Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
SOW Report
Contract 42827: 1992-010-00 EXP FORT HALL HABITAT RESTORATION
Project Number:
Fort Hall Habitat Restoration
Province Subbasin %
Upper Snake Snake Upper 100.00%
Contract Number:
Contract Title:
Contract Continuation:
Previous: Next:
Contract Status:
Contract Description:
This Statement of Work addresses the objectives and tasks of the fourteenth year of Project Number 92-10, Fort Hall Reservation Stream Restoration.
The Fort Hall Indian Reservation is located in southeastern Idaho, near Pocatello, and covers roughly 544,000 acres.  Reservation surface-water resources are two large, mountainous watersheds drained by the Blackfoot and Portneuf rivers which eventually flow through the Snake River plain and enter its channel at river miles 750 and 726.  Ferry Butte, at the confluence of the Blackfoot and Snake, is the northern boundary of an undeveloped 29,000 acre prairie draining numerous springs known as the Fort Hall Bottoms.  These spring streams flow southwesterly into the lower channel of the Portneuf River, where 27,000 acres of the Bottoms have been flooded by American Falls Reservoir.  The primary goal of the project is to restore fluvial salmonid habitat that has been degraded by past anthropogenic uses, primarily agriculture, irrigation, livestock grazing, and impounded and regulated river flows.

This area of Spring Creek is in the upper reaches approximately .35 miles north of Shoemaker Bridge and .25 miles south of Baker Bridge.  Access to this area will be at through the Romazetta Sheppard (deceased) residence and pasture, currently occupied by her sons, McDonald and Cody Blackhawk.  Approximately 7 dilapidated cars and appliance remnants have been placed in stream channel as a makeshift armoring or riprap along the east bank.  Over the past 15 years, the scouring effects of currents have back-cut and eroded the stream bank behind the cars.  As a result the stream channel has widened thus lowering stream depth which decreased habitat for large trout.  Other effects such as water quality, and decrease in spawning substrate due to increased sediment for sloughing banks is also a concern.  Because this site is also pasture area for the land owner, over-grazing may be impacting stream bank stability thus further contributing to erosion and sloughing. Currently, this area of Spring Creek is limited in adult trout habitat.  Because of the increase channel width due to erosion, the depth cover for large trout is minimal.  Large trout >400mm (over 16 inches) were common in this section, “highest densities of trout >400mm sampled on Spring Creek” (Doug Taki, Tribal Biologist).  Length frequencies and abundance for trout in this area have decreased from 250mm-500mm to 150mm-450mm and 40trout/100m to 18trout/100m respectively, thus becoming the lowest in frequency of trout over 400mm.  Therefore, restoring the stream bank will decrease channel width thus increasing depth and velocities of stream currents.  These further results in a more dynamic environment as opposed to a habitat that has limited cover and slower water velocities.  Although benthic invertebrates appear to be abundant “trout movement to deeper and faster water may not be related to food alone, such movement could also be explained as cover related.”(Hunter, 1991)  These areas could be described as having large boulders, rubble, depth >1.0 feet, and high velocities.

In other studies instream structures have increased pools, usable spawning gravel, and undercut banks in an Oregon stream (House and Boehne 1986) and salmonid biomass in two Arizona streams (Rinne 1981).  Numerous examples with beneficial results have been shown using structures in Danish watercourses to restore meanders, banks, riffles, spawning gravels, deep pools, water quality, and fish passage (Madsen 1995).  Stream bank revegetation combined with fencing to exclude livestock has had widespread success in improving riparian vegetation, bank stability, water quality, stream morphology (Madsen 1995; Clary and Webster 1989; Duff 1977) and avifaunal diversity (Dobkin 1998); and although more difficult to prove, well designed studies have shown an associated increase in trout biomass (Madsen 1995; Platts 1981; Platts and Rinne 1985).  Well designed instream structures are expensive and must be considered as part of an overall plan which considers factors which initially produced poor habitat  (Cederholm et al. 1997).
Account Type(s):
Contract Start Date:
Contract End Date:
Current Contract Value:

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Jan-2020.

