FY07-09 proposal 200706400
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Protect and Restore Slate Creek |
| Proposal ID | 200706400 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribe Dept. Fisheries Resource Management Watershed Division |
| Short description | Restore and protect the Slate Creek Watershed for the benefit of both resident and anadromous fish using an overall watershed approach. Restoration and protection efforts will be done cooperatively with the Nez Perce National Forest. |
| Information transfer | Results from restoration and watershed improvement activities will be published in monitoring and evaluation reports. New findings, restoration techniques, and any other new technologies incorporated into design and implementation will be published in project specific reports. Results of restoration work will be shared between Forest Service Districts, other Forests, within the Nez Perce Tribe, and other various agencies. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Jennifer Boie | Nez Perce Tribe | jenniferb@nezperce.org |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Jennifer Boie | Nez Perce Tribe | jenniferb@nezperce.org |
| Arleen Henry | Nez Perce Tribe | arleenh@nezperce.org |
| Ira Jones | Nez Perce Tribe | iraj@nezperce.org |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mountain Snake / Salmon
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 45.586 | -116.076 | Slate Creek | These lat. and lon. are an overall approximation of the entire watershed. The Slate Creek Watershed encompasses approximately 83, 034 acres. Please see narrative for more detailed description. |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESUprimary: Steelhead Snake River ESU
secondary: All Resident Fish
secondary: Westslope Cutthroat
secondary: Bull Trout
secondary: Interior Redband Trout
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 198909801 | Salmon Studies Id Rvrs USFWS | The Idaho Salmon Supplementation Studies, Project #8909801-8909803, is a project that is funded by BPA and has direct ties to the Slate Creek Watershed. Since 1992 the Idaho Fish and Game, the Nez Perce Tribe, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have conducted baseline monitoring including snorkeling and Redd surveys for Chinook salmon. The Idaho Salmon Supplementation Studies is a cooperative research project to test supplementation on an experimental basis. In order for this project to be successful, habitat conditions for fish need to be as propitious as possible. Sedimentation is presently occurring and the potential from further road degradation is great. Restoration work by this project proposal targets alleviating the potential for further habitat degradation in these supplementation streams by reducing road-derived damage. Slate Creek is used as a control stream in the study, since supplementation efforts have been dropped due to the listing of spring Chinook salmon (part of the larger ESA protected Snake River population). |
| BPA | 198909802 | Salmon Studies Id Rvrs NPT | The Idaho Salmon Supplementation Studies, Project #8909801-8909803, is a project that is funded by BPA and has direct ties to the Slate Creek Watershed. Since 1992 the Idaho Fish and Game, the Nez Perce Tribe, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have conducted baseline monitoring including snorkeling and Redd surveys for Chinook salmon. The Idaho Salmon Supplementation Studies is a cooperative research project to test supplementation on an experimental basis. In order for this project to be successful, habitat conditions for fish need to be as propitious as possible. Sedimentation is presently occurring and the potential from further road degradation is great. Restoration work by this project proposal targets alleviating the potential for further habitat degradation in these supplementation streams by reducing road-derived damage. Slate Creek is used as a control stream in the study, since supplementation efforts have been dropped due to the listing of spring Chinook salmon (part of the larger ESA protected Snake River population). |
| PCSRF - Idaho | 035 04 CW | Nez Perce Aquatic Restoration | The Nez Perce Tribe Dept. of Fisheries Watershed received PCSRF funds (PCSRF 035 04 CW) for the Nez Perce Aquatic Restoration project in 2004. The goal of the Nez Perce Aquatic Restoration project is to work towards the re-establishment of healthy self-sustaining populations of key fish species (spring Chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout, and westslope cutthroat trout) through increasing habitat in all life stages on the Nez Perce National Forest, including the Salmon River and SF Clearwater River subbasins. Target drainages include Slate Creek, White Bird Creek , Red River, Meadow Creek, and Mill Creek. The NPNF is a partner in completing these projects. The NPT and the NPNF have been working cooperatively in the area of watershed restoration since 1997. The completion of these projects will replace 9 barrier (adult and juvenile) culverts, decommission 53 miles of road, improve 6 miles of trail, restore 1.5 miles of stream, and enhance 23 sites within meadow/riparian habitat. Projects in the Slate Creek watershed include road decommissioning, trail work, riparian planting, and riparian fencing. |
