Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2001-033-00 - Hangman Creek Fish & Wildlife Restoration Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2001-033-00 - Hangman Creek Fish & Wildlife Restoration
Project Number:
2001-033-00
Title:
Hangman Creek Fish & Wildlife Restoration
Summary:
The Hangman Restoration Project was submitted to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council in the 2000 Rolling Provincial Review, received approval and was first contracted in August of 2001. The Project was submitted with the partner project 2001-032-00, Implement Fisheries Enhancement on the Coeur d'Alene Indian Reservation: Hangman Watershed. 2001-032-00 was designed and implemented to provide a fishery in the Hangman Watershed by focusing on the remaining native trout populations in the watershed and the stream habitats that support them. However, on the Coeur d'Alene Indian Reservation, the condition of instream habitats for fish are inextricably linked with the management of the lands through which the streams flow. While 2001-032-00 focused on the fish and streams habitats, 2001-033-00 was proposed to provide a means of protecting habitats through management rights acquisition and provide a focus on the landscape management dynamics that lead effect instream habitats.

A major success for the Hangman Restoration Project was the acquisition of 1,400 acres for wildlife habitat crediting that will assist in reconnecting native fish populations once restoration efforts on the acquired lands improve instream habitats. However, the habitat protection tool (fee title acquisition through wildlife Habitat Unit crediting) used during the first years of the project did not allow the direct protection of habitats that support native fish as those habitats are not well suited to wildlife mitigation. During the first years of this Project connective habitats were secured and the Project is well situated to improve habitats for both native fish and wildlife in the Upper Hangman Watershed in the coming years. For the FY2007-FY2009 time period the Coeur d'Alene Tribe proposes to begin restoration efforts on the acquired lands to credit the Bonneville Power Administration wildlife enhancement HUs while restoring habitats for native trout. Additionally, the Project will pursue partnerships with the Natural Resource Conservation Service and the Farm Service Agency to establish Conservation Reserve Program contracts on priority fish and wildlife habitats to augment the benefits that will be achieved through the wildlife habitat acquisition effots. These activities will address Spokane Subbasin Terrestrial Objectives 1A10 and 1A11 (both Priority 1 Objectives), and Aquatic Objectives 2A3 (Second Priority) and 2B1 (First Priority).
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Coeur D'Alene Tribe (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2004
Ending FY:
2020
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Intermountain Spokane 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 100.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

Areas of the hnt'k'wipn Management Area that remained in crop production through FY2011 and areas that were planted with native grasses are being restored to native habitats.

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P127323

Document: Hangman Restoration Project

Page Number: 7

Project: 2001-033-00

Contract: 54815

Location of 2010 spot treatments with an aminopyralid based herbicide to minimize the presence of noxious weeds.

Figure Name: Figure 2

Document ID: P127323

Document: Hangman Restoration Project

Page Number: 9

Project: 2001-033-00

Contract: 54815

Location and general configuration of the Sheep Creek realignment.

Figure Name: Figure 3

Document ID: P127323

Document: Hangman Restoration Project

Page Number: 12

Project: 2001-033-00

Contract: 54815

Location of sampling points within hnt'k'wipn Management Area fields that were planted with native grasses in the fall of 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Figure Name: Figure 5

Document ID: P127323

Document: Hangman Restoration Project

Page Number: 15

Project: 2001-033-00

Contract: 54815

Map of properties within the Upper Hangman Watershed and outside of the hnt’k’wipn Management Area were efforts have a high probability of producing measurable improvements in the conservation practices.

Figure Name: Figure 6

Document ID: P127323

Document: Hangman Restoration Project

Page Number: 18

Project: 2001-033-00

Contract: 54815

Project crew completing the Sheep Creek Realignment that was initiated in August and September of FY2010. The portion completed in FY2011 passed through a site investigated for its archeological value by the Coeur d’Alene Tribe’s Cultural Resource Office. The photograph was taken on September 2, 2011.

Figure Name: Photo 1

Document ID: P127323

Document: Hangman Restoration Project

Page Number: 26

Project: 2001-033-00

Contract: 54815

A view of a portion of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe’s Cultural Resources Department’s dig within the new Sheep Creek alignment prior to the excavator completing the construction of the new channel. The photograph taken on September 2, 2011.