Env. Compliance Lead:
Contract Contractor:
Work Order Task(s):
Contract Type:
Contract (IGC)
Pricing Method:
Cost Reimbursement (CNF)
Click the map to see this Contract’s location details.

Full Name Organization Write Permission Contact Type Email Work Phone
Mickey Carter Bonneville Power Administration Yes Env. Compliance Lead (503) 230-5885
Chad Colter Shoshone-Bannock Tribes No Supervisor (208) 239-4553
Joe Deherrera Bonneville Power Administration Yes COTR (503) 230-3442
Hunter Osborne Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Yes Contract Manager (208) 239-4564
Kristi Van Leuven Bonneville Power Administration No Contracting Officer (503) 230-3605
Shannelll Ward Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Yes Contract Manager (208) 478-3821
Pam Waterhouse Shoshone-Bannock Tribes No Administrative Contact (208) 478-3819
Benjamin Zelinsky Bonneville Power Administration Yes F&W Approver (503) 230-4737

Viewing of Work Statement Elements

Deliverable Title WSE Sort Letter, Number, Title Start End Complete
Obtain all EC from BPA A: 165. Clearance from BPA 07/01/2009 05/29/2009
Coordination B: 99. coordination 04/28/2010
Photos and numbers planted, % survival. C: 47. Protect and Restore Riparian Habitats of the Reservation Streams 04/28/2010 09/28/2009
Fence installed, photo points. D: 40. Install Fence to protect riparian areas and projects 03/28/2010
Inventory spp. with digital photo and file on desk top computer. E: 190. remove non-native/exotic fish 12/28/2009
Field data sheets and logged on excel spreadsheets. F: 157. Treatment and control strata in Spring Creek 03/27/2010
Field data sheets, and entered on computer. G: 157. Treatment and control comparison in Diggie and Big Jimmy Cr. 01/01/2010
Before/after photos of instream improvements. H: 29. Install Habitat Improvement Structures 03/28/2010
Attach Progress Report in Pisces I: 132. Submit Progress Report for the period 5.1.07 thru 4.30.08 (FY07) 07/21/2009
Attach Progress Report in Pisces J: 132. Submit Progress Report for the period 6.1.08 thru 4.31.09 (FY08) 11/27/2009
Funding Package - Submit draft to COTR K: 119. routine administration of contract 05/07/2010 05/20/2010

Viewing of Implementation Metrics
Viewing of Environmental Metrics

Primary Focal Species Work Statement Elements
Cutthroat Trout, Yellowstone (O. c. bouvieri)
  • 1 instance of WE 190 Remove, Exclude and/or Relocate Animals
  • 1 instance of WE 29 Increase Aquatic and/or Floodplain Complexity
  • 1 instance of WE 40 Install Fence
  • 1 instance of WE 47 Plant Vegetation
  • 2 instances of WE 157 Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data

Sort WE ID WE Title NEPA NOAA USFWS NHPA Has Provisions Inadvertent Discovery Completed
A 165 Clearance from BPA 02/09/2007
B 99 coordination 02/09/2007
C 47 Protect and Restore Riparian Habitats of the Reservation Streams 04/10/2009
D 40 Install Fence to protect riparian areas and projects 04/10/2009
E 190 remove non-native/exotic fish 02/09/2007
F 157 Treatment and control strata in Spring Creek 02/09/2007
G 157 Treatment and control comparison in Diggie and Big Jimmy Cr. 02/09/2007
H 29 Install Habitat Improvement Structures 04/10/2009
I 132 Submit Progress Report for the period 5.1.07 thru 4.30.08 (FY07) 02/09/2007
J 132 Submit Progress Report for the period 6.1.08 thru 4.31.09 (FY08) 02/09/2007
K 119 routine administration of contract 02/09/2007
L 185 Periodic Status Reports for BPA 02/09/2007