| Other: Forest Service | Clean Slate | Clean Slate EIS | The Nez Perce National Forest has a Clean Slate EIS that defines needs in the watershed. Clean Slate is a watershed restoration project within the Slate Creek Watershed. The proposed action is designed to provide aquatic and terrestrial restoration through the reduction of roads, tree density, and fuel loading, and improved structural diversity of timber. Road decommissioning of some non-primary roads is suggested as activity to provide aquatic and terrestrial restoration. Many of the EIS proposed projects have already been completed . In addition to these projects (occurring primarily in the northern portion of the Slate Creek watershed), a larger restoration effort is also on-going in the Slate Creek watershed. The US Forest Service is an active partner in restoring the Slate Creek watershed, as they cost share portions of these projects in an effort to improve aquatic and terrestrial vegetation conditions. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A | Starting in important habitats, reduce instream sedimentation to levels meeting applicable water quality standards (e.g., TMDLs) and measures, with an established upward trend in the number of stream miles meeting such criterion by 2019. | Salmon | 10A3, 10A5, 10A6, 10A8, 10A9, 61A5 |
| Environmental Problem 12, Aquatic Objective 12A | Rehabilitate connectivity where it will benefit native fish populations, with emphasis on bull trout. Improve access to habitat currently blocked by manmade barriers. | Salmon | 12A1, 12A2, 28A2, 8D5 |
| Environmental Problem 49, Aquatic Objective 49C | Reduce floodplain/channel encroachment (e.g., roads, development, etc.). | Salmon | 8B4, 8C1, 8C2, 8C3, 9A13, 49C1 |
| Environmental Problem 51,Terrestrial Objective 51B | Restore 50% of degraded (functional at risk or non-functional) riparian areas to proper functioning condition by 2019. | Salmon | 51B1, 51B2, 51B4, 51B6, 51B8, 8A1, 8A2, 8D1, 9A13, 45A2, 45A3, 51A4, 51A5 |
| Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56A | Prevent the introduction of exotic invasive plant species into native habitats (see section 6.2: Terrestrial Prioritizations) to conserve quality, quantity, and diversity of native plant communities providing habitat to native wildlife species. | Salmon | 56A2, 56A3, 56A5, 56A8 |
| Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56B | Reduce the extent and density of established exotic invasive plant species. | Salmon | 56B1, 56B3, 56B4, 56B5, 56B6 |
| Environmental Problem 59,Terrestrial Objective 59A | Reduce the impact of the transportation system and motorized access on wildlife and fish populations and habitats. | Salmon | 59A1, 59A2, 59A4, 61A5, 8B4, 10A3 |
| Socioeconomic Prob. 64,Socioeconomic Objective 64A | In the lower portion of the Salmon subbasin, minimize negative impacts on and maximize benefits to local communities while maximizing benefits to fish and wildlife and users of those resources. | Salmon | 64A2, 64A3, 64A4, 64A5 |
| Socioeconomic Prob. 65,Socioeconomic Objective 65A | Protect and foster both Indian and non-Indian cultural uses of natural resources in the Salmon subbasin. | Salmon | 65A1 |
| Socioeconomic Prob. 66,Socioeconomic Objective 66A | In the lower portion of the Salmon subbasin, develop a group to guide implementation of this plan and to coordinate recommendations with co-managers for funding, implementation, and other management activities. | Salmon | 66A2, 66A3, 66A7, 66A8, 66A9 |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manage and Administer Projects | Management, Coordination and Communication | Project management includes coordination project activities, attending meetings, seeking additional funding, attending trainings to stay abreast of innovative techniques, preparing statements of work, managing budgets, and completing reports. Includes: Produce Annual Report (WE 132)- annual reports summarize yearly activities, Produce Status Report (WE 141 &185)- quarterly reports will track project work element completion | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $97,381 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Coordination | General Project Coordination | Activities include meetings, phone calls, grant writing, preparing partnering agreements with Nez Perce National Forest and other communication tasks with partners. The Nez Perce Tribe has been partners with the Nez Perce National Forest since 1996, which includes sharing funds and resources to complete projects. Each year, project specifics are spelled out in an agreement signed by both parties. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $77,065 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Provide NEPA Information to BPA | NEPA compliance must be obtained before implementing projects. The Nez Perce National Forest will complete NEPA, cultural clearance, and ESA consultation for watershed restoration projects. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $55,279 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A Environmental Problem 12, Aquatic Objective 12A Environmental Problem 49, Aquatic Objective 49C Environmental Problem 51,Terrestrial Objective 51B Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56A Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56B Environmental Problem 59,Terrestrial Objective 59A |
