FY07-09 proposal 200709300
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restore Middle Fork Clearwater Face Drainages |
| Proposal ID | 200709300 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribe DFRM Watershed Division |
| Short description | Restore Middle Fork drainages to provide quality habitat for anadromous and resident fish. This will be accomplished by watershed resotration projects such as culvert replacement, road inventory and road obliteration. |
| Information transfer | Data will be housed at the Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resource Management, Watershed Division offices. Any data will be submitted to StreamNet for infomation sharing. Data will also be summarized in report form and submitted to Bonneville Power Administration. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Heidi McRoberts | Nez Perce Tribe | heidim@nezperce.org |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Arleen Henry | Nez Perce Tribe | arleenh@nezperce.org |
| Mark Johnson | Nez Perce Tribe | markj@nezperce.org |
| Heidi McRoberts | Nez Perce Tribe | heidim@nezperce.org |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mountain Snake / Clearwater
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 46.151ºN | 115.725ºW | Stream | Maggie Creek to Smith Creek, tributaries to the Middle Fork Clearwater River |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Westslope Cutthroatprimary: Rainbow Trout
secondary: Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
secondary: Steelhead Snake River ESU
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 199607703 | Restore Fishing to Bear Creek | This is the ongoing BPA project in the Lochsa River drainage focusing on watershed restoration activities such as culvert replacement and road decommissioning. |
| BPA | 199706000 | Clearwater Focus Watershed Np | This project coordinates watershed projects within the Nez Perce Tribe Treaty Territory. |
| BPA | 199607702 | Lolo Creek Watershed | This BPA project funds culvert replacements, and associated monitoring and evaluation in the Lolo Creek drainage. |
| BPA | 199607705 | Restore Mccomas Meadows | This BPA project funds culvert replacements, and associated monitoring and evaluation in the SF Clearwater River. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eval needs and opport to increase native pops | Evaluate needs and opportunities to increase native resident populations of westslope cutthroat and bull trout throughout the subbasin | Clearwater | 1. Refine knowledge of limiting factors and restoration opportunities. 2. Prioritize opportunities for protection and restoration. |
| Improve aquatic habitat diversity and complexity | Improve aquatic habitat diversity and complexity to levels consistent with other objectives in the subbasin plan, with particular emphasis on recovery of anadromous and fluvial stocks | Clearwater | 1. Continue aquatic haitat improvement efforts consisten with existing federal, tribal, state, and local habitat improvement plans and guidelines. 2. Restore complexity with restoration activities designed to promote diverse habitats (temp & sediment) |
| Protect/restore add'l miles of riparian habitat | Protect and restore riparian habitats that are critical for both aquatic and terrestrial species. | Clearwater | 1. Identify and prioritize riparian habitats for protection and restoration. 2. Protect & restore riparian habitats. 3. Increase stewardship and public knowledge of riparian habitats through educational programs. 4. Increase public knowledge. |
| Reduce instream sedimentation to levels ..... | Reduce instream sedimentation to levels meeting applicable water quality standards and measures, with an established upward trend in the number of stream miles meeting such criterion. | Clearwater | Reduce sediment inputs by implementing practices (i.e. road decommissioning) that address problems from logging, mining, agriculture, and other historic and current sediment producing activities. |
| Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing | Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing on the fish, wildlife, and plant populations in the watershed. | Clearwater | 1. Indentify and prioritze areas impacted by grazing for protection. 2. Reduce grazing impacts through established exclusion fences. 4. Monitor and evaluate the effort to protect and restore habitats from grazing impacts. |
| Reduce number or artificially blocked streams | Undersized or inappropriately functioning culverts and bridges must be replaced/removed to accomodate for aquatic species passage and properly functioning stream simulation. | Clearwater | Remove or modify human-caused barriers and Monitoring and evaluation of biological/hydrological response resulting from removal/replacement. |
| Reduce the extent and diversity of noxious weeds | Work to implement effective methods for reducing noxious weeds and invasive plants. | Clearwater | 1. Prioritize noxious weed infestations for treatment. 2. Treat weed infestations with most economical and effective treatment mehtods for reducing densities or eliminating populations. 3. Encourage best practices. 4. Monitor and evaluate efforts. |
| Reduce the impact of the transportation system | Reduce the impact of the transportation system on wildlife and fish populations and habitats. | Clearwater | Implement road closure and decommissioning programs in areas identified in the assessment and areas of high road densities, sediment production, surface erosion, and landslide prone. |
