Gallatin Watershed Restoration Prioritization Planning

Transcription

1 Final Report April 30, 2010 Gallatin Watershed Restoration Prioritization Planning Prepared for: Gallatin Conservation District Tony Thatcher DTM Consulting, Inc. 211 N Grand Ave, Suite J Bozeman, MT Greater Gallatin Watershed Council Karin Boyd Applied Geomorphology, Inc. 211 N Grand Ave, Suite C Bozeman, MT

2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION PROJECT NEED PROJECT TYPES PLANNING GRANT RPG FUTURE RRGL FUNDING OBJECTIVES GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS METHODOLOGY RESTORATION PRIORITIZATION TEAM DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIZATION MEETINGS DEVELOPMENT OF RANKING CRITERIA RESULTS ESTIMATED COSTS FISHERIES WATER QUALITY WATER QUANTITY RIPARIAN DIRECT PUBLIC BENEFIT WATERSHED CONTEXT SOCIAL FEASIBILITY SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS PARTNERING FURTHER PLANNING OPPORTUNITIES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES BLUE WATER TASK FORCE PRIORITIZATION INTEGRATION WITH TMDL PLANNING INTEGRATION WITH ONGOING US FOREST SERVICE ACTIVITIES REFERENCES APPENDIX A: DESCRIPTIONS OF RANKED PROJECTS APPENDIX B: PRELIMINARY PROJECT LIST i

4 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Gallatin River Watershed Map Figure 2-1. Location map of identified potential restoration projects Figure 2-2. Initial Project Identification and Characterization (Buddy Drake, Travis Morris, Bruce Rich, and Mike Vaughn) Figure 2-3. Restoration project ranking scorecard Figure 3-1. Overall project ranking results, Lower Gallatin Watershed Restoration Planning Figure 3-2. Results of project rankings for fisheries benefit, Lower Gallatin Watershed Restoration Planning Figure 3-3. Results of project rankings for water quality benefit, Lower Gallatin Watershed Restoration Planning Figure 3-4. Results of project rankings for water quantity benefit, Lower Gallatin Watershed Restoration Planning Figure 3-5. Results of project rankings for riparian benefit, Lower Gallatin Watershed Restoration Planning Figure 3-6. Results of project rankings for direct public benefit, Lower Gallatin Watershed Restoration Planning.19 Figure 3-7. Results of project rankings for watershed context, Lower Gallatin Watershed Restoration Planning Figure 3-8. Results of project rankings for social feasibility, Lower Gallatin Watershed Restoration Planning LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Restoration Planning Meeting Attendees, Dec, 10, Table 2. Restoration Planning Meeting Attendees, January 20, Table 3. Restoration prioritization scoring results, Gallatin Watershed Table 4. TMDL listings for streams ranked in prioritization process Table 5. Ongoing USFS road decommissioning and sediment control projects, Gallatin River Watershed ii

5 1 Introduction The following report summarizes the results of a restoration planning effort performed as part of a DNRC Planning Grant (#RPG ) sponsored by the Gallatin Conservation District in partnership with the Greater Gallatin Watershed Council (GGWC). 1.1 Project Need The need for this project stems from a current lack of any aquatic resource restoration plan for the Gallatin Watershed. Because of this lack of any planning document, the GGWC has requested the development of a prioritized list of potential stream corridor restoration projects. This project identification, characterization, and ranking can then provide a basic tool for the acquisition of additional resources for project feasibility assessments, design, and implementation. The plan is also intended to provide GGWC with a means of intermittently (e.g. annually) re-evaluating its priorities and achievements and updating the prioritizations accordingly. The fundamental premise of this prioritization effort is that water resource professionals who work in the Gallatin River Watershed are aware of areas that are good candidates for active stream and riparian restoration. To that end, the primary focus of this effort is to collaborate with representatives from government agencies, private sector professionals, non-profit organizations, and landowners to collectively identify and rank restoration opportunities in the watershed. Because of the limited resources associated with this project, this initial step towards project identification is necessarily coarse. Whereas a list of dozens of potential projects have been identified, there has been no direct contact with individual landowners to assess their interest in project execution, no formal design concept development, no alternatives analysis or formal cost estimations. It is anticipated that these more detailed aspects of project feasibility will be explored in more detail as projects become better defined. The result is intended to be a living document to define and track project identification, characterization, and implementation efforts by GGWC and its partners. 1.2 Project Types The original RRGL Planning Grant application for this project states the following: The renewable resource that will be impacted by this project will be stream and riparian corridor segments and associated fish and wildlife values that are identified as high priority for restoration activities. These segments will be identified through a restoration prioritization effort carried out under this grant. The projects that were therefore assessed in this effort include stream restoration projects that focus on ecological benefit. The project therefore did not directly address water resource development such as irrigation requirements or water storage. 1

6 1.3 Planning Grant RPG The planning grant received by GGWC is part of the DNRC Renewable Resource Project Planning Grant program ( More specifically, the application type for Technical Feasibility and Study Grants, with a limit of $10,000, that is described as follows:...to pay for contracted engineering or technical consultant services that may be necessary to the preparation of a PER or a Technical Narrative or may stand alone. The study must lead to the development of a stronger renewable resource project or a stronger funding application. The grant application, grant award, and contracted scope of work held between GGWC and DTM Consulting Inc. all describe the results of this project to consist of a stand-alone document that will support future RRGL implementation funding efforts. As such, this project should be considered a Pre-Planning Tool for future application towards project implementation (Lindsay Volpe, DNRC, personal communication). The results are therefore not provided as a PER or Technical Narrative for a single project, but as a Restoration Prioritization Report that identifies and generally describes an entire suite of potential projects. 1.4 Future RRGL Funding Objectives The long-term objective of the Greater Watershed Gallatin Council is to develop strong RRGL applications for the implementation of worthy restoration projects in the Gallatin Watershed. To that end, this prioritization process will be used to identify projects that have the potential to support the mission of GGWC and provide solid RRGL funding opportunities. Once this planning project is completed, GGWC can work with potential project partners to further characterize worthy efforts and develop Technical Narratives or Preliminary Engineering Reports for RRGL applications. GGWC will likely pursue additional grant funding for these efforts under the same DNRC Project Planning Grant Program through the $15,000 Preliminary Engineering/Technical Narrative Grant application type. As such, this process is the first of a multi-step effort in project definition, design, and implementation. The prioritization effort has attempted to identify any projects that have preliminary engineering analyses completed to the point where the submission of a 2010 RRGL grant application is feasible without any additional funding. Very few projects were identified as such, and therefore it is most likely that the results will be leveraged in the 2012 grant cycle. Although no projects were identified as appropriate for 2010 RRGL application by the Gallatin CD, one prioritized project is being strongly considered for an application by Bozeman High School faculty. This report is being utilized to support that effort. 1.5 Geographic Extent The original intent of this project was to rank projects throughout the entire Gallatin Watershed (Figure 1-1), which includes the West Gallatin River drainage up to Yellowstone National Park. In the process of project identification, however, it became clear that the existing watershed group in the Upper Gallatin watershed above Spanish Creek (Blue Water Task Force) is 2

7 interested in pursuing a similar effort specifically for that area. To that end, projects above Spanish Creek, including those in the Big Sky area, were not ranked as part of this effort. Once the BWTF completes their prioritization effort, their proposed project rankings can be integrated with the results presented herein to develop a comprehensive watershed-scale list of project opportunities and priorities. Figure 1-1. Gallatin River Watershed Map. 3

8 The Gallatin Conservation District is an important partner in this project, and the primary interests of the CD generally relate to agriculture-related projects that are located within their jurisdictional area. Most (~70%) of the projects identified in this effort fall into these categories, however several are located out of the CD s jurisdictional area (e.g. within the Bozeman City limits) or are non-agricultural in nature (e.g. outreach and education opportunities). These projects have been include in the prioritization as they meet the objectives defined in the project grant application and, in addition, they identify potential opportunities for GGWC to partner with other entities on projects that support their overall mission (e.g. Mandeville Creek -- Bozeman High School). 1.6 Acknowledgements The Gallatin Conservation District was instrumental in securing the planning grant for this effort, and we would like to extend our appreciation to Marcie Murnion for her assistance in both contracting and securing a meeting space. The Greater Gallatin Watershed Council was involved in all aspects of the project, from grant writing to meeting support. Sharlyn Gunderson-Izurieta provided assistance in meeting logistics and refreshments. And we would like to extend our sincere appreciation to members of the planning team. Our team members proved to be highly knowledgeable and enthusiastic, and each displayed a sincere commitment to effective management of water resources in the Gallatin Watershed. Numerous people donated their personal time towards the effort and for that we extend our thanks. 4

