FY07-09 proposal 200725500
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Protect and Restore the Middle Lochsa |
| Proposal ID | 200725500 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribe DFRM Watershed Division |
| Short description | This project will protect, restore, and return critical spawning and rearing habitat to the Analysis Area using a holistic approach to restoration. Projects will be coordinated with the USFS. |
| Information transfer | The data and accomplishments for this project will be accessible through the Nez Perce Tribe website and through annual reports published through Bonneville Power Administration. The Clearwater National Forest also will make data from the project available to the public upon request. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Rebecca Lloyd | Nez Perce Tribe | rebeccal@nezperce.org |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Rebecca Lloyd | Nez Perce Tribe | rebeccal@nezperce.org |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mountain Snake / Clearwater
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indian Grave Creek | The Middle Lochsa includes all watersheds tributary to the Lochsa River that are east of Fish Creek and west of Post Office Creek. |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Steelhead Snake River ESUsecondary: Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
secondary: Westslope Cutthroat
secondary: Bull Trout
secondary: All Wildlife
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 | The watersheds withing the Analysis Area for project #199607703 are contiguous to the watersheds proposed for restoration in the Middle Lochsa. The combined projects would improve habitat at a large scale having a more significant impact to fish populations. |
| BPA | 200207400 | Restore Crooked Fork Creek | The watersheds within the Analysis Area for project #200207400 are the headwaters of the Lochsa. Watersheds in project #200207400 are contiguous to the watersheds in project #199607703. If funded restoration projects in the Middle Lochsa would connect restored habitat from the Middle Lochsa to the headwaters of the Lochsa River. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anadromous Fish Problem 2. Objective B. | Increase anadromous fish production and productivity, and life stage specific survival through habitat improvment. | Clearwater | Strategy 2: Evaluate alternative habitat treatments and expected outcomes to address limiting factors in each PMU. Strategy 7: Monitor and evaluate habitat improvement projects. |
| Environmental Problem 10. Objective BB. | Protect and Restore an additional 300 miles of riparian habitat. | Clearwater | Strategy 1: Identify and prioritize riparian habitats for protection. Strategy 2: Protect and Restore riparian habitats through land acquisition, stewardship, BMPs, and grazing reform. |
| Environmental Problem 11. Objective CC. | Protect existing quality, quantitiy, and diversity of native plant communities. | Clearwater | Strategy 1: Identify and prioritize native plant communities for restoration. Strategy 2: Prevent reproduction. Strategy 6: Prevent establishment. Strategy 7: Monitor and evaluate the effort to protect native plant communities. |
| Environmental Problem 11. Objective DD. | Reduce the extent and density of established noxious weeds. | Clearwater | Strategy 1: Prioritize areas for treatment. Strategy 2: Treat weed infestations. |
| Environmental Problem 16. Objective JJ. | Reduce impact of transportation system on wildlife and fish populations and habitat. | Clearwater | Strategy 1: Plan restoration through transportation system anaylsis. Strategy 2: Reduce road impacts-implement road closures and decommissioning programs. Strategy 3: Protect habitats. Strategy 4: Monitor and evaluate projects. |
| Environmental Problem 7. Objective P. | Reduce number of artificially blocked streams by 2017. | Clearwater | Strategy 1: Compile database of fish barriers. Strategy 2: Prioritize fish passage barriers for replacement. Strategy 3: Replace barriers. |
| Environmental Problem 7. Objective Q. | Reduce water temperatures. | Clearwater | Strategy 1. Identify and prioritize areas for restoration work. Strategy 2: Restrore hydrologic functions for temperature. Strategy 3: Restore riparian function. Strategy 5: Identify additional problems. Strategy 6: Monitor. |
| Environmental Problem 7. Objective S. | Reduce instream sedimentation. | Clearwater | Strategy 1: Use watershed scale assessments to identify problems. Strategy 2: Research ecosystem function and sediment budgets. Strategy 3: Prioritize areas for sediment reduction. Strategy 4: Reduce sediment. Strategy 5: Monitor. |
| Environmental Problem 7. Objective U. | Improve aquatic habitat diversity. | Clearwater | Strategy 1: Identify need. Strategy 2: Follow existing plans and continue habitat improvement efforts. Strategy 3: Prioritize action. Strategy 4: Restore ecosystem function. Strategy 6: Monitor effectiveness. |
| Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective E. | Evaluate opportunities and needs to increase native resident fish populations of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout by 2005. | Clearwater | Strategy 2: Prioritize opportunities for protection and restoration. |
| Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective F. | Increase populations of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout where they are extirpated by 2017. | Clearwater | Strategy 2: Improve habitat conditions for native resident populations. Strategy 3. Evaluate physical and biological response to habitat projects. Strategy 4: Provide research, monitoring, and evaluation data. |