Metrics |
||||
| Outreach and Education | Slate Creek Watershed Education and Outreach | The education and outreach component will focus on informing the public about the watershed restoration activities that are happening in Slate Creek. Emphasis will be placed on informing the public on important watershed issues including fish passage, road impacts and invasive weeds. Education and outreach materials will encourage the public to participate in or support restoration efforts. This information will be relayed through several different formats, examples being: informational brochures, workshops, public field trips, interpretive signs at project sites, and classroom/field presentations and activities for students | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $46,163 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A Environmental Problem 12, Aquatic Objective 12A Environmental Problem 49, Aquatic Objective 49C Environmental Problem 51,Terrestrial Objective 51B Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56A Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56B Environmental Problem 59,Terrestrial Objective 59A Socioeconomic Prob. 64,Socioeconomic Objective 64A Socioeconomic Prob. 65,Socioeconomic Objective 65A Socioeconomic Prob. 66,Socioeconomic Objective 66A |
Metrics * # of general public reached: 50 * # of students reached: 100 * # of teachers reached: 5 |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Survey Stream Crossings in Little Slate drainage | 1) Survey all sites where roads cross streams within the Little Slate drainage. 2) Assess these crossings to determine if they are upstream migration barriers to juvenile and/or adult fish. 3) Select the highest priority man-made barriers for future replacement recommendations. | 6/1/2007 | 8/31/2007 | $77,356 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 12, Aquatic Objective 12A |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Plan | Report findings on Little Slate Stream Crossings Survey and Prioritize Culverts for Replacement | A comprehensive plan needs to be developed identifying fish passage barriers and prioritizing culverts for replacement/barriers for removal. The plan will summarize all findings from the Little Slate Stream Crossings Survey and will prioritize culverts for replacement. | 10/1/2007 | 2/28/2008 | $62,368 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 12, Aquatic Objective 12A |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Design and/or Specifications | Culvert Design | Designs for culvert replacement are a cooperative effort between the NPT and the Nez Perce NF. For designs on Forest Service lands, the Forest Service generally takes the lead, and the Nez Perce Tribe reviews and approves all designs before being solicited for bids on construction projects. Culvert design may be subcontracted. | 4/1/2008 | 8/31/2008 | $21,482 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A Environmental Problem 12, Aquatic Objective 12A |
Metrics |
||||
| Install Fish Passage Structure | Replace Culvert in Little Slate | Use report findings on Little Slate Stream Crossings Survey to determine priority culvert for replacement to reestablish connectivity and fish passage. | 7/1/2009 | 8/31/2009 | $75,869 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A Environmental Problem 12, Aquatic Objective 12A |
Metrics * Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: yes |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Culvert Replacement Data Collection | Data to be collected for the replaced culvert includes: redd counts, profile measurements, fish presence/absence and abundance (collected by snorkeling), in-culvert substrate, and gradient measurements. Monitoring stations will be set up at this site in order to record data for several seasons to monitor for effectiveness and proper construction. The purpose is to determine whether the new culvert is successful. | 3/1/2008 | 2/28/2010 | $25,176 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A Environmental Problem 12, Aquatic Objective 12A |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation |
||||
| Decommission Road | Decommission 20 miles of road within Little Slate Creek | Approximately 20 miles of roads (10 miles per year for 2008 and 2009) will be obliterated to reduce sediment delivery to streams via surface erosion and landslide prone roads. Weed infestations will be treated prior to obliteration and weed control will continue following obliteration. | 3/1/2008 | 11/30/2009 | $156,754 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A Environmental Problem 49, Aquatic Objective 49C Environmental Problem 51,Terrestrial Objective 51B Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56A Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56B Environmental Problem 59,Terrestrial Objective 59A Socioeconomic Prob. 64,Socioeconomic Objective 64A |