9 2 Methodology The basic intent of the planning effort was to identify, characterize, and rank potential restoration projects in the watershed based on existing knowledge of involved parties. The basic tasks associated with this effort included identification of restoration planning team members, facilitation of a project identification meeting, facilitation of a project ranking meeting, and GIS database compilation of results. 2.1 Restoration Prioritization Team Development With the assistance of GGWC, a preliminary list of potential team members was developed to include key individuals of the restoration industry in the valley. These individuals were then contacted to gage their interest and availability for the planning effort. The original invitees for the effort included people with valley-wide experience in stream restoration, agriculture, and natural resource management. Potential participants who had broad experience in the valley and could represent these interests were identified by the GGWC board. Of that original list, there were logistical difficulties in securing the involvement of several people, especially those directly representing agricultural interests. However, agricultural interests were represented in the process by a former water commissioner, two employees of the NRCS who work on a broad geographical scale with the agricultural community, and several people who assist the Gallatin CD board in 310 permit evaluations. Additionally, it should be noted that we did not seek participation from specific landowners representing only their property or specific stream corridor. For a basin-wide evaluation, it was more appropriate to involve individuals with broad knowledge of the basin to provide for increased objectivity in the ranking process. Landowner participation is critical once an individual project is identified and will be solicited at that time. Gallatin CD Board representation was requested but not achieved due to logistics. Ultimately, a total of 14 people participated in the restoration prioritization effort. 2.2 Prioritization Meetings The first meeting was held on December 10, 2009 at the USDA conference room in Bozeman. A list of meeting attendees is contained in Table 1. At this meeting, attendees were provided large plotted maps of the watershed. Using these maps and project characterization forms, potential projects were mapped and described in terms of resource limitations, cause of degradation, anticipated solutions, anticipated ecological benefit, social feasibility, limiting factors, rough cost, and potential funding sources. A total of 55 projects were described during this effort (Figure 2-1). 5

10 Figure 2-1. Location map of identified potential restoration projects. 6

11 Figure 2-2. Initial Project Identification and Characterization (Buddy Drake, Travis Morris, Bruce Rich, and Mike Vaughn). Table 1. Restoration Planning Meeting Attendees, Dec, 10, Tony Thatcher Karin Boyd Mark Story Buddy Drake Travis Morris Bruce Rich Mike Vaughn Wendy Williams Peter Skidmore Tammy Crone Jim Lovell Dan March Dan Durham George Alberda Kristin Gardiner Attendee Affiliation DTM Consulting, Inc. Applied Geomorphology USFS FWP Trout Unlimited MTFWP MTFWP USDA NRCS Skidmore Restoration Consulting, LLC Gallatin Local Water Quality District Confluence Consulting PBS&J Consulting, Inc. Gallatin CD West Gallatin Water Commission Blue Water Task Force 7

12 2.3 Development of Ranking Criteria At the end of the first meeting, ranking criteria were collaboratively developed by the Restoration Prioritization Team. This discussion led to the creation of a scoring sheet used to rank individual projects (Figure 2-3). These criteria reflect anticipated ecological benefits regarding fisheries, water quality, water quantity, and riparian conditions. General public benefit and overall context within the watershed and with respect to other projects were also rated. Each of these primary categories has between two and five sub-categories to allow more specific characterization of benefits. The scores were then normalized so each category was weighted the same. Figure 2-3. Restoration project ranking scorecard. A category described as Other allowed the team to record any understanding of landowner interest in the project, as well as order of magnitude cost estimations. These categories are intended to provide a general sense of landowner interest and cost. As 55 projects were considered, and many projects encompass entire streams, hundreds of landowners could be involved. It was therefore beyond the scope of this project to contact individual landowners to gage their support of any given project. Furthermore, we consider it premature to suggest to landowners that a project is under consideration on their property, as each ranked project will require future site-specific feasibility evaluations that will include landowner interest. As 8

13 GGWC is able to gage landowner interest in prioritized area, the prioritizations can be updated accordingly. The second and final restoration prioritization meeting was held on Wednesday, January 20, The intent of this meeting was to further characterize projects, to combine projects where appropriate, and to fill out scorecards for the remaining project list. Attendees for the second meeting are shown in Table 2. Table 2. Restoration Planning Meeting Attendees, January 20, Attendee Tony Thatcher Karin Boyd Buddy Drake Travis Morris Ron Edwards Mike Vaughn Wendy Williams Tammy Crone Jim Lovell Dan Durham Affiliation DTM Consulting, Inc. Applied Geomorphology FWP Trout Unlimited Blue Water Task Force MTFWP USDA NRCS Gallatin Local Water Quality District Confluence Consulting Gallatin CD 9

14 3 Results Scores were normalized by topic, so that each ranking category has the same total maximum score of 60. With this normalization, the highest total score any project could achieve is 420 points. Ultimately, rankings were developed for 28 projects in the watershed. The results of the prioritization are shown in Table 3 and Figure 3-1. An alphabetical listing of all scored projects, including detailed descriptions, mapped locations, and scoring details can be found in Appendix A. This information is all derived directly from the project database. The structure of the database allows projects to be ranked not only in terms of total score, but also in terms of general anticipated benefit. It is anticipated that this breakdown will facilitate the application of specific funding sources to given projects. Appendix B contains a listing of all of the originally identified projects, including those removed from the ranking effort due to project consolidation, project location, or lack of information. The results of the ranking effort show that the eight projects received over 300 points out of a maximum possible score of 420 points. These eight top-ranking projects represent a broad variety of project types and are as follows: 1. Flow Augmentation on the East Gallatin (369 pts): This proposed project consists of securing minimum instream flows on the East Gallatin River, especially in the Springhill/ Penwell area where dewatering during the irrigation season results in increased water temperatures that can be lethal to fish. 2. Bozeman Water Conservation (368 pts): This project consists of development of a comprehensive plan for municipal and private water conservation in the valley. This plan can then be used in outreach and education in support of water conservation, and will ensure that long-term water resource planning in the watershed include conservation measures as well as increased water supply. 3. Lower Mandeville Creek Restoration (336 pts): From Oak Street to Redwing Drive, Mandeville Creek is degraded with respect to water quality, riparian condition, and in-stream habitat. The proposed restoration project for Mandeville Creek is to establish a stream buffer in anticipation of future development. 4. Camp Creek Restoration (319 pts): Camp Creek is a highly degraded, 303d listed stream that has excellent restoration potential. The proposed Camp Creek restoration project consists of extensive restoration on the entire length of the stream to improve water quality and reduce channel instability along its course, which extends from near Anceny to the Gallatin River just east of Manhattan. 5. Yellow Dog Creek Nutrient Reduction (319 pts): Yellow Dog Creek is approximately three miles east of Godfrey Creek, and much of it is ditched through 10

15 agricultural fields. Opportunities exist to reduce non-point source derived nutrient concentrations in the creek. 6. Godfrey Creek Restoration (319 pts): Godfrey Creek flows along Churchill Road, through the eastern edge of the community of Churchill. The creek appears to terminate at the Moreland Ditch. The proposed project on Godfrey Creek consists of comprehensive restoration to address multiple resource limitations. 7. Story Creek Restoration (319 pts): Story Creek is a spring creek tributary to the East Gallatin River that flows north along Swamp Road before joining the East Gallatin south of Dry Creek School Road. The proposed project is active restoration of this degraded spring creek to improve fishery on Story Creek and East Gallatin River downstream. 8. Thompson Creek Restoration (307 pts): Thompson Creek is a tributary spring creek to the East Gallatin River, entering the East Gallatin north of Belgrade at Dry Creek Road. The proposed project on Thompson Creek is restoration of a degraded spring creek that has been impacted by agricultural land uses. 3.1 Estimated Costs In the ranking process, the prioritization team applied a coarse cost estimate to each project. These estimates reflect the following order of magnitude-based cost ranges: $: <10,000 $$: $10,000-$100,000 $$$: $100,000-1,000,000 $$$$:->1,000,000 These costs reflect the professional judgment of the restoration planning team, and do not reflect any formal cost estimation information such as that provided by a project design. To that end, these estimated costs should be considered highly approximate estimations of costs associated with project design and implementation. The estimates are intended to assist project sponsors in the identification of appropriate funding sources for individual projects. 11

16 Table 3. Restoration prioritization scoring results, Gallatin Watershed. Project Name Estimated Cost * Fisheries Water Quality Water Quantity Riparian Weighted Score Direct Public Benefit Context Social Feasibility Total Score East Gallatin River Flow Augmentation $$$ Bozeman Water Conservation $$ Lower Mandeville Creek Restoration $$ Camp Creek $$$$ Yellow Dog Creek - Nutrient Reduction $$$ Godfrey Creek $$$$ Story Creek Restoration $$$ Thompson Spring Creek Restoration $$$ Bull Run Restoration $$$ Mandeville Creek - Bozeman High School $$$ Ben Hart Restoration $$$ Cowan Spring Creek Restoration $$$ Gibson Spring Creek Restoration $$$ East Gallatin River Bank Stabilization $$$ Rehabilitation Rey Creek Restoration $$$ Trout Creek Restoration $$ Wylie Creek Restoration $$ East Main Wetland $$$ Farmers Canal Siphon at Middle Cr $$$ South Cottonwood Flow Augmentation $$$ Pass Creek Restoration at On-Stream Feedlot $$ Mandeville Creek - MSU $$ Trout Creek - Irrigation headgate $$ Churn Creek - Channel Restoration $$$ Bozeman Creek Restoration $$$ Gallatin and E Gallatin River - Water Mgmt $$ Gallatin River at Nobel Ditch Diversion $$ Highline Ditch Fish Screen $$$ * Estimated cost range: $$: <$100,000 $$$: $100,000-$1,000,000 $$$$ >$1,000,000 12