Figure Name: Photo 2

Document ID: P127323

Document: Hangman Restoration Project

Page Number: 27

Project: 2001-033-00

Contract: 54815

A Coeur d’Alene Tribe’s Hangman Wildlife Restoration Project crew used the Tribe’s Komatsu D51PX dozer to finish the newly constructed Sheep Creek Channel. The photograph was taken on 9/9/2012.

Figure Name: Photo 3

Document ID: P127323

Document: Hangman Restoration Project

Page Number: 28

Project: 2001-033-00

Contract: 54815

The FCR feature was uncovered between STP 01 and STP 02 (left side of photo). The shovel test missed the feature by approximately 15 feet.

Figure Name: Attachment 1

Document ID: P127323

Document: Hangman Restoration Project

Page Number: 39

Project: 2001-033-00

Contract: 54815

This photo is the original exposure of the FCR feature in 2010. The area within the string line is XUSC001.

Figure Name: Attachment 2

Document ID: P127323

Document: Hangman Restoration Project

Page Number: 40

Project: 2001-033-00

Contract: 54815

The north arrow is approximately 25cm long. The white sting line represents the original surface elevation.

Figure Name: Attachment 3

Document ID: P127323

Document: Hangman Restoration Project

Page Number: 41

Project: 2001-033-00

Contract: 54815

Excavation unit XUSC001 is in the center of this photo.

Figure Name: Attachment 4

Document ID: P127323

Document: Hangman Restoration Project

Page Number: 42

Project: 2001-033-00

Contract: 54815

Looking west across the site as the dig progresses.

Figure Name: Attachment 5

Document ID: P127323

Document: Hangman Restoration Project

Page Number: 43

Project: 2001-033-00

Contract: 54815

A water intake float, qhwatqhwat, was built to avoid having dirty water fouling/damaging the water pump (top). The 12v water pump is attached to the frame of the solar panel (bottom).

Figure Name: Attachment 7

Document ID: P127323

Document: Hangman Restoration Project

Page Number: 45

Project: 2001-033-00

Contract: 54815

Solar panel and water pump unit, 250 gallon water tank, and screening station. We used most of the water in the tank every day. Each morning a new supply of water was delivered.

Figure Name: Attachment 8

Document ID: P127323

Document: Hangman Restoration Project

Page Number: 46

Project: 2001-033-00

Contract: 54815

Mark Cottrell from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Plummer, ID office, collecting data on the site’s soil stratigraphy.

Figure Name: Attachment 9

Document ID: P127323

Document: Hangman Restoration Project

Page Number: 47

Project: 2001-033-00

Contract: 54815

Overview looking east across the site. Most of our focus was done on the FCR feature (top of photo).

Figure Name: Attachment 10

Document ID: P127323

Document: Hangman Restoration Project

Page Number: 48

Project: 2001-033-00

Contract: 54815

FCR feature, essentially, cut in half to provide a look at the vertical extent.

Figure Name: Attachment 11

Document ID: P127323

Document: Hangman Restoration Project

Page Number: 49

Project: 2001-033-00

Contract: 54815

Looking south across the FCR feature cut in half.

Figure Name: Attachment 12

Document ID: P127323

Document: Hangman Restoration Project

Page Number: 50

Project: 2001-033-00

Contract: 54815

Track hoe just before continuing the channel excavation.

Figure Name: Attachment 13

Document ID: P127323

Document: Hangman Restoration Project

Page Number: 51

Project: 2001-033-00

Contract: 54815


Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2017 (Previous) $317,750 $317,750 $317,750 $317,750 $271,449

General $317,750 $317,750 $317,750 $271,449
FY2018 (Current) $317,750 $317,750 $317,750 $317,750 $0

General $317,750 $317,750 $317,750 $0
FY2019 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

Capital SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2017 (Previous) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2018 (Current) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2019 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Sep-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2017 - FY2019)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2017 Expense $317,750 From: General FY17 SOY Budgets 06/02/2016
FY2018 Expense $317,750 From: General FY18 SOY Budgets 07/17/2017

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Project Cost Share:

