FY07-09 proposal 200710400

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleProtect and Restore White Bird Creek
Proposal ID200710400
OrganizationNez Perce Tribe Dept. Fisheries Resource Management Watershed Division
Short descriptionRestore and protect the White Bird 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 transferResults 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
ContactOrganizationEmail
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

LatitudeLongitudeWaterbodyDescription
45.791 -116.235 White Bird Creek These lat. and lon. are an overall approximation of the entire watershed. The White Bird Creek Watershed encompasses approximately 65, 662 acres. Please see narrative for more detailed description.

Section 3. Focal species

primary: Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
primary: Steelhead Snake River ESU
secondary: All Resident Fish
secondary: Westslope Cutthroat
secondary: Interior Redband Trout

Section 4. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Funding sourceRelated IDRelated titleRelationship
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 White Bird Creek, Slate 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 White Bird Creek watershed include road decommissioning, culvert replacement, trail work, riparian planting, and riparian fencing.
Other: Forest Service Burnt Flats Burnt Flats Watershed Rehabilitation Funding The Nez Perce National Forest recently received funding for watershed restoration projects in the Burnt Flats area within the White Bird Creek watershed. Projects include a bridge replacement and approximately 20 miles of road decommissioning to take place between 2006 and 2008.

Section 6. Biological objectives

Biological objectivesFull descriptionAssociated subbasin planStrategy
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. 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 nameWork element titleDescriptionStart dateEnd dateEst 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 $87,911
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 $67,595
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 $54,304
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 White Bird 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 White Bird 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 $37,997
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 White Bird Watershed 1) Survey all sites where roads cross streams within the White Bird Watershed. 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. 5/1/2007 9/30/2008 $162,349
Biological objectives
Environmental Problem 12, Aquatic Objective 12A
Metrics
Produce Plan Report findings on White Bird 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 White Bird Stream Crossings Survey and will prioritize culverts for replacement. 10/1/2008 2/28/2009 $62,447
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. 3/1/2009 4/30/2009 $20,027
Biological objectives
Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A
Environmental Problem 12, Aquatic Objective 12A
Metrics
Install Fish Passage Structure Replace Culvert in White Bird Use report findings on White Bird Stream Crossings Survey to determine priority culvert for replacement to reestablish connectivity and fish passage. 7/1/2009 8/31/2009 $82,165
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 $27,052
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 Convert 2 miles of Road to Trail Approximately 2 miles of roads will be converted to trail 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. 6/1/2007 11/30/2007 $17,091
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 : 2
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. 6/1/2007 11/30/2007 $14,988
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: 2 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 6/1/2007 11/30/2007 $11,288
Biological objectives
Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A
Environmental Problem 59,Terrestrial Objective 59A
Metrics
* # of acres treated: 2 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. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $5,161
Biological objectives
Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56A
Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56B
Socioeconomic Prob. 64,Socioeconomic Objective 64A
Metrics
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. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $5,161
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 White Bird 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 $61,721
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 $30,738
Biological objectives
Metrics

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget
ItemNoteFY07FY08FY09
Personnel 2 FTE includes: Project Lead, Support Staff, and Technical Staff $97,998 $103,877 $110,111
Fringe Benefits NPT employee fringe 30% $29,399 $31,163 $33,033
Supplies Field Supplies, Office Supplies, Non-expendable property $28,524 $6,291 $5,439
Travel Travel to meetings/conferences and perdiem $4,411 $4,411 $4,411
Overhead NPT indirect rate 29.64 % $50,659 $46,341 $48,487
Other Consultants and Contracts- subcontracted items $22,000 $10,000 $70,000
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 $246,803 $215,895 $285,292
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: $747,990
Total work element budget: $747,995
Cost sharing
Funding source/orgItem or service providedFY 07 est value ($)FY 08 est value ($)FY 09 est value ($)Cash or in-kind?Status
Nez Perce National Forest Burnt Flats road decommissioning contract $235,000 $0 $0 Cash Confirmed
Nez Perce National Forest Project design, contract preparation, contract admin, monitoring, etc $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 In-Kind Under Development
Nez Perce National Forest, PCSRF, Central ID RAC Portion of contract award funding $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Cash Under Review
Totals $265,000 $25,000 $25,000