17 Figure 3-1. Overall project ranking results, Lower Gallatin Watershed Restoration Planning. 13

18 3.2 Fisheries Seventeen proposed projects received the maximum score possible for fisheries benefit (Figure 3-2). All of these projects have been recognized as having a high anticipated fisheries benefit with respect to both habitat complexity and spawning habitat. Many of these streams are spring creeks that feed the East Gallatin River, and restoration of these spring creeks (Story, Thompson, Bull Run, Benhart, Cowan, Gibson, Rey, and Trout Creeks) has been highlighted as having an exceptionally high potential resource benefit with regard to fisheries. All of these spring creeks are currently impacted by agricultural land uses, and land use management and active restoration can be a highly cost-effective endeavor on these systems. Fisheries Benefit Score (Total Possible = 60) East Gallatin River Flow Augmentation Bozeman Water Conservation Lower Mandeville Creek Restoration Camp Creek Restoration Yellow Dog Creek Nutrient Reduction Godfrey Creek Restoration Story Creek Restoration Thompson Spring Creek Restoration Bull Run Restoration Mandeville Creek Bozeman High School Benhart Creek Restoration Cowan Spring Creek Restoration Gibson Spring Creek Restoration East Gallatin River Bank Stabilization Rey Creek Restoration Trout Creek Restoration Wylie Creek Restoration East Main Wetland Farmers Canal Siphon at Middle Creek South Cottonwood Flow Augmentation Pass Creek Restoration at On Stream Feedlot Mandeville Creek MSU Trout Creek Irrigation headgate Churn Creek Channel Restoration Bozeman Creek Restoration Gallatin and E Gallatin River Water Mgmt Figure 3-2. Results of project rankings for fisheries benefit, Lower Gallatin Watershed Restoration Planning. 14

19 3.3 Water Quality A total of six projects scored the maximum value for water quality benefit (Figure 3-3). These projects include the following: 1. Flow augmentation on the East Gallatin: this proposed project consists of securing minimum instream flows on the East Gallatin, especially between the Springhill/Penwell Reach, where summer low flows result in increased water temperatures. 2. Bozeman Water Conservation: The water conservation project reflects outreach and education efforts for water conservation in the valley to reduce the currently anticipated need for additional water storage. 3. Lower Mandeville Creek Restoration: From Oak Street to Redwing Drive, Mandeville Creek is degraded with respect to water quality, riparian condition, and in-stream habitat. The proposed restoration project for Mandeville Creek is to establish a stream buffer in anticipation of future development. 4. Camp Creek Restoration: The proposed Camp Creek restoration project consists of extensive restoration on the entire length of the stream to improve water quality and reduce channel instability along its course. 5. Yellow Dog Creek Nutrient Reduction: Yellow Dog Creek is located approximately 3 miles east of Godfrey Creek, and much of the channel is ditched through irrigated fields. The proposed project is to reduce non-point source nutrient loading to the stream. 6. Godfrey Creek Restoration: Godfrey Creek is currently impacted by feedlots and stream corridor grazing; restoration along the creek has been proposed to address poor water quality. 15

20 Water Quality Benefit Score (Total Possible = 60) East Gallatin River Flow Augmentation Bozeman Water Conservation Lower Mandeville Creek Restoration Camp Creek Restoration Yellow Dog Creek Nutrient Reduction Godfrey Creek Restoration Story Creek Restoration Thompson Spring Creek Restoration Bull Run Restoration Mandeville Creek Bozeman High School Benhart Creek Restoration Cowan Spring Creek Restoration Gibson Spring Creek Restoration East Gallatin River Bank Stabilization Rey Creek Restoration Trout Creek Restoration Wylie Creek Restoration East Main Wetland Farmers Canal Siphon at Middle Creek South Cottonwood Flow Augmentation Pass Creek Restoration at On Stream Feedlot Mandeville Creek MSU Trout Creek Irrigation headgate Churn Creek Channel Restoration Bozeman Creek Restoration Gallatin and E Gallatin River Water Mgmt Figure 3-3. Results of project rankings for water quality benefit, Lower Gallatin Watershed Restoration Planning. 3.4 Water Quantity Four projects received the maximum score possible for benefits to water quantity in streams (Figure 3-4). This scoring is based on impacts to water consumption and impacts to instream flows. The projects that received a score of 60 provide an anticipated maximum benefit with respect to both reduced water consumption and augmented in-stream flow conditions. These four projects are as follows: 1. Flow Augmentation on the East Gallatin: This proposed project consists of securing minimum instream flows on the East Gallatin, especially within the Springhill/Penwell reach, where summer low flows result in increased water temperatures. 2. Bozeman Water Conservation: The water conservation project reflects outreach and education efforts for water conservation in the valley to reduce the currently anticipated need for additional water storage. 3. Farmers Canal Siphon at Middle Creek: At the intersection of Farmers Canal and Middle Creek, the canal intersects directly with Middle Creek. As a result, any flow 16

21 in Middle Creek is conveyed into the canal, resulting in severe dewatering of Middle Creek downstream of the canal crossing. The construction of a siphon that would separate the two features has been proposed to reduce flow depletions on Middle Creek. 4. South Cottonwood Creek Flow Augmentation: From Cottonwood Road down to Farmer s Canal, the creek is commonly entirely dewatered due to irrigation diversion. Fish passage, water quality, and instream habitat are all compromised. Water Quantity Benefit Score (Total Possible = 60) East Gallatin River Flow Augmentation Bozeman Water Conservation Lower Mandeville Creek Restoration Camp Creek Restoration Yellow Dog Creek Nutrient Reduction Godfrey Creek Restoration Story Creek Restoration Thompson Spring Creek Restoration Bull Run Restoration Mandeville Creek Bozeman High School Benhart Creek Restoration Cowan Spring Creek Restoration Gibson Spring Creek Restoration East Gallatin River Bank Stabilization Rey Creek Restoration Trout Creek Restoration Wylie Creek Restoration East Main Wetland Farmers Canal Siphon at Middle Creek South Cottonwood Flow Augmentation Pass Creek Restoration at On Stream Feedlot Mandeville Creek MSU Trout Creek Irrigation headgate Churn Creek Channel Restoration Bozeman Creek Restoration Gallatin and E Gallatin River Water Mgmt Figure 3-4. Results of project rankings for water quantity benefit, Lower Gallatin Watershed Restoration Planning. 3.5 Riparian Riparian benefit scores are based on overall terrestrial habitat improvements, wildlife corridor benefits, ecological connectivity, and wetlands benefits. Based on these factors, a total of 12 proposed projects achieved the maximum score for riparian benefit (Figure 3-5). These projects are all conceptualized to have both passive (e.g. riparian fencing) and active (e.g. revegetation) components to their work. All are stream projects with the exception of the East Main wetland restoration project on the east end of Bozeman. 17

22 Riparian Benefit Score (Total Possible = 60) East Gallatin River Flow Augmentation Bozeman Water Conservation Lower Mandeville Creek Restoration Camp Creek Restoration Yellow Dog Creek Nutrient Reduction Godfrey Creek Restoration Story Creek Restoration Thompson Spring Creek Restoration Bull Run Restoration Mandeville Creek Bozeman High School Benhart Creek Restoration Cowan Spring Creek Restoration Gibson Spring Creek Restoration East Gallatin River Bank Stabilization Rey Creek Restoration Trout Creek Restoration Wylie Creek Restoration East Main Wetland Farmers Canal Siphon at Middle Creek South Cottonwood Flow Augmentation Pass Creek Restoration at On Stream Feedlot Mandeville Creek MSU Trout Creek Irrigation headgate Churn Creek Channel Restoration Bozeman Creek Restoration Gallatin and E Gallatin River Water Mgmt Figure 3-5. Results of project rankings for riparian benefit, Lower Gallatin Watershed Restoration Planning. 3.6 Direct Public Benefit The public benefits of the proposed projects were evaluated in terms of recreational value, public demonstration potential, and public access. As such, projects on public land tend to score high in this category. Five proposed projects scored the maximum value for public benefit (Figure 3-6). 1. Flow Augmentation on the East Gallatin: This proposed project consists of securing minimum instream flows on the East Gallatin, especially between the Springhill/Penwell Reach, where summer low flows result in increased water temperatures. This project would provide direct public benefit due to the access and recreational value provided by the river. 2. Lower Mandeville Creek Restoration: From Oak Street to Redwing Drive, Mandeville Creek is degraded with respect to water quality, riparian condition, and in-stream habitat. The proposed restoration project for Mandeville Creek is to establish a stream buffer in anticipation of future development. This property is partially on publically owned property. 18

23 3. Mandeville Creek Restoration, Bozeman High School: Along North 11 th Street in Bozeman, Mandeville Creek is ditched between the high school and the road. Restoration of this stream segment has the potential to provide substantial public benefit through its demonstration value and public access on the high school grounds. 4. East Gallatin River Bank Armor Rehabilitation: The East Gallatin River currently hosts a myriad of armoring types, many of which greatly diminish the ecological and aesthetic conditions on the stream. An inventory of existing armor has been performed, and replacement of armor to improve its aesthetics and habitat elements while maintaining stability would provide significant public benefit due to the recreational value provided by the river. 5. Bozeman Creek Restoration: Bozeman Creek is a degraded urban channel that is highly visible to the community. In most places it is channelized, and through downtown it flows below street level. The creek also flows through a public city park (Bogert Park). Restoration of this creek to provide an improved riparian and restoration corridor has the potential to provide major benefit to the public. Figure 3-6. Results of project rankings for direct public benefit, Lower Gallatin Watershed Restoration Planning. 19

24 3.7 Watershed Context The concept of watershed context was included in the scoring process to help identify those projects that provide a broader-scale benefit based on its association with other projects or overall watershed-scale context. Three projects received the maximum score for watershed context (Figure 3-7): 1. Flow augmentation on the East Gallatin: this proposed project consists of securing minimum instream flows on the East Gallatin, especially between the Springhill/Penwell Reach, where summer low flows result in increased water temperatures. 2. Bozeman Water Conservation: The water conservation project reflects outreach and education efforts for water conservation in the valley to reduce the currently anticipated need for additional water storage. 3. East Main Wetland Restoration: There is the potential for restoration of the East Main Wetland that would expand ongoing mitigation work by the Montana Department of Transportation. As such, the project ranks high with regard to overall context. 20