FY2017 0 %
FY2016 33 %
FY2015 33 %
FY2014 32 %
FY2013 39 %
FY2012 71 %
FY2011 33 %
FY2010 29 %
FY2009 22 %
FY2008 6 %
FY2007 0 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution
FY2016 (Unspecified Org) $45,514
FY2016 Avista Corporation $108,273
FY2016 US Department of Agriculture (USDA) $4,223
FY2016 US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) $0
FY2016 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) $0

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-007290 Bonneville Power Administration FY05 Land Acquisition Active $0 10/1/2005 - 9/30/2006
74151 SOW Coeur D'Alene Tribe 2001-033-00 EXP HANGMAN CREEK FISH & WILDLIFE RESTORATION Issued $317,750 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
76952 SOW Coeur D'Alene Tribe 2001-033-00 EXP HANGMAN CREEK FISH & WILDLIFE RESTORATION Issued $317,750 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):12
Completed:10
On time:10
Status Reports
Completed:49
On time:27
Avg Days Late:6

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
22364 24595, 29020, 35067, 39739, 44311, 49588, 54815, 59395, 62869, 66784, 70503, 74151, 76952 2001-033-00 HANGMAN CREEK MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT Coeur D'Alene Tribe 03/2005 03/2005 Issued 49 174 4 3 47 228 78.07% 0
BPA-007290 FY05 Land Acquisition Bonneville Power Administration 10/2005 10/2005 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 49 174 4 3 47 228 78.07% 0


Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2001-033-00-ISRP-20120215
Project: 2001-033-00 - Hangman Creek Fish & Wildlife Restoration
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal Number: RESCAT-2001-033-00
Completed Date: 4/17/2012
Final Round ISRP Date: 4/3/2012
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
First Round ISRP Date: 2/8/2012
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:

The proposal contains good background information and is well prepared. The project has identified priority habitats and activities. The sponsors have responded to previous ISRP concerns. This is a long-term project the sponsors have provided good results from the initial work.  The sponsors are purchasing properties with Avista mitigation money from Albeni Falls, encouraging beaver activity and learning from work in John Day, Coeur d’Alene, and Colorado. One question remains: Is the intent to rebuild resident populations for Tribal harvest or for conservation purposes only?

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

Recovery of redband trout is clearly an appropriate restoration priority, and the efforts implemented under this project to date have been focused in areas that are high priority for these fish in the Hangman Creek watershed. The existing project sites are in riparian areas with potential to contribute to groundwater recharge and located near existing populations of redband trout. This project is designed to address landscape issues that limit base flow at the streams in the project area and is responsible for landscape restoration as a precursor to the work done in stream and near stream to establish a redband trout fishery. This project was submitted in conjunction with 200103200 which studies instream fish habitats in the same area. The project focuses on increasing base stream flows by obtaining access to land in several ways, such as, land acquisition, conservation easements, leases and landowner agreements. This project provides dual benefits, (1) credits against HU ledger of wildlife habitat lost from Albeni Falls Dam, and (2) crucial habitat for redband trout (NPCC established a resident fish substitution policy in areas blocked from anadromous fish passage). 

Once restored, stream channels within the mitigation property will expand the isolated redband population in Sheep Creek and increase the probability of that population’s interactions with the other isolated populations of the Upper Hangman Watershed. This Project will focus on monitoring changes in ground water and provide funding for stream flow monitoring.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (ISRP Review of Results)

The project history was described in detail. Restoration efforts target the impaired aquatic and riparian ecosystem processes supported by several citations in a previous limiting factor analysis which included hydraulic modeling. High stream temperatures documented (2004-2007), along with low summer flows, high sediment levels and inadequate DO yielded suboptimal rearing conditions for fish. A genetic analysis of isolated redband trout populations in the project area showed a cohesive group and suggests that historically there was movement among subpopulations in the area. Genetic information now suggests that either substantial inbreeding has occurred or each subpopulation experienced a recent genetic bottleneck. Collectively, results suggest increasing connectivity of tributary subpopulations would promote a more robust and resilient population structure. Also, redband trout are relatively pure in spite of rainbow trout introduced regularly in the Spokane River (1933-2002).

