completion form early. It looks great. And thanks for uploading pics. It looks like a successful project. |
ID | Feature Category | Action | Treatement/Type |
---|---|---|---|
1568 | Fish passage structure | Reconstruction | Culvert |