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 coordinating project activities, attending meetings, seeking additional funding, preparing statements of work, managing budgets, and completing reports. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $46,443 |
|
Biological objectives Eval needs and opport to increase native pops |
Metrics |
||||
| Coordination | Prepare Partnering Agreements with Clearwater National Forest | The Nez Perce Tribe has been partners with the Clearwater National Forest watershed restoration since 1996, which includes sharing funds and resources to complete projects. Each year, projects specifics are spelled out in an agreement signed by both parties. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $26,218 |
|
Biological objectives Eval needs and opport to increase native pops |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Provide NEPA Information to BPA for Projects on Forest Service Lands | The Clearwater National Forest will complete NEPA, cultural clearance, and ESA consultation for watershed restoration projects. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $20,000 |
|
Biological objectives Eval needs and opport to increase native pops |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Provide NEPA Information to BPA for Projects on Private Lands | A biological assessment will be written for ESA consultation, cultural resource surveys will be contracted to the Nez Perce Tribe Cultural Resource Dept, a permit will be filed with Army Corps of Engineers, and the NEPA Checklist will be submitted to BPA. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $30,941 |
|
Biological objectives Eval needs and opport to increase native pops |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Stream Habitat Data Collection | Data is needed to monitor and evaluate biological, chemical and physical habitat parameters that affect salmonid production the watershed. Information will be collected on macro-invertebrates, flow, temperature, sediment composition, and habitat parameters to include channel morphology, valley width index, Wolman Pebble counts, cobble embeddedness, large woody debris, bank stability, and riparian condition and density. | 5/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $19,500 |
|
Biological objectives Eval needs and opport to increase native pops |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Middle Fork Clearwater Data Analysis | Densities and abundance of fish will be estimated using snorkeling data. Temperature, flow data, and physical habitat parameters such as macroinvertebrates, cobble embeddedness and stream morphological measurements will be summarized and used to document success for stream restoration activities. | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2010 | $5,000 |
|
Biological objectives Eval needs and opport to increase native pops |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring |
||||
| Other | Reporting | Submit quarterly and annual reports at designated timeframes | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $20,000 |
|
Biological objectives Protect/restore add'l miles of riparian habitat |
Metrics |
||||
| Plant Vegetation | Plant native vegetation within riparian zones | Plant trees and shrubs that are native to the watershed within riparian zones to provide shade and habitat to degraded stream reaches. | 3/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $145,045 |
|
Biological objectives Protect/restore add'l miles of riparian habitat |
Metrics * # of riparian miles treated: 2.0 |
||||
| Outreach and Education | Educate public through outreach/education for pubic citizens and strudents | Educate public and students through field trips, public presentations, and classroom lectures. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $31,577 |
|
Biological objectives Protect/restore add'l miles of riparian habitat |
Metrics * # of general public reached: 100 * # of students reached: 30 |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Monitor success of riparian planting and livestock exclusion | Collect field data using photopoints and circle plots to evaluate success of riparian plantings and riparian protection fences | 3/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $11,289 |
|
Biological objectives Protect/restore add'l miles of riparian habitat |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Summarize monitoring data from riparian plantings and livestock exclusion | Abundance of trees will be calculated from circle plots and percentage of cover within riparian zones. All data will be shared with StreamNet and reported to BPA. | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2010 | $2,000 |
|
Biological objectives Protect/restore add'l miles of riparian habitat |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring |
||||
| Produce Plan | Produce plan that prioritzes culverts for replacement, by drainage | Complete inventory of culverts within each drainage of the Middle Fork Face Area. When inventory is complete, a plan will be produced to prioritize stream crossings for upgrades, removals, or replacements. | 7/1/2007 | 9/30/2007 | $54,118 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce number or artificially blocked streams |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Design and/or Specifications | Designs for All Culverts | Designs for culvert replacement are a cooperative effort between the NPT and both the CNF. 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. | 10/1/2006 | 12/1/2007 | $64,118 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce number or artificially blocked streams |
