Elk River Watershed | Qukin ?amak?is Connectivity Restoration Plan: 2021 - 2041

Situation Analysis

The following situation model was developed by the planning team to “map” the project context and brainstorm potential actions for implementation. Green text is used to identify actions that were selected for implementation (see ‘Strategies & Actions’), and red text is used to identify actions that the project team has decided to exclude from the current iteration of the plan, given that they were either outside of the project scope or were deemed to be ineffective by the planning team.

Strategies & Actions

Effectiveness evaluation of identified conservation strategies and associated actions to improve connectivity for Westslope Cutthroat Trout in the Elk River watershed. The planning team identified two broad strategies to implement through this WCRP, 1) barrier rehabilitation and 2) barrier prevention. Individual actions were qualitatively evaluated based on the anticipated effect each action will have on realizing on-the-ground gains in connectivity. Effectiveness ratings are based on a combination of “Feasibility” and “Impact”, Feasibility is defined as the degree to which the project team can implement the action within realistic constraints (financial, time, ethical, etc.) and Impact is the degree to which the action is likely to contribute to achieving one or more of the goals established in this plan.

Strategy 1: Barrier Rehabilitation

**Table** 1: Strategy 1
ID	Actions	Details	Feasibility	Impact	Effectiveness
1.1	Rehabilitate resource road barriers	This action represents some projects that would be led by the planning team with conservation funds (e.g., orphaned barriers or those owned by individuals), while other rehabilitation projects would be the responsibility of the barrier owner. Industry will have to be engaged to successfully implement this intervention.	High	Very high	Effective
1.2	Rehabilitate dams	Identify owners of dams that appear on the intermediate barrier lists (see Appendix C) and engage with them to explore technical and financial options.	Medium	Very high	Need more information
1.3	Rehabilitate major infrastructure crossings	In most cases, the planning team will engage with barrier owners, but the owners of the barrier would be responsible for the financial cost of rehabilitation. This includes building relationships with CP rail to open a two-way discussion on the scale, priority, and impact to their crossings on the watershed. Include the financial and ecological cost/benefits of rehabilitation options in communication with infrastructure owners.	Medium	Very high	Need more information
1.4	Barrier mititgation	Examples may include installing fish ladders on barriers that cannot be rehabilitated; however, temporary mitigation does not replace the need for barrier rehabilitation and removal. There are specific cases where temporary fixes are appropriate, but we will focus on long-term solutions wherever possible.	Medium	High	Need more information
1.5	Work with crossing owners to identify and rehabilitate barriers		High	High	Effective
1.6	Advocate for increased compliance and enforcement for specific, priority barriers	Request provincial and/or federal agencies to require that targeted, high-priority barriers be rehabilitated. This should be a last resort after working to engage barrier owners and ground-truthing the situation. It will be important to identify obstacles to applying compliance and enforcement measures in order to provide the appropriate information on these opportunities.	Very high	High	Effective
1.7	Work with FLNRORD to encourage road decommissioning that returns sites to a more natural condition	Encourage sharing and implementation of best practices for fish-passage-"friendly" road decommissioning.	Very high	Very high	Very effective
1.8	Integrate with other regional initiatives	Engage and pursue coordination and collaboration with existing initiatives, (e.g., Elk Valley Cumulative Effects Management Framework, the Upper Fording River Recovery Group, the Elk Valley Fish and Fish Habitat Committee, and terrestrial connectivity working groups).	Very high	Very high	Very effective
1.9	Raise funds to rehabilitate barriers (ownership dependent)	Where appropriate, collaborate within the planning team to raise conservation funds for rehabilitation projects. See “Funding Sources” for more information.	High	Very high	Effective
1.1	Knowledge Gap: Assess barriers by applying the provincial fish passage framework	The first three steps are, (1) barrier assessments, (2) habitat confirmations, and (3) rehabilitation designs. Barrier assessment data should be captured in the PSCIS database, which is available to all partners.	Very high	Very high	Very effective
1.11	Knowledge Gap: Identify key barriers for hybridization prevention below Elko Dam	Barrier rehabilitation below the Elko dam presents the potential increased risk of hybridization of genetically pure Westslope Cutthroat Trout populations due to reconnection to the Koocanusa Reservoir. As such, prior to any decision, a series of site assessments will need to be performed to assess the risk of hybridization. This action does not directly contribute to the goals, but implementation is necessary for the success of other actions. This strategy should be revisited with First Nations and government agents to determine whether it should be kept as a knowledge gap or if a different approach (i.e., to look at it from a watershed functionality perspective with less concern about hybridization risks) should be adopted.			Need more information
1.12	Knowledge Gap: Identify and map owners of priority barriers		High	High	Effective
1.13	Knowledge Gap: Prioritize barriers for the Upper Fording and Grave-Harmon populations	Due to the importance of these genetically pure populations within the watershed, ensure that barriers within these systems are evaluated if they do not rank highly in initial barrier prioritization efforts.	Very high	Very high	Very effective
1.14	Knowledge Gap: Continue updating the barrier prioritization model	The model process will be finalized, and prioritizations will be updated as new information becomes available.	Very high	Very high	Very effective
1.15	Knowledge Gap: Desktop mapping of lateral habitat and barriers; define lateral connectivity goals	This action does not directly contribute to the current goals, but setting lateral goals is a priority. Lateral barriers are considered a low threat in the Elk valley, however work on a provincial scale is underway to determine the impact of rail lines on lateral habitats.			Need more information
1.16	Knowledge gap: Ground truth lateral habitat and barriers	This action does not directly contribute to the current goals, but is an important step following action 1.15.			Need more information
1.17	Knowledge gap: Monitor temperature and flows; assess effectiveness of barrier rehabilitation projects	Effectiveness monitoring study design (Lotic) for rehabilitation sites. $35K monitoring equipment for ERA (CNFASAR).			Need more information