25 Watershed Context Rating Score (Total Possible = 60) East Gallatin River Flow Augmentation Bozeman Water Conservation Lower Mandeville Creek Restoration Camp Creek Restoration Yellow Dog Creek Nutrient Reduction Godfrey Creek Restoration Story Creek Restoration Thompson Spring Creek Restoration Bull Run Restoration Mandeville Creek Bozeman High School Benhart Creek Restoration Cowan Spring Creek Restoration Gibson Spring Creek Restoration East Gallatin River Bank Stabilization Rey Creek Restoration Trout Creek Restoration Wylie Creek Restoration East Main Wetland Farmers Canal Siphon at Middle Creek South Cottonwood Flow Augmentation Pass Creek Restoration at On Stream Feedlot Mandeville Creek MSU Trout Creek Irrigation headgate Churn Creek Channel Restoration Bozeman Creek Restoration Gallatin and E Gallatin River Water Mgmt Figure 3-7. Results of project rankings for watershed context, Lower Gallatin Watershed Restoration Planning. 3.8 Social Feasibility The social feasibility ranking reflects anticipated landowner support and cooperation. The project team based the score on existing knowledge of landowner interest; it is critical to note that landowners were not contacted as part of this effort. This ranking element will be dynamic through time due to changes in local interest or transfers of ownership. In general, a ranking of three indicates unknown landowner support; anything lower or higher than a value of three reflects some knowledge of landowner resistance or support, respectively. Two projects received the maximum score for social feasibility (Figure 3-8): 1. Mandeville Creek Restoration, Bozeman High School: Along North 11 th Street in Bozeman, Mandeville Creek is ditched between the high school and the road. High school personnel have been pursuing grant funding for this project, and as such its feasibility for implementation is high. 2. Trout Creek Irrigation Headgate: At Gallatin Road off of Penwell Road Bridge, there is a fish passage barrier on a headgate/diversion structure on Trout Creek. 21

26 Removal of this passage barrier would improve habitat connectivity on Trout Creek, and project team members indicated landowner support for the project. Social Feasibility Score (Total Possible = 60) East Gallatin River Flow Augmentation Bozeman Water Conservation Lower Mandeville Creek Restoration Camp Creek Restoration Yellow Dog Creek Nutrient Reduction Godfrey Creek Restoration Story Creek Restoration Thompson Spring Creek Restoration Bull Run Restoration Mandeville Creek Bozeman High School Benhart Creek Restoration Cowan Spring Creek Restoration Gibson Spring Creek Restoration East Gallatin River Bank Stabilization Rey Creek Restoration Trout Creek Restoration Wylie Creek Restoration East Main Wetland Farmers Canal Siphon at Middle Creek South Cottonwood Flow Augmentation Pass Creek Restoration at On Stream Feedlot Mandeville Creek MSU Trout Creek Irrigation headgate Churn Creek Channel Restoration Bozeman Creek Restoration Gallatin and E Gallatin River Water Mgmt Figure 3-8. Results of project rankings for social feasibility, Lower Gallatin Watershed Restoration Planning. 22

27 4 Summary and Recommendations This collaborative restoration planning effort reflects a first step in developing a comprehensive restoration plan for the Gallatin Watershed. Many of the projects are highly conceptual in nature, lacking the level of preliminary design and cost estimation necessary for many grant programs. In order to secure funding for projects, additional project characterization and conceptual designs will be required. The following sections provide several recommendations for further action. 4.1 Partnering It will be critical for the GGWC to develop partners as this restoration plan evolves. Many of the funding sources, such as the Renewable Resource Grant and Loan (RRGL) program must be applied for by governmental entities. As such, partnering with the Gallatin Conservation District or the Gallatin Local Water Quality District will help secure funding and administrative capacities for project implementation. 4.2 Further Planning Opportunities The potential projects described in this report reflect the existing knowledge of water resource professionals in the Gallatin Watershed. To that end, many of the projects are highly conceptual in nature. In order to take the next step towards implementation, it may be highly appropriate to secure planning grant funding to characterize these projects more fully. When securing planning funding, multiple projects can be evaluated simultaneously. For example, spring creek tributaries to the East Gallatin River consistently rank as having high fisheries and riparian benefits. These streams could be evaluated as a system in order to further prioritize implementation efforts. To that end, it may be appropriate for the Gallatin CD and GGWC to pursue a planning grant to develop conceptual designs sufficient to secure implementation funding for these spring creek restoration opportunities. 4.3 Development Project Opportunities One of the projects that consistently scored high in this effort is the Bozeman Water Conservation project, which is described as outreach and education efforts for water conservation to reduce the need for additional municipal storage in the future. This project, if successful, has the potential to reduce the impacts of growth on stream conditions throughout the valley. As an outreach effort, it does not reflect on the ground implementation approaches associated with other projects. MTDEQ 319 mini-grants, which provide $1500 towards local education and outreach efforts that address water quality issues, may be appropriate for this type of project. 4.4 Blue Water Task Force Prioritization Numerous projects originally identified in this effort are located above the Spanish Creek confluence with the West Gallatin River. These projects include: Nutrient reductions on the Middle Fork of the West Fork Gallatin River Nutrient reductions at horse corrals on Beaver Creek Culvert reconfiguration on Beehive Creek 23

28 Reduction of Gallatin Canyon septic density Ultimately, these projects were excluded from the ranking process due to interest by the Blue Water Task Force (BWTF) to develop a prioritization scheme specifically for this upper watershed area. Once this process is complete, the results should be integrated with the rankings herein to provide a watershed-wide planning document. 4.5 Integration with TMDL Planning Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) planning is ongoing in the Lower Gallatin watershed. This planning includes the determination of water quality impairments and development of water quality goals for streams identified as impaired. Numerous streams identified in this process are currently listed as impaired on the 303(d) listings for the Lower Gallatin Planning Area (PBS&J, 2007). For these streams, the Clean Water Act section 319 grant program, administered by Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), may provide a means of implementation funding. The 319 grant program has three categories for competitive projects, including watershed restoration, groundwater protection/restoration, and education/outreach. According to DEQ, the biennium grant cycles will focus on the following 1. Watershed restoration projects, including planning and implementation, for watersheds with approved TMDLs and science-based, locally supported Watershed Restoration Plans (WRPs). 2. Groundwater protection/restoration projects, including planning and implementation of completed TMDLs or a Source Water Protection Plan. 3. Education and Outreach (E&O) opportunities that address watershed or statewide needs as identified in the 2007 non-point source Management Plan. 24

29 Table 4. TMDL listings for streams ranked in prioritization process. Waterbody Probable Causes of Impairment Probable Sources of Impairment Camp Creek Alteration in stream-side or littoral vegetative covers Fecal coliform Low flow alterations Nitrogen (Total) Other anthropogenic substrate alterations Physical substrate habitat alterations Sedimentation/Siltation Agriculture Animal feeding operations (NPS) Grazing in riparian or shoreline zones Irrigated crop production Channelization Natural sources East Gallatin River (Headwaters to Bridger Creek) East Gallatin River (Bridger Creek to Reese Creek) East Gallatin River (Reese Creek to mouth) Nitrogen (Total) Phosphorus (Total) Alteration in stream-side or littoral vegetative covers Excess algal growth Low flow alterations Nitrogen (Total) ph Phosphorus (Total) Alteration in stream-side or littoral vegetative covers Nitrogen (Total) ph Grazing in riparian or shoreline zones Municipal (urbanized high density area) Residential districts Yard maintenance Grazing in riparian or shoreline zones Irrigated crop production Municipal point source discharges Yard maintenance Grazing in riparian or shoreline zones Municipal point source discharges Gallatin River Low flow alterations Irrigated crop production Godfrey Creek Alteration in stream-side or littoral vegetative covers Excess algal growth Fecal coliform Nitrogen (Total) Phosphorus (Total) Sedimentation/Siltation Hyalite (Middle) Creek Sourdough Creek (also known as Bozeman Creek) Chlorophyll-a Phosphorus (Total) Total Kjehldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Alteration in stream-side or littoral vegetative covers Chlorophyll-a Escherichia coli Phosphorus (Total) Sedimentation/Siltation Total Kjehldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Agriculture Animal feeding operations (NPS) Grazing in riparian or shoreline zones Rangeland grazing Silviculture harvesting Unspecified unpaved road or trail Channelization Grazing in riparian or shoreline zones Irrigated crop production Loss of riparian habitat Septic sewage disposal Yard maintenance South Cottonwood Creek Low Flow Alteration Irrigated crop production Thompson Creek Alteration in stream-side or littoral vegetative covers Chlorophyll-a Nitrogen (Total) Sedimentation/Siltation Grazing in riparian or shoreline zones 25