| Socioeconomic Problem 18. Objective LL. | Develop programs and project proposals compatible with existing community needs and integrate objective with local objectives. | Clearwater | Strategy 2: Coordinate plan implementation with federal, tribal, and state, local, and other interests. |
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 | Manage and Administer all Project Work in the Middle Lochsa | Coordinate all project work within the Nez Perce Tribe, with regulatory agencies, and partnering and cooperating agencies. Coordination requires meeings both phone and in-person, travel to regional meetings, and developing MOUs and Participating Agreements. Management includes submitting all required reports to BPA. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $18,915 |
|
Biological objectives Anadromous Fish Problem 2. Objective B. Environmental Problem 10. Objective BB. Environmental Problem 11. Objective CC. Environmental Problem 11. Objective DD. Environmental Problem 16. Objective JJ. Environmental Problem 7. Objective P. Environmental Problem 7. Objective Q. Environmental Problem 7. Objective S. Environmental Problem 7. Objective U. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective E. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective F. Socioeconomic Problem 18. Objective LL. |
Metrics |
||||
| Coordination | Complete Necessary Inter- and Intra-agency Coordination | [Work Element Description Not Entered] | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $18,915 |
|
Biological objectives Anadromous Fish Problem 2. Objective B. Environmental Problem 10. Objective BB. Environmental Problem 11. Objective CC. Environmental Problem 11. Objective DD. Environmental Problem 16. Objective JJ. Environmental Problem 7. Objective P. Environmental Problem 7. Objective Q. Environmental Problem 7. Objective S. Environmental Problem 7. Objective U. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective E. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective F. Socioeconomic Problem 18. Objective LL. |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Provide BPA with Required NEPA Documentation for all Project Work | Work with the Clearwater National Forest to produce NEPA documents and secure require permits for weed treatment, road work, culvert replacements, and trail work. | 1/1/2008 | 12/31/2009 | $18,915 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Complete Road and Culvert Risk Inventory for All Roads in Middle Lochsa | Survey and evaluate all roads in the Middle Lochsa and collect data on problems posing risks to aquatic resources. Identify culverts requiring replacement for fish passage and culverts that create a road failure hazard. | 6/1/2007 | 10/31/2009 | $18,915 |
|
Biological objectives Anadromous Fish Problem 2. Objective B. Environmental Problem 16. Objective JJ. Environmental Problem 7. Objective P. Environmental Problem 7. Objective Q. Environmental Problem 7. Objective S. Environmental Problem 7. Objective U. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective E. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective F. Socioeconomic Problem 18. Objective LL. |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Plan | Complete Transportation Plan for the Middle Lochsa | Identify roads that are candidates for road decommissioning and identify roads that require road improvement through comprehensive transportation plan. | 12/1/2007 | 12/31/2008 | $18,915 |
|
Biological objectives Anadromous Fish Problem 2. Objective B. Environmental Problem 10. Objective BB. Environmental Problem 16. Objective JJ. Environmental Problem 7. Objective P. Environmental Problem 7. Objective Q. Environmental Problem 7. Objective S. Environmental Problem 7. Objective U. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective E. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective F. Socioeconomic Problem 18. Objective LL. |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Plan | Trail System Plan | The trail system plan will identify opportunities for trail improvement for trails determined to be important for management and identify trails posing resource risks that are surplus to management need that can be decommissioned. | 1/1/2008 | 3/15/2008 | $18,915 |
|
Biological objectives Anadromous Fish Problem 2. Objective B. Environmental Problem 7. Objective P. Environmental Problem 7. Objective Q. Environmental Problem 7. Objective S. Environmental Problem 7. Objective U. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective E. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective F. |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Design and/or Specifications | Complete Designs for all Culverts Scheduled for Replacement | Complete designs for culvert replacements. Design work may be subcontracted. | 7/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $90,230 |
|
Biological objectives Anadromous Fish Problem 2. Objective B. Environmental Problem 10. Objective BB. Environmental Problem 16. Objective JJ. Environmental Problem 7. Objective P. Environmental Problem 7. Objective Q. Environmental Problem 7. Objective S. Environmental Problem 7. Objective U. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective E. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective F. Socioeconomic Problem 18. Objective LL. |
Metrics |
||||
| Decommission Road | Decommission Roads Surplus to Management Need | Decommission upto five miles of road. | 7/1/2008 | 10/31/2009 | $78,910 |
|
Biological objectives Anadromous Fish Problem 2. Objective B. Environmental Problem 10. Objective BB. Environmental Problem 16. Objective JJ. Environmental Problem 7. Objective P. Environmental Problem 7. Objective Q. Environmental Problem 7. Objective S. Environmental Problem 7. Objective U. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective E. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective F. Socioeconomic Problem 18. Objective LL. |