Metrics |
||||
| Install Fish Passage Structure | Replace fish blockage culvert | Replace 1 culvert that is fish passage barriers on FS Road 101. | 3/1/2008 | 10/31/2008 | $100,619 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce number or artificially blocked streams |
Metrics * Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: yes * # of miles of habitat accessed: 1.5 |
||||
| Install Fish Passage Structure | Replace 2 fish blockage culverts | Replace two fish passage barrier culverts, after being prioritized from inventory. | 3/1/2009 | 10/31/2009 | $185,497 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce number or artificially blocked streams |
Metrics * Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes * Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: yes |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Collect Data on Culverts that were Replaced | A monitoring plan has been developed to gauge the success of culvert replacements. Data is collected at one, three and five year intervals to determine successes and changes that are occurring with culvert replacements and removals. | 3/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $11,289 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce number or artificially blocked streams |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation Monitoring |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Collect data on culverts that were replaced. | Write report summarrizing data from culvert monitoring. | 10/1/2008 | 9/30/2010 | $2,000 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce number or artificially blocked streams |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring |
||||
| Decommission Road | Perform road surveys on 15 miles of road | Survey 15 miles of road by walking them to determine treatment for 10 miles of road. | 3/1/2007 | 10/31/2007 | $29,118 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce the impact of the transportation system |
Metrics |
||||
| Decommission Road | Decommission 10 miles of road within Smith Creek | Decommission 10 miles of road to reduce sediment delivery from surface erosion and landslide prone roads. | 3/1/2008 | 10/31/2008 | $143,488 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce the impact of the transportation system |
Metrics * # of road miles decommissioned : 10 miles * Type of decommissioning: Recontoured |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Collect Data on Roads that were Removed | The CNF has developed a monitoring plan for decommissioned roads. Data is used to monitor success and for suggesting improvements that could be made. | 3/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $8,644 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce the impact of the transportation system |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation Monitoring |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Summarize data from road decommissioning monitoring | Write report on findings from monitoring of road decommissioning. | 6/1/2007 | 9/30/2010 | $2,000 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce the impact of the transportation system |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring |
||||
| Identify and Select Projects | Work with private landowners to identify opportunites for riparian protection | Develop relationships with landowners and work with them to identify needs for riparian protection | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2007 | $12,059 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing |
Metrics |
||||
| Install Fence | Install up to 5 miles of fence to protect riparian habitats | Install fence to protect riparian zones from negative impacts from cattle grazing. | 3/1/2008 | 11/30/2008 | $40,166 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing |
Metrics * # of miles of fence: 5.0 miles * # of miles of fence: 5 |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Complete inventory of noxious weeds within Middle Fork Face Drainages | Complete inventory of noxious weed infestations within Middle Fork Face Drainages | 3/1/2007 | 11/30/2007 | $17,577 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce the extent and diversity of noxious weeds |
Metrics |
||||
| Remove vegetation | Treat existing or potential noxious weed infestations | Treat noxious weed infestations, especially those associated with roads slated for decommissioning | 3/1/2008 | 11/30/2009 | $32,000 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce the extent and diversity of noxious weeds |
Metrics * # of acres treated: 20 acres |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | 1.8 FTE | $117,627 | $98,018 | $103,565 |
| Fringe Benefits | 30% | $35,288 | $29,405 | $31,070 |
| Supplies | supplies, planting stock, etc. | $14,000 | $14,000 | $14,000 |
| Travel | vehicles/travel to meetings | $21,000 | $21,000 | $21,000 |
| Capital Equipment | computer, GPS, etc. | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 |
| Overhead | 29.64% | $58,069 | $50,513 | $52,651 |
| Other | subcontracts | $54,500 | $158,500 | $142,500 |
| Other | training/conferences | $3,000 | $3,000 | $3,000 |
| Totals | $308,484 | $379,436 | $372,786 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $1,060,706 |
| Total work element budget: | $1,060,706 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNF | project design, contract prep, contract admin, monitoring, etc. | $20,000 | $30,000 | $20,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| NOAA, US Fish & Wildlife, National Forest Found. | contract award funding | $83,000 | $83,000 | $83,000 | Cash | Under Development |