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging)

This project is closely related to 200103200 which is the CDA Fisheries Enhancement for the same project area. The ISEMP Bridge Creek Watershed Study provided the direction for addressing large-scale landscape issues associated with entrenched stream channels and low base flows. From 2004 to 2007, high stream temperatures during the spawning/incubation period of early summer (Figure 4) and low flows (e.g., isolated pools and dewatered reaches) coupled with inadequate dissolved oxygen levels (i.e., < 7 mg/L) during summer base flow periods presented suboptimal rearing conditions for redband trout in the lower elevational portions of the Project Area that are heavily impacted by agriculture. These findings join a growing body of evidence that indicate the ubiquitous distribution of the low base flows, lack of oxygen, high summer stream temperatures and high sediment loads in the larger, lower elevation streams of the Project Area have relegated the remnant populations of native redband trout to the isolated, higher elevation, forested stream reaches of the Project Area.

The sponsors also recognized issues involving climate change on ground water tables and noxious weeds. They suggest that restoration of natural vegetation along the riparian zone will help offset these issues. A noxious weed issue has been identified in the agricultural lands associated with native vegetation planting, and control measures, including mowing, burning, and herbicides are being evaluated. In addition to the riparian habitat work, they are assisting the beavers with their dams by providing materials suitable for dam construction.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Four deliverables were mentioned: (1) Access to priority habitats: some priority land has been acquired, with more needed, (2) Riparian/Floodplain Management: decommissioned artificial drainage networks in the agricultural, (3) Create beaver dams that withstand high flows and persist and (4) Develop indices indicating increase in duration of shallow groundwater storage in flood. Initially, three 40 foot wells were established in 2006 at confluence of Hangman and Sheep Creek where water depth did not vary from year to year. Regarding beaver dams, 82 small dams were found in a 2009 survey, and with improvement of dam material, they believe the dams can store considerably more water for the project. Storing water in the area is believed to be a critically important component of achieving restoration goals, and the ISRP agrees. The ongoing project only completed 71% of the contract deliverables, but many of these failures were due to quarterly reports. Annual reports have been on time. 

4a. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Data collected for this project is limited because the fish and aquatic habitat RME work is covered in a different project (200103200). But project relationships are clearly described. Data collected for this project includes the success of the establishment of native vegetation planted, beaver dam surveys, and the evaluation of shallow groundwater level at 2-week intervals in 18 shallow wells. Interesting data from these wells was provided in the proposal to illustrate baseline patterns of groundwater loss during summer. A USGS gauging station and several others are used to monitor surface flow.

The past ISRP review had concerns about "ongoing pattern of climate and stream flow" not being addressed. The response to this concern was "groundwater modeling” completed in 2007 that demonstrated drain tile removal would assist in maintaining base flows. Also, studies suggest that watershed changes could be brought about with construction and maintenance of beaver dams that would rebuild floodplain connectivity.

Earlier, the ISRP had concerns about explaining the difference between this project and the associated fisheries project. The sponsors responded that this project involves landscape level issues that limit in stream fish habitat dealing with agricultural methods, management rights, riparian management, and terrestrial habitat restoration. Other information regarding M&E is covered in the fisheries project.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/17/2012 2:44:35 PM.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2001-033-00-NPCC-20120313
Project: 2001-033-00 - Hangman Creek Fish & Wildlife Restoration
Review: Resident Fish, Regional Coordination, and Data Management Category Review
Proposal: RESCAT-2001-033-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 2/26/2014
Recommendation: Implement
Comments: Implement through 2017.
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2001-033-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2001-033-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 1 - Appears reasonable
Comment: Restoration activities and conservation easement acquisitions for resident fish and wildlife in watershed in mitigation for FCRPS; not a "1" because focus is resident fish and no crediting mechanism for acquisitions.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2001-033-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2001-033-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2001-033-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2001-033-00 - Hangman Creek Fish & Wildlife Restoration
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Funding is scientifically justified for land acquisition, conservation easement, riparian management, and M&E only. The qualification is that M&E methods need to be expanded to include fish (even before trout return to the project area, if they do).

This long, disorganized proposal contained much irrelevant material and was exceedingly hard to review. The project might work out in the long term, but the proposal did not give confidence that the effort is being soundly conducted. The response retrieved the situation to some extent. The proposal did not present an adequate strategy for the project. The technical and scientific background was poorly organized and contained much information more suited to the project history. The project is a mix of land purchase and managements; the latter not clearly described. The problems to be dealt with are not clearly defined, and the purpose of the project was not stated until page 6.