Strategy 2: Barrier Prevention

**Table** 2: Strategy 2
ID	Actions	Details	Feasibility	Impact	Effectiveness
2.1	Engage with land managers to share and implement best practices on stream crossings and fish passage	This should include encouraging better consultation before crossings are installed in the first place.	High	High	Effective
2.2	Support and engage with First Nations guardians programs where appropriate	This could include approaching KNC about their existing guardian program.	Very high	High	Effective
2.3	Engage with ATV clubs/recreation groups to share and implement best practices on stream crossings and fish passage	Trail-stream crossings have a low extent and severity in the watershed, and it is unlikely that ATV groups are creating barriers to fish passage.	High	Low	Not Effective

Theories of Change & Objectives

Theories of Change are explicit assumptions around how the identified actions will achieve gains in connectivity and contribute towards reaching the goals of the plan. To develop Theories of Change, the planning team developed explicit assumptions for each strategy which helped to clarify the rationale used for undertaking actions and provided an opportunity for feedback on invalid assumptions or missing opportunities. The Theories of Change are results oriented and clearly define the expected outcome. The following theory of change models were developed by the WCRP planning team to “map” the causal (“if-then”) progression of assumptions of how the actions within a strategy work together to achieve project goals.

**Figure** 2: Theory of change developed by the planning team for the actions identified under Strategy 1: Barrier Rehabilitation in the Elk River watershed.

**Figure** 3: Theory of change developed by the planning team for the actions identified under Strategy 2: Barrier Prevention in the Elk River watershed.

Operational Plan

The operational plan represents a preliminary exercise undertaken by the planning team to identify the potential leads, potential participants, and estimated cost for the implementation of each action in the Elk River watershed. Table 8 summarizes individuals, groups, or organizations that the planning team felt could lead or participate in the implementation of the plan and should be interpreted as the first step in on-going planning and engagement to develop more detailed plan for entries into this table. The individuals, groups, and organizations listed under the “Lead(s)” or “Potential Participants” columns are those that provisionally expressed interest in participating in one of those roles or were suggested by the planning team for further engagement (denoted in parentheses), for those that are not members of the planning team. The leads, participants, and estimated costs in the operational plan are not binding nor an official commitment of resources, but rather provide a roadmap for future coordination and engagement to work towards implementation of the WCRP.

**Table** 3: Operational plan to support the implementation of strategies and actions to improve connectivity for focal species in the Horsefly River watershed.
Strategy / Actions	Lead(s)	Participants	Total Budget
Strategy 1: Crossing Rehabilitation			$16,137,390.00
1.1 - Rehabilitate resource road barriers	CWF		$8,500,000.00
1.2 - Rehabilitate dams	CWF		$435,000,000.00
1.3 - Rehabilitate major infrastructure crossings		CWF	$6,700,000.00
1.4 - Barrier mititgation	CWF, SERN	CWF	*Built-in to 1.1 and 1.2
1.5 - Work with crossing owners to identify and rehabilitate barriers	Elk River Alliance (ERA)	(Windsight), CWF	$20,000
1.6 - Advocate for increased compliance and enforcement for specific, priority barriers	ERA	(Windsight), CWF	$20,000.00
1.7 - Work with FLNRORD to encourage road decommissioning that returns sites to a more natural condition	ERA	(Windsight)	$5,000.00
1.8 - Integrate with other regional initiatives	CWF	ERA	$25,000.00
1.9 - Raise funds to rehabilitate barriers (ownership dependent)	CWF		$200,000.00
1.10 - Knowledge Gap: Assess barriers by applying the provincial fish passage framework	CWF		$84,890.00
1.11 - Knowledge Gap: Identify key barriers for hybridization prevention below Elko Dam		CWF	$11,000.00
1.12 - Knowledge Gap: Identify and map owners of priority barriers	ERA	CWF	$1,500.00
1.13 - Knowledge Gap: Prioritize barriers for the Upper Fording and Grave-Harmon populations	CWF		Completed
1.14 - Knowledge Gap: Continue updating the barrier prioritization model	CWF		$50,000
1.15 - Knowledge Gap: Desktop mapping of lateral habitat and barriers; define lateral connectivity goals	ERA	CWF	$20,000.00
1.16 - Knowledge gap: Ground truth lateral habitat and barriers		CWF, ERA	$65,000
1.17 - Knowledge gap: Monitor temperature and flows; assess effectiveness of barrier rehabilitation projects	ERA	CWF	$50,000
Strategy 2: Barrier Prevention			$250,000.00
2.1 - Engage with land managers to share and implement best practices on stream crossings and fish passage	ERA	CWF	$100,000.00
2.2 - Support and engage with First Nations guardians programs where appropriate		CWF, KNC?	$140,000.00
2.3 - Engage with ATV clubs/recreation groups to share and implement best practices on stream crossings and fish passage
Total:			$17,024,140.00
Fundraising total:			$9,024,140
Proponent/government contribution total:			$8,000,000

Funding Sources

Table 4:
Confirmed funding sources for plan implementation in the Elk River watershed.
Funding Source	Scope of Work	Amount
Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program	Barrier assessments and habitat confirmations (2021-2022)	$63,000
Environmental Damages Fund	Engineering designs and rehabilitation implementation (2021-2022, 2022-2023, 2023-2024)	$500,000
Canada Nature Fund for Aquatic Species at Risk	Conservation planning, barrier assessments, habitat confirmations, engineering designs, and barrier rehabilitation (2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023)	~$300,000

Table 5:
Potential funding sources for plan implementation in the Elk River watershed. The Canadian Wildlife Federation and the planning team can coordinate proposal submission through these sources.
Funding Source	Spending Restrictions and Other Consideration
Land Based Investment Strategy	Assessment and restoration of fish passage using provincial strategic approach. Primarily for rehabilitation of Ministry-owned/orphaned barriers on forest service roads.
Environmental Enhancement Fund	Fish and wildlife passage improvements and restoration at stream and animal crossings at MOTI roads including culvert retrofits and replacement to restore Pacific salmon and trout access, and wildlife tunnels. Primarily for crossings linked to highway infrastructure.
Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation Enhancement and Restoration Grants	Projects that focus on freshwater wild fish, native wildlife species and their habitats, have the potential to achieve a significant conservation outcome, while maintaining or enhancing opportunities for fishing, hunting, trapping, wildlife viewing and associated outdoor recreational activities. Primary focus is on provincially managed fisheries such as Steelhead and Westslope Cutthroat Trout. Requires 50% funding match.
Environmental Damages Fund	Direct funds received from fines, court orders and voluntary payments to priority projects that will benefit Canada’s natural environment, under 4 categories of improvement (in order of preference): (1) restoration, (2) environmental quality improvement, (3) research and development, and (4) education and awareness.
Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program	Funding to conserve and enhance fish and wildlife in watersheds impacted by BC Hydro dams. Funding is for priority actions identified in the Columbia Region Action Plan. Funding available to First Nations, consultants, NGOs, individuals, agencies, and academic institutions.
Habitat Stewardship Program for Aquatic Species at Risk	Program for non-profits, Indigenous governments, academic institutions for activities that align with recovery actions identified in SARA recovery documents and/or COSEWIC assessment documents. Project must address one or more of 3 broad categories: (1) Important habitat for aquatic species at risk is improved and/or managed to meet their recovery needs; (2) Threats to aquatic species at risk and/or their habitat are stopped, removed, and/or mitigated; (3) Collaboration and partnerships support the conservation and recovery of aquatic species at risk. Limited to at-risk species listed under COSEWIC and/or SARA as threatened, endangered or special concern.
Canada Nature Fund for Aquatic Species at Risk	Funding program aimed at addressing priority threats for aquatic species at risk listed as endangered, threatened or Special Concern by COSEWIC, as they align with existing federal, provincial or other local recovery plans. Limited to species in the Columbia and Fraser basins in BC, among other priority areas across Canada. Focus on multi-year, multi-partner initiatives that apply an ecosystem or multi-species approach and create a legacy by enabling recovery actions that carry beyond the life of the funding program. Amounts from $100K-$1M available per year.
Aboriginal Fund for Species at Risk	Program for Indigenous groups for activities that align with recovery actions identified in SARA recovery documents and/or COSEWIC assessment documents for species listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by SARA or COSEWIC. Project must address one or more of 4 broad categories: (1) Habitat for species at risk is improved and/or managed to meet their recovery needs; (2) Threats to species at risk and/or their habitat are stopped, removed and/or mitigated; (3) Collaboration, information sharing and partnership between Indigenous communities, governments and organizations and other interested parties (e.g. federal/provincial/territorial governments, academia, industry, private sector) is enhanced; and (4) Capacity within Indigenous communities, to lead in the stewardship of species at risk and contribute to broader SARA implementation, is strengthened.
Colombia Basin Trust Envrionment Grants	Small (<$5K) and large grants (>$5K) for First Nation communities, municipalities and regional districts. Businesses may be considered depending on the project and its broad community impact. Enhance or conserve ecosystems and/or species of conservation concern. Funding for water projects, environmental education projects, and ecosystems projects: 1) reduce the threat of significant invasive species to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; and 2) ecosystem related research projects that contribute to ecosystem conservation and/or enhancement.
Federal Gas Tax Fund - Community Works Fund	Funding available to local governments from federal gas tax, with funds to be allocated for a variety of municipal projects/initiatives, including local roads/bridges and disaster mitigation.
Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund	For those projects where flood risk is high: Funding available to local, regional and provincial governments, private sector, non-profit organizations, and Indigenous groups for projects aimed at reducing the socio-economic, environmental and cultural impacts triggered by natural hazards and extreme weather events and taking into consideration current and future impacts of climate change in communities and infrastructure at high risk. Includes both new construction of public infrastructure and modification/reinforcement of existing infrastructure. Projects must have a minimum of $20 M in eligible expenditures and can be bundled together.
Community Gaming Grants	Funding for non-profit organizations (check funding program guidelines for specific eligibility requirements) for programs that help to protect and improve the environment by: (1) Conserving or revitalizing local ecosystems, (2) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, (3) Providing community education or engagement opportunities related to the environment and agriculture or (4) Supporting the welfare of domestic animals and/or wildlife. Grants range from $100K-250K per year.
Sitka Foundation	Funding for registered charities, universities, and government agencies (qualified Canadian organizations) for projects related to coastline and watershed conservation and climate change in 4 key areas: (1) land, water, and ocean conservation, (2) scientific research for nature and the environment, (3) public engagement around the importance of a healthy environment, (4) innovative conservation efforts in Canadian communities, at the local, provincial, and federal levels
TULA Foundation	Supports various environmental programs of interest to the Foundation on a case-by-case basis.
Vancouver Foundation	Granting agency for community, social and environmental initiatives for qualified Canadian organizations (charitable organizations, universities, government agencies). Granting programs change on an annual basis.
BC Conservation Foundation Small Project Fund	Funding available to Non-profits, fish and wildlife clubs (sportsmen’s associations), businesses, local/regional governments, public organizations and First Nations for projects with demonstrated positive impact for fish, wildlife and habitat, including outreach programs. Preference given to projects where BCCF is not the sole funder.
Real Estate Foundation of BC General Grants	Funding for First Nations, charities and societies, non-governmental organizations, universities and colleges, trade associations, local and regional governments, and social enterprises registered as C3s for sustainable land use and real estate practices in BC. Funds up to 50% of cash portion of a project.