Metrics * # of road miles decommissioned : 20 |
||||
| Plant Vegetation | Seed Decommissioned Road | Upon road obliteration, seeding and fertilizing the recontoured road prism is done to prevent short-term surface erosion until native grasses and vegetation take hold. | 3/1/2008 | 11/30/2009 | $75,063 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A Environmental Problem 49, Aquatic Objective 49C Environmental Problem 51,Terrestrial Objective 51B Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56A Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56B Environmental Problem 59,Terrestrial Objective 59A Socioeconomic Prob. 64,Socioeconomic Objective 64A |
Metrics * # of acres of planted: 20 miles |
||||
| Upland Erosion and Sedimentation Control | Erosion Control on Decommissioned Road | Upon completion of recontouring the road prism, weed free straw is placed on stream crossings, springs, and or seep areas. Native slash is placed all along on recontoured road prism. | 3/1/2008 | 11/30/2009 | $35,063 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A Environmental Problem 59,Terrestrial Objective 59A |
Metrics * # of acres treated: 20 miles |
||||
| Remove vegetation | Reduce Noxious and Invasive Weeds along Decommissioned Roads | Weeds are a problem on newly disturbed soils such as decommissioned roads. Treatment of roads, prior to decommissioning and following decommissioning will become practice. | 3/1/2008 | 2/28/2010 | $25,176 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56A Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56B Socioeconomic Prob. 64,Socioeconomic Objective 64A |
Metrics * # of acres treated: 20 miles |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Decommissioned Road Data Collection | The Nez Perce NF has developed a monitoring plan for decommissioned roads. Data is used to monitor success and for suggesting improvements that could be made. | 3/1/2008 | 2/28/2010 | $25,176 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A Environmental Problem 49, Aquatic Objective 49C Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56A Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56B Environmental Problem 59,Terrestrial Objective 59A |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation |
||||
| Create/Manage/Maintain Database | Maintain Slate Creek Project Database | Develop and update database and GIS layers to track project installation location and project specific information over time. This database will be in coordination with the Nez Perce National Forest and shared with other agencies as well as BPA annual reporting. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $62,658 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A Environmental Problem 12, Aquatic Objective 12A Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56A Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56B Environmental Problem 59,Terrestrial Objective 59A |
Metrics |
||||
| Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results | Disseminate Project Results to Professional Audiences at Scientific and Professional Conferences | Project details and results may be presented to professional audiences at scientific and professional conferences and workshops. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $35,224 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | 2 FTE includes: Project Lead, Support Staff, and Technical Staff | $97,998 | $103,877 | $110,110 |
| Fringe Benefits | NPT employee fringe 30% | $29,399 | $31,163 | $33,033 |
| Supplies | Field Supplies, Office Supplies, Non-expendable property | $27,724 | $9,491 | $8,639 |
| Travel | Travel to meetings/conferences and perdiem | $4,411 | $4,411 | $4,411 |
| Overhead | NPT indirect rate 29.64 % | $50,422 | $47,288 | $49,434 |
| Other | Consultants and Contracts- subcontracted items | $0 | $120,000 | $180,000 |
| Other | Training | $2,169 | $2,169 | $2,169 |
| Other | 2 GSA Vehicles | $8,645 | $8,645 | $8,645 |
| Other | Office Space Rental | $3,000 | $3,000 | $3,000 |
| Totals | $223,766 | $330,041 | $399,437 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $953,244 |
| Total work element budget: | $953,252 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nez Perce National Forest | NEPA Analysis & Decision (Little Slate portion of watershed) | $175,000 | $0 | $0 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| Nez Perce National Forest | Project design, contract preparation, contract administration, monitoring, etc | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| Nez Perce National Forest, PCSRF, Central ID RAC | Portion of contract award funding | $30,000 | $30,000 | $30,000 | Cash | Under Review |
| Totals | $215,000 | $40,000 | $40,000 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $430,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $430,000 |