Section 9. Project future

FY 2010 estimated budget: $313,793
FY 2011 estimated budget: $313,793
Comments: White Bird 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: White Bird Creek Watershed will be an intact, healthy, functioning watershed that is able to sustain all species at historical or near-historical levels. White Bird Creek Watershed will meet TMDL and Nez Perce National Forest Plan standards.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

ISRP_Response to 2006 ISRP Comments - 200710400 - Whitebird Creek Proposal Jul 2006
ISRP_White Bird Creek fisheries description Jul 2006
ISRP_Umbrella response to ISRP on DFRM Watershed Division project proposals Jul 2006
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: This is exactly the same proposal as 200706400 (Slate Cr.) with only the name changed. A response is requested on: 1. Justification of benefits to fish. 2. Provide a convincing case that conditions in the stream have caused decline in focal species in the basin. Despite the sponsor's view that this "project [is] essential to address problems identified in the sub-basin," the subbasin plan did not prioritize it similarly. The proposal would benefit if the distribution and abundance of migratory fish in the basin were described. 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. 3. Sponsors should provide convincing evidence that stream flow and access to the flood plain can be restored. If chances of that happening are low, it would be useful to know what the sponsors believe are realistic goals regarding fish production in the system. 4. Sponsors should describe and cite past studies that support their strategy for enhancing salmonid numbers. 5. The response should provide discussion of the risk that barrier removal might permit access to exotic species. 6. Objectives are to build culverts and decommission roads. Rather, sponsors should develop objectives to increase fish populations by some reasonable and defensible amount. 7. 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 most effective. Monitoring plans seem to be perfunctory. The plan seems to be to monitor tasks, rather resource conditions. Sponsors need to develop a rigorous M&E plan to outline the details of their sampling and assessment methods. Data storage, sharing, or amalgamation at regional level are missing. Information and education program are not information transfer in a scientific sense, but road decommissioning in particular is rarely popular and could benefit from some public understanding. The sponsor might look to State and NRCS programs on private lands to expand available technical and financial resources.


ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable

NPCC comments: This was a generic proposal. Reviewers responded with a number of detailed questions and suggestions summarized as: 1. Sponsors should provide justification in terms of benefits to fish. 2. A convincing case that conditions in the stream have caused decline in focal species in the basin is needed. 3. Sponsors should provide convincing evidence that stream flow and access to the flood plain can be restored. 4. Sponsors should describe and cite past studies that support their strategy for enhancing salmonid numbers. 5. The response should provide discussion of the risk that barrier removal might permit access to exotic species. 6. Objectives are to build culverts and decommission roads. Rather, sponsors should develop objectives to increase fish populations by some reasonable and defensible amount. 7. Efforts to restore the hydrograph and regain access to the floodplain should be high priority. 8. Where vegetation will be "treated," an IPM approach is needed. 9. Monitoring plans seem to be perfunctory. The plan seems to be to monitor tasks, rather than resource conditions. Develop a rigorous M&E plan to outline the details of their sampling and assessment methods. 10. Data storage, sharing, or amalgamation at regional level is missing. Information and education program are not information transfer in a scientific sense. In addition to the generic response that was the sole response to many of the Tribe’s original proposals, there was a specific response to the review of this proposal. Both the original proposal and response sketched a generic "shotgun" approach that in its current form with lack of detail and specificity seems to offer very limited potential to benefit the steelhead and spring chinook that use the stream, and is not fundable. Future submission as a survey/plan project as has been done with the Slate Creek revision is recommended. 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.