Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
My timeline has gotten much longer. I’m not sure where I got the idea that we could or should do multiple BDA installations in one fell swoop, but I think it is a better idea to do one, see how that pans out after a week or a month, and then do another in a location that will not undermine the efforts of the first installation. If 7-10 BDAs remains the goal for the project area, this turn this project into a long, several month project, barring weather events or fire.
The stream isn’t very wide or deep, so the creation of 1 BDA will not take very much time or effort, so really a whole bunch of volunteers is not required.
The biggest barrier I am experiencing is getting back into the website to complete the permitting.
Cost/benefit analysis Cottonwood Creek Project
Costs:
Materials: existing conifers need to be removed or rearranged if already down. There is plenty of materials on site. Gas for transportation to the site and chainsaw fuel/maintenance are the biggest expenses, and those will be absorbed by the owner & volunteer doing the work.
Opportunity costs: at the beginning we made it clear that these are cattle operations, and cattle need access to the stream. We have learned some ways to guide and control the flow of cattle and even reap benefits from their inevitably tromping in the water. There will be no opportunity costs other than what we could be doing with our time instead of building and maintaining BDAs. This is the beauty of retired volunteers who need something to do, and who own chainsaws.
Short term benefits: In some areas we hope to see immediate stream division and currently dry areas flooding the way they used to. In other areas where the water backs up and deepens, we hope to see changes in the vegetation in the short term.
Long term benefits: the primary long term benefit will be increased water storage on the land. We are also working on conifer encroachment mitigation, so it is possible that there will be more water available to the stream from that effort, moving more slowly across the land from our BDA & stream division efforts.
If we are successful, there will be multiple benefits: elevated water table, improved habitat for wildlife and cattle, better soil, better fire resilience areas, and happier fish. I guess there will be financial benefits from that, too, but that is not the target.
I have a friend that says the land has been feeding the family for several generations, and it would be nice to feed the land for a change, instead.
February 9, 2026 at 7:24 pm in reply to: Module 1: Low Tech Process Based Restoration (LTPBR) Functions on Working Lands #5991Torrey Ritter the FWP Beaver Guy will visit Sue Pullman, Trudy Dawson, and Holly Harper’s project areas in the Cardwell area on Mar 4. He is coming from Missoula, so if other people around here want to hitch on this visit, maybe contact him and ask. torrey.ritter@mt.gov
February 9, 2026 at 7:04 pm in reply to: Module 3: Retaining Water (including Late Summer Flows) #5990I think the mod4 post is supposed to be “aha” moments from the mod4 materials that springboards from our mod3 post.
I didn’t have any aha moments, but module 4 did reinforce how cool it would be to have pre-identified & approved high country habitat for beaver so that when lowland conflict on the big rivers (Boulder & Jefferson) occurs, there is a place or places to transplant the beaver, ready to go.
January 24, 2026 at 10:04 pm in reply to: Module 3: Retaining Water (including Late Summer Flows) #5861Hello All, I have a sticky note that says “Feb 6-20 LTBBR course check-in TBD.” When is that going to be set? Please not a Thursday and not Valentine’s Day. I am romantically giving cow shots that day.
January 24, 2026 at 9:38 pm in reply to: Module 3: Retaining Water (including Late Summer Flows) #5859My project is multi-pronged, two with fairly controllable outcomes and one crap shoot.
1) The conifer mitigation is chainsaw work to increase water availability to grasses and water bodies. At a small scale it involves me and my chainsaw. At a large scale it is a grant-funded endeavor with a hired crew. Work in the summer will be determined by the fire conditions for saw work and vehicle access.
2) The construction of 7-10 BDAs in Cottonwood Creek is limited by permitting and manpower.
3) The eventual restoration of beaver to Cottonwood Creek will be determined by a site visit in March that will gauge suitability and advise goals for restoration work with beaver transplants in mind, and then the regulatory process and paperwork will be determined by the outcome of the EA decision in April. If the EA is not approved, the regulatory process is expensive, arduous, and possibly not worth the effort.
The timeline is uploaded, I think.
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.One of our large-scale projects has a desired end-goal of beaver restoration (Trudy and I have a lot of projects). The project areas is about ten acres along Cottonwood Creek on private ground. In general, there is less volume in Cottonwood Creek than in previous decades. Cottonwood Creek is a tributary to the Boulder River that flows into the Jefferson. There are small fish in the creek. Banks are incised within the 10 acres, and there are several areas that might benefit from a BDA. The areas has been logged but the conifers are getting more dense.
The creek bottom is rocky, so poking anything into the bottom will be difficult in most places. There are some willows around, but I think conifer limbs will comprise the bulk of any mitigating structure.
I’ve attached a link to a map that might not be in a format that anyone can open (KML), and a couple photos. The grey dotted line is a logging road. I am hoping some people with more experienced eyes than mine will come and give advice on how best to approach this project.
The economic impact of reduced water volume in river tributaries is difficult to pinpoint.
If anyone else has onX, here is a link. https://webmap.onxmaps.com/backcountry/map/query/45.987878,-111.981714,16.11/overview?link_id=01KEQG10D5Y6WGQHJTNYD0FVVZ&mode=trail
https://webmap.onxmaps.com/backcountry/share/content?share_id=01KEQDC7BRGGHTBNFZS19QHY1F
These are the coordinates of the pin in the screenshot 45.98469, -111.98241
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.January 1, 2026 at 2:59 am in reply to: Module 1: Low Tech Process Based Restoration (LTPBR) Functions on Working Lands #5802My land experience in this area is as a former seasonal range worker for the USFS, mainly spraying weeds & fencing. Currently, I spend as many days as possible on my horse, ostensibly looking for errant cows on private, BLM, and USFS land. Too many waterways need attention.
I work with/for two others in the class and intend to be a chainsaw-wielding cheerleader in muck boots and grant-writer as needed.
Timing-wise, this class is aligning with the writing of the “Draft Boulder Watershed Restoration Plan,” and they are interested in including the course participation and any resultant projects in the plan, which is cool and might free up some resources for more projects within the boundaries of the plan.
Sari– nice website & thank you for the bonus willow info!
December 23, 2025 at 12:48 pm in reply to: Module 1: Low Tech Process Based Restoration (LTPBR) Functions on Working Lands #5785Hi Sari, Great to see you back in the area! I think I am replying to your post, but I have zero confidence that I’m doing this correctly. I live on McKeown these days in Cardwell (not on the river)– where are you on the Jeff?
It will be fun to learn more about the way you are approaching your land restoration with the archeology overlay. Very cool!
~Holly Harper
-
AuthorPosts