30 4.6 Integration with ongoing US Forest Service activities Ongoing activities on USFS land in the Gallatin Watershed were described and recorded at the first meeting by Mark Story, the Gallatin Forest Hydrologist. These projects have funding and are under way, hence there is no apparent GGWC role in their execution. However, as these are all headwaters areas, it is important for GGWC to remain aware of them, to allow integration of various efforts for maximum ecological outcome. The relevant projects occurring in the Gallatin National Forest are listed in Table 5. Table 5. Ongoing USFS road decommissioning and sediment control projects, Gallatin River Watershed. Streams Details Comments Big Bear/Little Bear/ Storm Castle Creeks Hyalite Creek Swan, Moose, Portal, Tamphery Creeks Road decommissioning (29 miles), additional fence closures, improved road BMPs, and culvert removal planned for Estimated Cost: $176,000. Funding Source: National Forest CMLG (Legacy) Funds. Road decommissioning (19 miles), additional fence closures, barricade closures, weed treatment ATV trail removal, improved road BMPs, and culvert removal affecting approximately 30 miles of roads planned for Estimated Cost: $135,000. Funding Source: National Forest CMLG (Legacy) Funds. Road decommissioning (14 miles), culvert removal, improved road BMPs, and weed treatments on an additional 30 miles planned for Estimated Cost: $107,000. Funding Source: National Forest CMLG (Legacy) Funds. Roads are the major source of anthropogenic sediment in this area. Westslope cutthroat trout occur in West Wilson Creek; historically this area has been heavily logged. The roads in Hyalite are the major source of anthropogenic sediment to the drainage. Hyalite is the major water source for the Bozeman Water Treatment Plant. Erosion and sediment have a negative impact on drinking water and the fishery. Roads are a major source of anthropogenic sediment to the drainage. Roads and trails source sediment and promote delivery to streams. 26

31 5 References PBS&J, Lower Gallatin Watershed Characterization Report. Report prepared for Greater Gallatin Watershed Council and Montana Department of Environmental Quality, August, 2007, 40p. 27

32 28

33 Appendix A: Descriptions of Ranked Projects

34

35 Stream Name Benhart Creek Project Name Benhart Creek Restoration Project ID 56 Description Benhart Creek is a spring creek tributary to the East Gallatin River, joining the East Gallatin River approximately 2.5 miles downstream of Dry Creek Road. The proposed project is to restore the degraded spring creek to a highly productive fishery and riparian corridor. Type of Project Spring Creek Restoration Resource Limitations Headwater spring areas have been drained and ditched. Riparian degradation and excess sediment accumulations in channel bed. Cause of Degradation Bank erosion and riparian clearing associated with stream corridor land use practices have degraded fish habitat and riparian vegetation. Anticipated Solutions A fundamental approach to addressing agriculturally impacted spring creek degradation would be appropriate, including sediment removal, cross section/sinuosity modifications, riparian revegetation, and land use management. Anticipated Benefits Anticipated benefits include improved spawning and rearing habitat in support of the East Gallatin River fishery, reduced water temperatures, and improved riparian conditions in the stream corridor. Social Feasibility Social feasibility is likely high due to perceived landowner support. Anticipated Cost Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources Future Fisheries, RRGL Limiting Factors Notes Some restoration work has taken place on Benhart Creek; future work should evaluate the performance of previously implemented restoration measures. Weighted Scores Fisheries 60 Water Quality 48 Water Quantity 24 Riparian 60 Direct Public Benefit 12 Context 54 Social Feasibility 36 Total Weighted Score 294 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 1 of 28

36 Stream Name Bozeman Creek Project Name Bozeman Creek Restoration Project ID 40 Description Create an improved riparian and recreation corridor along Bozeman Creek through Bozeman. The section of creek that runs through Bogert Park could be a separate project from the rest of the creek. Type of Project Stream Restoration Resource Limitations Instream and riparian habitat, water quality, flooding. Sourdough (Bozeman) Creek is 303 (d) listed for multiple impairments. Cause of Degradation Channelization and residential encroachment, riparian degradaion, bank instability at access points. Anticipated Solutions Reconfigure the planform of Bozeman Creek and restore a riparian buffer where feasible. Work with the ongoing efforts at Bogert Park to improve creek condition through public park. Assist with outreach/education where public access is good. Anticipated Benefits Improved habitat, water quality and recreational value. Reduced flood impacts. Good public benefit. Social Feasibility Challenging, but potentially tremendous social value. Due to its high visibility and use,this project would likely receive solid public support. Anticipated Cost Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources Brownsfield, 319. Friends of Bogert Park, 15K Planning Grant Limiting Factors The urban setting creates severe spatial constraints for restoration activities. Flooding issues must be considered in any channel modifications. Notes A citizens group working on Bogert Park is developing a Master Plan that includes stream restoration concepts. Weighted Scores Fisheries 18 Water Quality 21 Water Quantity 12 Riparian 21 Direct Public Benefit 60 Context 27 Social Feasibility 48 Total Weighted Score 207 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 2 of 28

37 Stream Name Project Name Bull Run Bull Run Creek Project ID 10 Description Bull Run Creek is a spring creek tributary to the East Gallatin River; its mouth is approximately 2 miles upstream of the East Gallatin/West Gallatin confluence. The project consists of approximately 1.5 miles of spring creek restoration from Burnt Road to the East Gallatin River. Type of Project Spring Creek Restoration Resource Limitations Fish, water quality, general spring creek degradation. Excess sediment, lack of shading, partial dewatering. Cause of Degradation Overgrazing, bank trampling, over wide channel, loss of pool habitat, poor sediment transport. Historic straightening, heavy grazing on some reaches, riparian clearing. Anticipated Solutions Riparian fencing, channel narrowing, sediment removal, pool habitat restoration, riparian revegetation, planform restoration, flow augmentation, and irrigation efficiency. Anticipated Benefits Anticipated benefits include spawning/recruitment to the E. Gallatin River, as Bull Run Creek has high potential as a major spawning tributary for the East Gallatin River. A project would also improve water quality in the E. Gallatin River and Bull Run Creek. Social Feasibility Lower end (the lowermost ~1mile) is currently in a Conservation Easement. An effort was underatken in 2004 to organize a watershed group to do a systematic restoration. The effort ended when a landowner chose not to participate. Anticipated Cost $150,000 Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources FFIP, 319, RRGL Limiting Factors Private landowner interest, landowner collaboration. Notes A mitigation bank related restoration project is underway on Bull Run Creek upstream of Burnt Road. Weighted Scores Fisheries 60 Water Quality 48 Water Quantity 24 Riparian 60 Direct Public Benefit 12 Context 54 Social Feasibility 36 Total Weighted Score 294 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 3 of 28

38 Stream Name Camp Creek Project Name Camp Creek Restoration Project ID 39 Description Camp Creek flows northward from near Anceny to its confluence with the Gallatin River just east of Manhattan. This project would include channel restoration, riparian revegetation, and stabilization where necessary on the entire length of Camp Creek. Type of Project Bank Stabilization/Water Quality/Habitat Restoration Resource Limitations Excess sediment, riparian degradation, water quality degradation, channel instability. Camp Creek is 303(d) listed for multiple impairments. Cause of Degradation Augmentation of flow from canals to creek. Canal releases in to Camp Creek commonly occur at Highline Canal and possibly Low Line Canal. Irrigation returns impact water quality. The channel is incised due to channelization. Most of the stream corridor is grazed with high density livestock. Anticipated Solutions Riparian fencing, revegetation, water gaps, more intense grazing management. Filter strips, buffers, and relocated feedlots, apply grade controls and bank stabilization as necessary, re establish natural planform. Anticipated Benefits Improved spawning habitat; re establishment of fishery, and improvement of water quality in Camp Creek and Gallatin River. Reduced sediment and nutrient loads, increased shading. Improved water quality. Compliance with DEQ and AFO/CAFO Social Feasibility Landowner support is variable. There is a conservation easement in place at the mouth of the creek, and one in the upper watershed immediately below the Highline Canal. Anticipated Cost $500,000 Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources 319; DNRC Grants, EQIP AFO/CAFO; NRCS, FFP Limiting Factors Landowner interest in modifying current land use practices. Notes Three projects were submitted for Camp Creek and they are all combined into this single description. Weighted Scores Fisheries Water Quality Water Quantity Riparian Direct Public Benefit Context Social Feasibility Total Weighted Score Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 4 of 28

39 Stream Name Churn Creek Project Name Churn Creek Channel Restoration Project ID 45 Description Recently developed flood maps of the East Gallatin River show flooding in the Stonegate Subdivision, and Churn Creek contributes to this East Gallatin overflow area. Type of Project Stream Restoration Resource Limitations Downstream flooding in Stonegate Subdivision. Cause of Degradation Land use, channelization. Anticipated Solutions In the event that a project is undertaken by the county or FEMA to address flooding issues, GGWC and GCD may have opportunities to contribute towards channel and riparian restoration. Anticipated Benefits Mitigation of flooding downstream. Riparian and wetland restoration of function. Social Feasibility New floodplain maps indicate that E. Gallatin overflows follow swale on north edge of valley. Anticipated Cost Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources Limiting Factors The flood mapping is currently receiving public comment. Notes The primary problem is not Churn Creek, but E. Gallatin River overflows that flow along Manley Rd. Weighted Scores Fisheries 24 Water Quality 24 Water Quantity 12 Riparian 48 Direct Public Benefit 44 Context 27 Social Feasibility 36 Total Weighted Score 215 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 5 of 28

40 Stream Name Project Name East Main Wetland City of Bozeman Description Wetland enhancements at the East Main/I 90 interchange. Project ID 50 Type of Project Wetland Restoration Resource Limitations Development and ditching has degraded water quality, wetland preservation, birding, wildlife through a large wetland area. Cause of Degradation Flow paths have been modified by ditching and topographic modifications. A threat of development makes the area vulnerable to continued degradation. Anticipated Solutions Work with the landowner of the wetland to develop a plan to preserve the site. Anticipated Benefits Water quality improvements within and downstream of the wetland, improved recreational opportunities, and enhanced wildlife and bird habitat. Social Feasibility Feasibility relies entirely on landowner support; good public support is likely, especially with the proximity of this site to an ongoing MDT wetland mitigation project. Anticipated Cost $500,000 Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources Easement donation by landowner; ducks unlimited, wetland restoration granting sources. Limiting Factors Landowner interest Notes Most feasible solution may be to buy property from landowner. Weighted Scores Fisheries 12 Water Quality 48 Water Quantity 12 Riparian 60 Direct Public Benefit 48 Context 60 Social Feasibility 36 Total Weighted Score 276 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 6 of 28

41 Stream Name Cowan Creek Project Name Cowan Creek Restoration Project ID 58 Description Cowan Creek is a spring creek tributary to the East Gallatin River. Its confluence with the East Gallatin is just north of Dry Creek School Road, immediately east of Gibson Creek. The proposed project is restoration of an agriculturally impacted spring creek tributary to the East Gallatin River. Type of Project Spring Creek Restoration Resource Limitations Headwater spring areas have been drained and ditched. Riparian degradation, channel overwidening, channelization, and excess sediment accumulations in channel bed. Cause of Degradation Bank erosion and riparian clearing have degraded fisheries and riparian habitat in stream corridor. Anticipated Solutions A fundamental approach to addressing agriculturally impacted spring creek degradation would be appropriate, including sediment removal, cross section/sinuosity modifications, riparian revegetation, and land use management. Anticipated Benefits Anticipated benefits include improved spawning and rearing habitat in support of the East Gallatin River fishery, reduced water temperatures, and improved riparian conditions in the stream corridor. Social Feasibility The extent of landowner support for a restoration project on Cowan Creek is unknown. Anticipated Cost Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources Future Fisheries, RRGL Limiting Factors Notes Weighted Scores Fisheries 60 Water Quality 48 Water Quantity 24 Riparian 60 Direct Public Benefit 12 Context 54 Social Feasibility 36 Total Weighted Score 294 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 7 of 28

42 Stream Name East Gallatin River Project Name East Gallatin River Bank Stabilization Rehabilitation Project ID 36 Description Multiple sites on the East Gallatin River have delapidated armor that contributes to bank instability, recreational hazards, and poor aesthetics. A GIS inventory of armor has been done (Toshi Sagara, MSU Student). Concrete riprap is in the channel at several locations including the Cherry River fishing access. This project could be performed through the East Gallatin Recreation Area. Type of Project Bank Stabilization Rehabilitation Resource Limitations Recreational hazards, aesthetic decay, degraded water quality, fisheries and riparian habitat. Cause of Degradation Haphazard placement of various forms of bank protection. Anticipated Solutions Remove armor that is unnecessary or contributes to resource degradation. Replace with sloped vegetated banks where feasible, or apply "soft" stabilization approaches. Consider a potential project between the Boy's and Girl's club and the stockyards upstream as that area has consolidated land ownership. Anticipated Benefits Decreased instability caused by poorly functioning armor. Increased shade, and reduced water temperatures. Improved fish habitat, aesthetics, and public safety. Social Feasibility Much of the East Gallatin River is located on private property,hence a comprehensive approach would require extensive landowner support. Downstream of Cactus Rd, wher bank armor includes mink cages, landowner support is likely good. Anticipated Cost Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources Trout Unlimited, DNRC RRGL, DEQ 319 Limiting Factors Local support for bank armor modifications. Notes The armor inventory is available from the Gallatin CD web site. Weighted Scores Fisheries 60 Water Quality 57 Water Quantity 12 Riparian 21 Direct Public Benefit 60 Context 45 Social Feasibility 36 Total Weighted Score 291 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 8 of 28

43 Stream Name East Gallatin River Project Name East Gallatin River Flow Augmentation Project ID 55 Description Seasonal dewatering on the East Gallatin River during irrigation season in the Springhill/Penwell area has led to elevated water temperatures in the river that negatively impact the fishery. This project would increase minimum instream flows to address the thermal degradation caused by dewatering. Type of Project Water Management Resource Limitations Elevated stream temperatures and degraded habitat. Cause of Degradation Dewatering. Anticipated Solutions Identify opportunities to increase minimum instream flows on the East Gallatin river. As feasible, secure minimum flows during the irrigation season. Anticipated Benefits Minimum instream flows, improved connectivity and habitat, reduced water temperatures. Social Feasibility Unknown level of interest from landowners and water users. Anticipated Cost Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources 319, DNRC Planning Grant Limiting Factors Notes TMDL planning is underway for East Gallatin, and it is listed for flow alterations. Weighted Scores Fisheries 60 Water Quality 60 Water Quantity 60 Riparian 33 Direct Public Benefit 60 Context 60 Social Feasibility 36 Total Weighted Score 369 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 9 of 28

44 Stream Name Gallatin River Project Name Gallatin River Flanked drop structure at Nobel Ditch Diversion Project ID 2 Description Approximately 3 miles downtsream of the mouth of Gallatin Canyon, a ~3/4 mile extent of raw, eroding right bank on Turner property. At this point, the river splits into two channels, and at this point an old rock drop structure has been flanked. Water is diverted from west channel into Nobel Ditch. Type of Project Bank Stabilization, Revegetation Resource Limitations Downstream of the flanked grade control structure, a long section of eroding bank has produced excessive bedload that is contributing to instability downstream. Cause of Degradation The river aggraded upstream of the drop structures, and the upper structure has been flanked, causing extensive right bank erosion against a hayfield (Turner). The east channel is now carrying larger flows, but lacks reinforcing bank vegetation. This is leading to increased bank erosion rates and associated bedload delivery. Anticipated Solutions Regrade slope, revegetate and seed. Anticipated Benefits Reduce accelerated bedload delivery, improve bank stability; create riparian buffer. Social Feasibility Nobel Ditch is an imortant resource, so a stable channel/diversion configuration is important for water users. This project sould provide an excellent opportunity for collaboration with Trout Unlimited and public volunteers. Anticipated Cost $10,000 Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources Trout Unlimited; DNRC Renewable Resource Grant Loan; 319. Limiting Factors The eroding bankline is against a hayfield on private land, so access may be limited. Notes A conservation easement is in place at the site. The ditch company has considered rebuilding the grade control weirs, however due to cost, they are now considering placing concrete jersey barriers at the head of the flow split. Weighted Scores Fisheries 24 Water Quality 27 Water Quantity 12 Riparian 30 Direct Public Benefit 20 Context 27 Social Feasibility 48 Total Weighted Score 188 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 10 of 28

45 Stream Name Gallatin River Project Name Highline Ditch Fish Screen Description Construct a fish screen at the Highline Ditch diversion to prevent fish entrainment into the ditch. Project ID 33 Type of Project Irrigation Infrastructure Resource Limitations Entrainment of fish into the Highline Ditch may be impacting the fishery. Cause of Degradation Currently, the Highline Ditch is fed by a very large unscreened diversion. Anticipated Solutions Construction of an effective fish screening device following the evaluation of entrainment rates into ditch. Anticipated Benefits More recruitment of juvenile fish to the Gallatin River fishery. Stop loss of adult fish. Social Feasibility Unknown Anticipated Cost $500,000 Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources Future Fisheries, Trout Unlimited Limiting Factors High cost, landowner interest. Notes Prior to constructing an expensive fish screen, it will be important to determine the extent to which fish are entrained into the ditch. Weighted Scores Fisheries 36 Water Quality 12 Water Quantity 12 Riparian 12 Direct Public Benefit 28 Context 33 Social Feasibility 24 Total Weighted Score 157 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 11 of 28

46 Stream Name Gallatin Valley Project Name Bozeman Water Conservation Project ID 27 Description Support outreach and education efforts for water conservation to reduce the anticipated future need for water storage. Type of Project Water Conservation Resource Limitations There is an ongoing effort to explore additional reservoir storage options for the City of Bozeman in response to the anticipated increased demand for municipal/residential water in the near future. Cause of Degradation Population growth and associated water usage Anticipated Solutions Develop a comprehensive plan for municipal and private water conservation, to ensure that conservation measures are included in longterm water resource planning. Anticipated Benefits Successful conservation measures could provide a substantial cost savings to the city and its tax payers. Reduced usage would benefit instream flow maintenance, channel integrity, and stream ecology. Social Feasibility The ongoing feasbility assessment regarding additional reservoir storage options in the Gallatin watershed will likely create a high level of social feasibility for conservation outreach and education. Anticipated Cost Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources Potentially, the city could allocate funds towards to education, outreach, and incentives implemetation for water conservation. A 319 out Limiting Factors Would benefit from support from city and county water planners; their interest in conservation measures is unknown. Notes The concentration of growth within the Bozeman City limits will likely require additional municipal water sources that are likely to concentrate on surface water sources. More diffuse growth beyond city limits will access, and potentiall strain groundwater sources. The development of effective conservation measures is thus appropriate for the entire watershed. Weighted Scores Fisheries 60 Water Quality 60 Water Quantity 60 Riparian 48 Direct Public Benefit 44 Context 60 Social Feasibility 36 Total Weighted Score 368 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 12 of 28

47 Stream Name Gallatin Valley Project Name Gallatin River and East Gallatin River Water Management Project ID 30 Description Perform an inventory of irrigation diversions to facilitate effective water management. Prioritize existing diversions and develop conceptual designs for improvements where warranted. Type of Project Water Management Resource Limitations Inability to provide for minimum instream flows, poor habitat conditions at diversions, fish entrainment into diversions. Cause of Degradation Poor diversion function, channel instability at diversion sites, lack of flow measurement devices on diversions. Anticipated Solutions Measuring devices on diversion structures, improved diversion efficiency; improved habitat conditions at site of diversion. Anticipated Benefits Improved diversion efficiency, improved habitat conditions. Social Feasibility Depends on individual property rights issues, access, cooperation. Anticipated Cost Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources EQUIP, AWEP Limiting Factors Project would require significant interest and leadership from water users. Notes May be opportunity to partner with irrigation districts at problem sites. Weighted Scores Fisheries 24 Water Quality 21 Water Quantity 48 Riparian 12 Direct Public Benefit 20 Context 36 Social Feasibility 36 Total Weighted Score 197 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 13 of 28

48 Stream Name Gibson Creek Project Name Gibson Creek Restoration Project ID 57 Description Gibson Creek is a predominantly spring fed tributary to the East Gallatin River. Its confluence with the East Gallatin is just north of Dry Creek School Road. The proposed project is restoration of an agriculturally impacted spring creek tributary to the East Gallatin River. Type of Project Spring Creek Restoration Resource Limitations Headwater spring areas have been drained and ditched. Riparian degradation, channel overwidening, channelization, and excess sediment accumulations in channel bed. Cause of Degradation Bank erosion and riparian clearing have impacted the channel cross section, instream habitat, and riparian habitat. Anticipated Solutions A fundamental approach to addressing agriculturally impacted spring creek degradation would be appropriate, including sediment removal, cross section/sinuosity modifications, riparian revegetation, and land use management. Anticipated Benefits Anticipated benefits include improved spawning and rearing habitat in support of the East Gallatin River fishery, reduced water temperatures, and improved riparian conditions in the stream corridor. Social Feasibility The extent of landowner support for a restoration project on Gibson Creek is unknown. Anticipated Cost Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources Future Fisheries, RRGL Limiting Factors Notes Weighted Scores Fisheries 60 Water Quality 48 Water Quantity 24 Riparian 60 Direct Public Benefit 12 Context 54 Social Feasibility 36 Total Weighted Score 294 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 14 of 28

49 Stream Name Project Name Godfrey Creek Godfrey Creek Project ID 12 Description Godfrey Creek flows along Churchill Road, through the eastern edge of the community of Churchill. The creek appears to terminate at the Moreland Ditch. The proposed project on Godfrey Creek consists of comprehensive restoration to address multiple resource limitations. Type of Project Bank Stabilization/Water Quality/Habitat Restoration Resource Limitations Degraded fish and riparian habitat, excess sediment, excess nutrients, fecal coliform, elevated water temperature. Cause of Degradation Feedlots and poor grazing management. Anticipated Solutions Riparian fencing, bank stabilization, water gaps, riparian revegetation, grazing management, feedlot relocation, channel narrowing, pool habitat enhancement, improved fish passage at culverts. Anticipated Benefits Improved fisheries and spawning. Improved water quality in receiving water bodies. Reduced instream temperatures, reduced sediment and nutrient loading, compliance with DEQ and AFO/CAFO. Social Feasibility Team member indicated that several landowners are currently resistant to changes in land use management. Overall access to Godfrey Creek is excellent. Anticipated Cost $500,000 Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources Future Fisheries, DEQ 319, EQIP AFO/CAFO Limiting Factors Landowner resistance to modified land use practices. Notes TMDL planning is underway for multiple listings on Godfrey Creek. Weighted Scores Fisheries 60 Water Quality 60 Water Quantity 48 Riparian 60 Direct Public Benefit 28 Context 51 Social Feasibility 12 Total Weighted Score 319 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 15 of 28

50 Stream Name Hyalite Creek Project Name Farmers Canal siphon at Hyalite (Middle) Creek crossing Project ID 4 Description Construction of siphon on Farmer's Canal where it crosses Hyalite Creek, approximately 1.5 miles upstream (south) of Huffine. Type of Project Flow augmentation Resource Limitations Low flows in Hyalite Creek Cause of Degradation Currently, Middle Creek is entirely captured by the Farmers Canal at the point of their intersection. Middle Creek is severely dewaterd downstream as a result. Anticipated Solutions Separation of the canal from the creek channel. Anticipated Benefits Temperature, discharge downstream in Hyalite Creek. Social Feasibility Social feasibilty appears good, as resistance has dropped in recent years. Anticipated Cost $100,000 Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources EQUIP Limiting Factors Notes Weighted Scores Fisheries 60 Water Quality 12 Water Quantity 60 Riparian 36 Direct Public Benefit 12 Context 48 Social Feasibility 36 Total Weighted Score 264 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 16 of 28

51 Stream Name Mandeville Creek Project Name Lower Mandeville Creek restoration Project ID 21 Description Lower Mandeville Creek flows northward between North 7th and North 19th Avenues in Bozeman, entering the East Gallatin River just west of the Cherry River Fishing Access. The proposed project is for improved management of urban runoff, and an improved riparian corridor and fisheries resource. Type of Project Stream Restoration Resource Limitations Poor water quality, excess sediment, riparian and fisheries degradation. Cause of Degradation Excessive sediment loads from street sanding and stream bank erosion. Anticipated Solutions Address stormwater runoff upstream. Between Oak Street and Redwing Drive, estabilish a stream buffer to improve water quality. Implement the project in ancitipation of future development of site by City for light industrial/commercial use. Anticipated Benefits Riparian recovery, and potential support to the East Gallatin fishery. Social Feasibility This project would likely require cooperation between private businesses, the City of Bozeman, and DNRC Lands. Anticipated Cost $10,000 Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources DNRC, DEQ Limiting Factors The section of the stream upstream of Red Wing Drive should be addressed to reduce the heavy sediment loads impacting Mandeville Creek and the East Gallatin River. Notes Previous willow planting efforts on this section of Mandivelle Creek have been largely unsuccessful; poor growing medium (clays) has been suggested as cause. Weighted Scores Fisheries 60 Water Quality 60 Water Quantity 12 Riparian 60 Direct Public Benefit 60 Context 48 Social Feasibility 36 Total Weighted Score 336 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 17 of 28

52 Stream Name Mandeville Creek Project Name Mandeville Creek Restoration at Bozeman High School Description Channel restoration and bank stabilization at Bozeman High School. Project ID 44 Type of Project Stream Restoration Resource Limitations Water Quality, fishery, aesthetics. Cause of Degradation Urban stormwater runoff, channelization, riparian vegetation clearing. Anticipated Solutions Restore channel sinuosity, implement stormwater BMPs, and restore native vegetation. Create educational opportunities for high school students to promote long term stewardship of stream corridor. Anticipated Benefits Reduced stormwater inputs to increase water quality. Reduced sediment loading, and increased public awareness of resource on high school property. Educational opportunities for high school students. Social Feasibility High, especially with educational components and secured funding outside of the Bozeman School District. Anticipated Cost $100,000 Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources DEQ 319, DNRC, EPA, Future Fisheries Limiting Factors There are multiple land use issues associated with severe encroachment into the channel corridor, heavy foot traffic, and upstream land use management problems. Notes Ongoing efforts from BHS personnel have resulted in a Future Fisheries grant award for $25,000. This project may provide an excellent partnering opportunity with high school faculty and Trout Unlimited. Weighted Scores Fisheries 36 Water Quality 51 Water Quantity 12 Riparian 27 Direct Public Benefit 60 Context 48 Social Feasibility 60 Total Weighted Score 294 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 18 of 28

53 Stream Name Mandeville Creek Project Name Mandeville Creek at MSU Riparian Restoration and Water Quality Improvements Project ID 59 Description Through Montana State University (south of College Avenue), Mandeville Creek is ditched and vegetated with shallow rooted landscaping grasses. Adjacent parking lots drain into the creek. This project is to manage stormwater runoff, revegetate the riparian corridor with deep rooted native species, and modify groundskeeping practices along the creek. Type of Project Bank Stabilization/Water Quality/Habitat Restoration Resource Limitations Water quality, aesthetics, and potentially fisheries. Cause of Degradation Riparian vegetation degradation and conversion of landscape to short rooted (Kentucky Bluegrass) vegetation along stream corridor. Creek has also been channelized. Adjacent parking lots directly transmit stormwater to creek. Anticipated Solutions Plant native, deep rooting riparian species. Reroute parking lot drains and implement stormwater BMPs Anticipated Benefits Improved water quality and aesthetic value within stream corridor on MSU campus Social Feasibility Would require cooperation by MSU facilities and management to implement an effective project. Anticipated Cost $10,000 Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources MSU, EPA, DEQ, DNRC 223 Limiting Factors Urban encroachment into corridor and stormwater runoff from immediately adjacent parking lots may prove spatially challenging with respect to stormwater BMP implementation. Notes Weighted Scores Fisheries 24 Water Quality 39 Water Quantity 12 Riparian 33 Direct Public Benefit 56 Context 42 Social Feasibility 36 Total Weighted Score 242 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 19 of 28

54 Stream Name Pass Creek Project Name Pass Creek Restoration at on stream feedlot Project ID 37 Description On the lower end of Flathead Pass Road, a feedlot is located on Pass Creek. The site is located just upstream of the intersection of Rocky Mountain Road and Flathead Pass Rd. Type of Project Water Quality Resource Limitations Water Quality Cause of Degradation On stream feedlot near the headwaters of Pass Creek. Anticipated Solutions Relocate the feedlot out of the stream corridor, and restore a riparian buffer. Anticipated Benefits Water quality improvements; reduced sediment and nutrient inputs. Social Feasibility Requires interest of landowner; unknown. Anticipated Cost $20,000 Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources NRCS EQIP Limiting Factors Notes Weighted Scores Fisheries 48 Water Quality 57 Water Quantity 12 Riparian 60 Direct Public Benefit 12 Context 42 Social Feasibility 12 Total Weighted Score 243 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 20 of 28

55 Stream Name Project Name Rey Creek Rey Creek Project ID 9 Description Rey Creek is on the westernmost edge of the watershed, joining the Gallatin below Logan. It is a spring creek, with its headwaters located just northwest of Buffalo Jump State Park. It has been reported that trout are absent in the lower section of Rey Creek. Type of Project Spring Creek Restoration Resource Limitations Rey Creek is primarily spring fed. Overgrazing has caused bank damage, channel widening, loss of habitat and thermal impacts. Cause of Degradation Overgrazing, trampling, high irrigation flows. Anticipated Solutions Riparian fencing with grazing management, and local bank stabilization as necessary. Re establish appropriate width to depth ratios by narrowing the channel, restore riparian vegetation corridor, restore pool habitat through active modificatio of channel cross section. Anticipated Benefits This project could be very important as the lower Gallatin is limited with respect to tributary spawning amd recruitment areas. A restoration project on Rey Creek would also improve water quality downstream. Social Feasibility Unknown Anticipated Cost $600,000 Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources Future Fisheries, Trout Unlimited, RRGL Limiting Factors Multiple landowners, with no knowledge of their interest. Notes As lowermost watershed tributary, could provide great benefit to mainstem Gallatin fishery. Weighted Scores Fisheries 60 Water Quality 48 Water Quantity 24 Riparian 60 Direct Public Benefit 24 Context 48 Social Feasibility 24 Total Weighted Score 288 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 21 of 28

56 Stream Name South Cottonwood Creek Project Name South Cottonwood Creek Flow Augmentation Project ID 22 Description From Cottonwood Road down to Farmers Canal, the stream is dry during the irrigation season due to outtakes, resulting in fish passage and water quality problems. Type of Project Irrigation Resource Limitations Portions of South Cottonwood Creek are dry during the irrigation season. Cause of Degradation Irrigation diversions; seasonal dewatering. Anticipated Solutions Work with irrigators to maintain minimum instream flows during irrigation season. Anticipated Benefits Year round connectivity between South Cottonwood Creek and the Gallatin River. Social Feasibility Unknown level of interest from agricultural water users; any instream flow improvements would require their involvement. Anticipated Cost Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources Potentially 319 funds due to TMDL listing for low flow alterations. Limiting Factors Local support for instream flow maintenance. Notes Weighted Scores Fisheries 60 Water Quality 12 Water Quantity 60 Riparian 36 Direct Public Benefit 12 Context 48 Social Feasibility 24 Total Weighted Score 252 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 22 of 28

57 Stream Name Story Creek Project Name Story Creek Restoration Project ID 29 Description Story Creek is a spring creek tributary to the East Gallatin River that flows north along Swamp Road before joining the East Gallatin south of Dry Creek School Road. The proposed project is active restoration of this degraded spring creek to improve fishery on Story Creek and East Gallatin River downstream. Type of Project Spring Creek Restoration Resource Limitations Headwater spring areas have been drained and ditched. Degraded fishery due to excessive sediment loading. Cause of Degradation Excess sediment loading due to riparian clearing, grazing, and county road construction/maintenance. Anticipated Solutions Narrow the channel to improve sediment transport capacity, actively remove excess sediment, improve stream corridor grazing practices. Anticipated Benefits Restore an important spawning tributary to the East Gallatin River. Social Feasibility Two landowner meetings and a riparian assessment are complete. Meetings with individual landowners are scheduled for Anticipated Cost Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources Costs have been estimated at $14/ft for 6 miles of channel. WHIP or EQUIP Special Incentive program may be appropriate sources. Limiting Factors Water rights issues. Notes This project meets NRCS goals and objectives to work on projects that can be feasibly accomplished from the headwaters of a creek to the confluence, involving more than 85% of the landowners. Efforts are underway by NRCS for project development. Weighted Scores Fisheries 60 Water Quality 48 Water Quantity 12 Riparian 54 Direct Public Benefit 32 Context 57 Social Feasibility 48 Total Weighted Score 311 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 23 of 28

58 Stream Name Thompson Creek Project Name Thompson Spring Creek Restoration Project ID 6 Description Thompson Creek is a tributary spring creek to the East Gallatin River, entering the East Gallatin north of Belgrade at Dry Creek Road. The proposed project on Thompson Creek is restoration of a degraded spring creek that has been impacted by agricultural land uses. Type of Project Spring Creek Restoration Resource Limitations Impaired spring creek function, sediment loading, degraded spawning habitat Cause of Degradation Agricultural use leading to channel widening, increased sediment loads, and fine sediment infilling. Pervasive lack of deep pools, exposed gravel substrate, etc. Anticipated Solutions Remove sediment, narrow channel, manage riparian corridor. Anticipated Benefits Sustainable fish habitat, contributing to health of East Gallatin Fishery. Social Feasibility Good, especially with non federal dollars Anticipated Cost $100,000 Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources $100K RDG Grant, 319. Limiting Factors Previous efforts with NRCS have failed, and a $100k future fisheries grant obtained several years ago has been reallocated to other projects. Notes A conceptual design exists for this project, making it amenable to a RRGL or 319 grant. GWC pursued $85,000 in 319 grand funding in 2007, however the project was downgraded in priority as a TMDL had not been completed for the stream. Weighted Scores Fisheries 60 Water Quality 48 Water Quantity 12 Riparian 54 Direct Public Benefit 40 Context 45 Social Feasibility 48 Total Weighted Score 307 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 24 of 28

59 Stream Name Trout Creek Project Name Trout Creek Restoration Project ID 52 Description Trout Creek is a spring creek tributary to the East Gallatin River, joining the East Gallatin just upstream of Hamilton Road north of Belgrade. The proposed project is to restore the degraded spring creek to a highly productive fishery and riparian corridor. Type of Project Spring Creek Restoration Resource Limitations Riparian degradation and excess sediment accumulations in channel bed. Cause of Degradation Bank erosion and riparian clearing have degraded fisheries and riparian habitat in stream corridor. Anticipated Solutions A fundamental approach to addressing agriculturally impacted spring creek degradation would be appropriate, including sediment removal, cross section/sinuosity modifications, riparian revegetation, and land use management. Anticipated Benefits Improved recruitment to East Gallatin, water quality improvements. Social Feasibility Level of support from local landowners is unknown. Anticipated Cost Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources Future fisheries, DNRC RRGL Limiting Factors Local support, fish passage barrier at East Gallatin Road. Notes Weighted Scores Fisheries 60 Water Quality 48 Water Quantity 12 Riparian 54 Direct Public Benefit 24 Context 57 Social Feasibility 24 Total Weighted Score 279 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 25 of 28

60 Stream Name Trout Creek Project Name Trout Creek Irrigation headgate Project ID 31 Description Trout Creek is a tributary to the East Gallatin River; its confluence with the E.Gallatin is ~1000 feet upstream of Hamilton Road. Approximately 1 mile upstream of its mouth, Trout Creek crosses under E. Gallatin Road, and there is a fish passage problem just downstream of the bridge at a headgate. Type of Project Fish Passage Resource Limitations Fish passage barrier Cause of Degradation Fish passage is impeded at the headgate/diversion. Anticipated Solutions Replace or modify the headgate/diversion to allow for passage. Anticipated Benefits Improved connectivity and access to fish spawning habitat onupper Trout Creek that will support the East Gallatin River fishery. Social Feasibility Social feasibility is generally good, as currently, landowners are interested in the project. Anticipated Cost $1,000 Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources Future Fisheries, RRGL Limiting Factors Notes Weighted Scores Fisheries 36 Water Quality 12 Water Quantity 12 Riparian 24 Direct Public Benefit 32 Context 42 Social Feasibility 60 Total Weighted Score 218 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 26 of 28

61 Stream Name Wylie Creek Project Name Wylie Creek Restoration Project ID 41 Description Just southeast of the intersection of Love Lane and E. Valley Center Rd, Wylie Creek has been channelized and impacted by small parcel horse grazing. Part of the degraded section is within subdivision open space area. Type of Project Riparian Restoration Resource Limitations Current grazing patterns have created sediment loading problem, and a small fishery is barely sustainable. Cause of Degradation Overgrazing in subdivisions. Anticipated Solutions Fencing and revegation; potential reconfiguration of ditched section along Love Lane. Anticipated Benefits Reduced sediment input, reduced water temperature, improved habitat. Social Feasibility Feasible with interest from subdivision residents. Anticipated Cost Existing Concept. Design Spring Creek Development Project Funding Sources DNRC/Conservation District Limiting Factors Landowner interest; some landowners likely amenable to reconfiguration of ditched section in their backyards. Notes May be opportunity to partner with homeowners group. This project has been identified as potentially excellent demonstration project due to its location in a subdivision. Weighted Scores Fisheries 48 Water Quality 51 Water Quantity 12 Riparian 60 Direct Public Benefit 44 Context 27 Social Feasibility 36 Total Weighted Score 278 Maximum score per category = 60 Maximum Total Score = 420 Friday, February 19, 2010 Page 27 of 28