| Totals | $103,000 | $113,000 | $103,000 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $300,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $300,000 |
Comments: ongoing projects |
Future O&M costs: culvert and riparian restoration will continue to be indentified and implemented
Termination date: 9/30/2016
Comments: ongoing projects and monitoring
Final deliverables: final monitoring report
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
| NPT DFRM Watershed Umbrella Comments | Jul 2006 |
| Mtn Snake NPT DFRM Project Recommendations with comments | Jul 2006 |
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: The ISRP finds the quality of this proposal very marginal but will consider a response on the issues raised below before making a final recommendation. In the response loop, the ISRP recommends that the Nez Perce Tribe suggest a priority and rank of the numerous proposals submitted under the titles “protect” and “restore.” Where do habitat actions and protection in the Clearwater offer the most potential benefit? This is a duplicate of 200709200 for a group of small basins on the north slope of the Clearwater. It proposes to identify culvert, road sediment, and grazing impacts on local streams, after which actions will be implemented. The problem of habitat degradation in the Middle Fork is discussed in general terms, but not whether restoration will take place in the tributaries and/or mainstem. Very little is said about habitat conditions and the amount of available, or potentially available habitat in the tributaries targeted for projects. The sponsors state that resident fish occur in the tributaries but they do not identify the species or provide abundance estimates. The sponsors do not indicate whether the streams where passage will be restored historically supported anadromous fish. One specific culvert is identified for replacement. Is the habitat above the barrier suitable, what species and life stages of fish will benefit, and how much habitat will be made available? Potential risk of exotic fish should be assessed for barrier removals. For sediment control, how large a problem is sediment and how much habitat is affected? The weeds component should aim to control spread of weeds that are already there and establish surveillance for new species. Without more specific baseline information and objectives, M&E cannot adequately be explained or evaluated. Overall, there is insufficient detail for scientific assessment. The need for restoration is insufficiently justified. Objectives are very general and not directly related to work elements. The methods and monitoring program are not clearly described and referenced. The sponsors should develop a reasonable basis for and project the quantitative benefits expected.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: A specific response was not provided for this proposal, rather only a response to the ISRP's group review. Consequently, the ISRP specific concerns with this project were not addressed, and the project is not justified. The tribe ranked this in its second tier compared to other "protect and restore" projects. For full ISRP 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. ISRP preliminary comments (June 2006): Response requested. The ISRP finds the quality of this proposal very marginal but will consider a response on the issues raised below before making a final recommendation. In the response loop, the ISRP recommends that the Nez Perce Tribe suggest a priority and rank of the numerous proposals submitted under the titles “protect” and “restore.” Where do habitat actions and protection in the Clearwater offer the most potential benefit? This is a duplicate of 200709200 for a group of small basins on the north slope of the Clearwater. It proposes to identify culvert, road sediment, and grazing impacts on local streams, after which actions will be implemented. The problem of habitat degradation in the Middle Fork is discussed in general terms, but not whether restoration will take place in the tributaries and/or mainstem. Very little is said about habitat conditions and the amount of available, or potentially available habitat in the tributaries targeted for projects. The sponsors state that resident fish occur in the tributaries but they do not identify the species or provide abundance estimates. The sponsors do not indicate whether the streams where passage will be restored historically supported anadromous fish. One specific culvert is identified for replacement. Is the habitat above the barrier suitable, what species and life stages of fish will benefit, and how much habitat will be made available? Potential risk of exotic fish should be assessed for barrier removals. For sediment control, how large a problem is sediment and how much habitat is affected? The weeds component should aim to control spread of weeds that are already there and establish surveillance for new species. Without more specific baseline information and objectives, M&E cannot adequately be explained or evaluated. Overall, there is insufficient detail for scientific assessment. The need for restoration is insufficiently justified. Objectives are very general and not directly related to work elements. The methods and monitoring program are not clearly described and referenced. The sponsors should develop a reasonable basis for and project the quantitative benefits expected.