The "original" project goal (page 6) was: "Protect and/or restore riparian and priority upland habitats . . . to promote healthy, self-sustaining wildlife populations," the present project goal being left unstated. The proposal next says this will involve landscape-level management to complement a companion project (200103200) that deals with fish habitat in the same system. However, the sponsors describe no habitat requirements for wildlife species, allude to little about the area as wildlife habitat, and apparently name wildlife species only once ("monitoring . . . will include parameters on land birds, waterfowl, bald eagles, small mammals, herpetofauna"). Instead, it delves more into matters of fish and streams, including a section on "Native Fish Habitat Protection Work Elements," and even genetic make-up of redband trout. Thus, the project inexplicably changed to deal with both fish and terrestrial wildlife, and to deal with in-stream management, as well as upland and riparian matters. The sponsors do not adequately explain the relationship of this change to Project 200103200, which was to deal with aquatic matters.

Significance to the subbasin plan was adequately shown in the proposal. The response's reporting of results was adequate, considering the short duration of the project.

The proposal's section F, Biological Objectives, Work Elements and Methods, contains no outline of objectives but is a rambling, partly historical discussion involving various diffuse statements of objective with no clearly listed work elements, and with some intermixture of methods.

The ISRP asked for response on the extent to which this project is expected to benefit fish and wildlife, asked how fish and wildlife would use the properties protected by the easements, and commented that the project history section described activities, not results or management implications. A response was needed describing these results and how they have been shown to benefit fish and wildlife. The detailed response augmented the original proposal and clarified the logic behind the effort. As a result, the acquisition and conservation easement portions of the proposal appear justified, although biologically there is some risk.

The ISRP asked why no cogent information was provided to indicate that the proposed activities would benefit redband trout, which compose the fish population at issue. The response explained how obtaining easements and promoting riparian vegetation could help reestablish the habitat connectivity that the small, isolated redband populations need. It did not show that the fish need the proposed in-channel restructuring. The proposal mentioned "Enhancement opportunities" in Section F, but techniques to enhance stream channels for trout were not discussed in any useful detail. From the description of work elements, $400K would be used to realign 0.7 miles of Sheep Creek and $400K would be used to change the channel morphology of 2 miles of upper Hangman Creek. Passive restoration appeared not to have been considered in the proposal, and the response indicated judgment that a fully passive approach would not suffice, but that further physical analyses need to be done. The proposed channel work is not yet scientifically justified. Judging scientific soundness is not possible for the large ($600K) program to realign the Sheep Creek channel and change morphology in Hangman Creek. Given more information, such actions might be justified, but the proposal contains insufficient information on this subject to enable a review. If the sponsors undertake a proposal for stream habitat work in a future review cycle, it should draw significantly on the expertise of hydrologists and fluvial geomorphologists, working in conjunction with stream fish ecologists.

A problem not covered in the proposal is the unfavorable and apparently ongoing pattern of climate and stream flow, in which high stream flow is occurring earlier in the year and is followed by months of extreme low flow during worsening annual droughts. This does not bode well for re-population by trout from higher elevations into re-created habitat lower in the valley, where the water is already excessively warm in summer. Promoting riparian vegetation could help overcome this problem (and would benefit many forms of wildlife, as well), but the proposed channel restructuring, as described, would not.

The ISRP was critical in the past review of this project's lack of M&E, and M&E still was not adequately described in the 2007-2007 proposal either. The response presented detailed material on the M&E plan, which concentrates on terrestrial matters. No M&E elements concerning fish and fish habitat were evident, and this is a major deficiency in view of the project's trend in planned activity toward emphasis on fish habitat. The M&E's aquatic aspects could be improved by more specific linking with the other projects that cover the fish.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2001-033-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2001-033-00 - Hangman Creek Fish & Wildlife Restoration
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: ISRP fund in part (qualified): fund elements of project except stream channel realignment as per ISRP comment. Budget will have to be adjusted to match funded work elements. Submit conservation easement through the water entity program.

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Gerald Green Project Lead Coeur D'Alene Tribe
Cameron Heusser Supervisor Coeur D'Alene Tribe
Virgil Watts III Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Paul Krueger (Inactive) Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Jennifer Lord Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Jennifer Snyder Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Kara Campbell Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Justin Moffett Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration