Crow/Quartz Creek Instream Large Wood Recruitment Mid-Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group #17-1169

Project proposal Add 250 – 300 pieces of large wood in 1.3 miles of Crow Creek and 1.2 miles of Quartz Creek

Species Life History Present (egg, juvenile, adult) Current Population Trend (decline, stable, rising) Endangered Species Act Coverage (Y/N) MCR steelhead All Rising Y (threatened) Columbia River bull trout Sub-adult in Quartz, adult migration in Crow, which has only local spawning population in Little Naches River watershed Declining MCR spring chinook salmon Spawning and rearing Stable N Westslope Cutthroat trout Spawning migration route

Project objectives Increase Crow Creek large wood frequency by 130% (from an average of 91 pieces/mile (2015) to an average of 211 pieces/mile); Increase Quartz Creek large wood frequency by 366% (from an average of 45 pieces/mile (1993) to an average of 165 pieces/mile); Stimulate the creation of at least 100 new pools; and Reconnect floodplains along 2.5 miles of Crow and Quartz Creeks.

Crow Creek

Crow Creek

Crow Creek

Quartz Creek

Quartz Creek

Quartz Creek

TAG/CC Question, Request, or Comment Response: Where / how is the comment addressed in the final application Some tour participants expressed interest in mapping specific locations of proposed wood placements, and to show before project and proposed after project wood loading, pool frequency/depth and or gravel availability. Gary and Cassandra are planning to conduct this survey in the next month.  Describe specific goals for wood placements and how gradient and floodplain character play a factor in different area. These will be better articulated after the field survey, but are focused on floodplain connection, pool creation, and the restoration of wood function in-stream.  Clearly identify how treatment streams were selected and their role/priority of this habitat for targeted fish species. This project is the first step in implementing the aquatic restoration priorities of the Little Naches Aquatics working group. This multi-agency group has worked with the Forest Service and other stakeholders to identify and prioritize restoration actions in concert with the larger Little Naches/Little Crow watershed restoration NEPA process.  

SRFB Technical Review Panel Question, Request, or Comment Response: Where / how is the comment addressed in the final application? Before submitting final application, walk streams to identify 1) specific locations for planned wood placement and 2) the size of material to be placed. For each stream reach provide a table of channel slope, width and typical bed material size. The added field survey could be done in one day and will allow for a refined methodology and a more precise cost estimate. The Quartz Creek site visit revealed terrific amounts of wood and this may be identified in other stretches as well. Sponsor indicated that the size of material to be placed will depend on what is in the vicinity of the stream and the equipment available to the successful contractor. The landowner must weigh the trade-off between the size of habitat effect that can be achieved with mechanized equipment and the degree of site impact associated with that equipment. However in either event, the review panel recommends that the project requirements should drive the contractor selection rather than the other way around. If larger pieces will be necessary to achieve the desired habitat response and are available within 300’ of the site to be treated, a contractor with access to a spider hog would be desirable, unless it is the landowner’s opinion that this equipment would result in too much impact to the project site. Gary and Cassandra are planning to conduct this field survey in the next month.  

The streams are critical habitat for bull trout and steelhead. Describe observations of fish use within the project site, current habitat conditions and the habitat features you hope to affect. Elaborate on the importance of this reach for fish; if critical habitat for listed species has been designated within the project area, the proposal should so indicate. Elaborate on the habitat qualities that you are trying to improve upon. While the bed material was coarse in Crow Creek except around instream wood structures, the site is in mature forest that is protected from development and will continue to recover (albeit slowly) from legacy logging activities. The streams are critical habitat for bull trout and steelhead. The project offers a cost-effective approach to enhancing salmonid habitat in an area with few infrastructure constraints. The sponsor and landowner (USFS) have a productive collaboration that provides certainty in project success.   Staff comments: To help determine the necessary size of wood, look at the size of in-stream wood that appears stable in the stream. That will be incorporated into our field survey. 

Task Cost Match SRFB Request TOTAL $113,844 $17,150 $96,694 Felling and placement $61,000 Permitting $19,980 $13,150 $6,830 Travel and spike costs $7,876 Design $5,040 Construction oversight $12,160 $4,000 $8,160 Bookkeeping, reporting, project management $7,788 TOTAL $113,844 $17,150 $96,694