Comments: Slate Creek has been identified as a Forest Service priority watershed. Future work will primarily include road decommissioning, culvert replacement, habitat restoration, and monitoring. |
Future O&M costs: Noxious weed control and project success monitoring
Termination date: 2020
Comments:
Final deliverables: Slate Creek Watershed will be an intact, healthy, functioning watershed that is able to sustain all species at historical or near-historical levels. Slate Creek Watershed will meet TMDL and Nez Perce National Forest Plan standards.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $80,000 | $80,000 | $80,000 | $240,000 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $80,000 | $80,000 | $80,000 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: This is exactly the same proposal as 200710400 (White Bird Cr.) with only the name changed. A response is requested on: 1. Justification of benefits to fish. 2. Provisions of M&E to show benefits to fish. Despite the acknowledged similarity to #200710400, the subbasin plan did not prioritize it similarly. The proposal would benefit and the response should include description of the distribution and abundance of migratory fish in the basin. Numbers must be available given the assessment of the stream's importance for fish populations. It also would be beneficial to describe what has happened to these numbers through time compared to fish in a Middle Fork Salmon River tributary for example, and to assess the chances that stream flow and access to the flood plain can be restored. If chances of that happening were low, it would be useful to know what the proponents believe are realistic goals regarding fish production in the system. The response should include a description of past studies that support their strategy for enhancing salmonid numbers. The response should show how the objectives, presently to replace culverts and decommission roads, could be restated as actions to increase fish populations by some well-founded amount. The project includes barrier removal to expand available habitat, but that can provide access to exotic species, a risk that needs to be addressed in any barrier removal project and in the response. Efforts to restore the hydrograph and regain access to the floodplain should be high priority. Where vegetation will be "treated," an IPM approach is needed. Seeding annual rye is not re-vegetation in any long-term sense. If the goal is to manage invasive plants, establishment of adapted native species is more effective. Monitoring looks perfunctory in that no methods, sampling, analysis or adaptive management provisions are described. Plans seem to be for monitoring tasks rather than resource conditions. In response, please show how monitoring will provide assessment of resource conditions. Methods for data storage, sharing, or amalgamation at regional level are missing. Information and education programs are not information transfer in a scientific sense, but road decommissioning in particular is rarely popular and could benefit from some public understanding. Sponsors might look to State and NRCS programs on private lands to expand available technical and financial resources.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable in part
NPCC comments: The original proposal was a generic, broad-brush habitat improvement project including barrier removal, road decommissioning, hydrologic restructuring, vegetation management and other practices, none of which were sufficiently justified or described. The response trims the project scope to surveying road crossings and producing a prioritized list of barriers whose replacement provides the greatest chance for providing important benefits to native fish. The modified proposal described in the response is fundable at $80K per year, which represents partial funding of the original proposal. The proposed plan and survey should include fish distribution data including that of exotics, in recognition of the hazard of upstream invasion of exotic fish when barriers are removed. When this survey and planning is completed, a separate implementation proposal can be developed based upon results. This could be the basis for significant collaboration with other landowners and interested parties to leverage investments and generate commitment to larger habitat protection and improvement goals. The sponsors should be encouraged to include some criteria in their surveys for the amount and productivity (for desired species and based on historic use) of habitat that would become available to migrating fish with a successful project. The hypothesis guiding this work is that of access to productive habitat for the target species. The test of the hypothesis, and thus the science of the project, is whether or not the target species re-inhabits the area, so monitoring fish response to complete the test is needed. For full comments on "restore and protect" type projects, please see heading “General comments concerning Nez Perce Tribe proposals to protect and restore various watersheds” at the beginning of the ISRP comments on project # 199607702, Protect & Restore Lolo Creek Watershed.