Metrics * # of road miles decommissioned : 5 |
||||
| Remove/Modify Dam | Replace Culverts in Middle Lochsa | Replace culverts in Middle Lochsa that are barriers to fish passage returning at least 3 miles of habitat. In addition replace non-functioning culverts that may contribute to possible road failure. At least one culvert for fish passage has been identified in Indian Grave Creek. | 7/1/2007 | 10/31/2009 | $168,915 |
|
Biological objectives Anadromous Fish Problem 2. Objective B. Environmental Problem 10. Objective BB. Environmental Problem 16. Objective JJ. Environmental Problem 7. Objective P. Environmental Problem 7. Objective Q. Environmental Problem 7. Objective S. Environmental Problem 7. Objective U. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective E. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective F. Socioeconomic Problem 18. Objective LL. |
Metrics * # of miles of habitat accessed: 3 |
||||
| Upland Erosion and Sedimentation Control | Complete Erosion Control on all Replaced Culverts and Decommissioned Roads | Use a combination of natural mulch and/or weed free straw to provide soil coverage in disturbed areas. If surface erosion is a significant concern then degradable erosion control mats can be used. | 7/1/2008 | 10/31/2009 | $18,915 |
|
Biological objectives Anadromous Fish Problem 2. Objective B. Environmental Problem 16. Objective JJ. Environmental Problem 7. Objective P. Environmental Problem 7. Objective Q. Environmental Problem 7. Objective S. Socioeconomic Problem 18. Objective LL. |
Metrics * # of acres treated: 20 |
||||
| Plant Vegetation | Revegetate Decommissioned Roads and Locations of Culvert Replacement | Revegetate disturbed areas by seeding with a combination of native grasses and planting rooted stock of native shrub species and trees. | 6/1/2008 | 10/31/2009 | $20,000 |
|
Biological objectives Anadromous Fish Problem 2. Objective B. Environmental Problem 11. Objective CC. Environmental Problem 11. Objective DD. Environmental Problem 16. Objective JJ. Environmental Problem 7. Objective S. Socioeconomic Problem 18. Objective LL. |
Metrics * # of acres of planted: 20 |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Collect Data on Culverts and Roads Before and After Treatment | Collect required baseline data on road and culverts prior to implementation work. Collect data and evaluate implementation following treatment. | 7/1/2007 | 10/31/2009 | $19,000 |
|
Biological objectives Anadromous Fish Problem 2. Objective B. Environmental Problem 16. Objective JJ. Environmental Problem 7. Objective P. Environmental Problem 7. Objective Q. Environmental Problem 7. Objective S. Environmental Problem 7. Objective U. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective E. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective F. Socioeconomic Problem 18. Objective LL. |
Metrics Focal Area: Tributaries |
||||
| Improve/Relocate Road | Improve Roads/Trails | Improve up to two miles of road to reduce chronic sedimentation and risk of mass failure into streams. Improve up to 3 miles of trails to reduce sedimentation. | 6/1/2008 | 10/31/2009 | $20,000 |
|
Biological objectives Anadromous Fish Problem 2. Objective B. Environmental Problem 10. Objective BB. Environmental Problem 16. Objective JJ. Environmental Problem 7. Objective P. Environmental Problem 7. Objective Q. Environmental Problem 7. Objective S. Environmental Problem 7. Objective U. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective E. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective F. |
Metrics * # of road miles improved, upgraded, or restored: 5 |
||||
| Create/Manage/Maintain Database | Input Data all Project Data into a Geo-Reference Database | Compile data related to treated road and culverts in NPT-Watershed Divisions Geodatabase. | 11/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $15,000 |
|
Biological objectives Anadromous Fish Problem 2. Objective B. Environmental Problem 16. Objective JJ. Environmental Problem 7. Objective P. Environmental Problem 7. Objective Q. Environmental Problem 7. Objective S. Environmental Problem 7. Objective U. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective E. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective F. Socioeconomic Problem 18. Objective LL. |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Complete Invasive Plant Inventory Along Roads and Trails | Follow NPT and CNF protocols to inventory populations of invasive plant. | 6/1/2007 | 10/31/2009 | $19,000 |
|
Biological objectives Anadromous Fish Problem 2. Objective B. Environmental Problem 11. Objective CC. Environmental Problem 11. Objective DD. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective E. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective F. Socioeconomic Problem 18. Objective LL. |
Metrics |
||||
| Remove vegetation | Treat Invasive Plant Infestations in Middle Lochsa | Apply integrated treatment method (chemical, mechanical, and biological) to control infestations of invasive plants. All roads proposed for work will be pre-treated. | 7/1/2007 | 10/31/2009 | $90,000 |
|
Biological objectives Anadromous Fish Problem 2. Objective B. Environmental Problem 11. Objective CC. Environmental Problem 11. Objective DD. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective E. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective F. |
Metrics * # of acres treated: 600 |
||||
| Outreach and Education | Watershed Restoration Outreach and Education | Continue to protect investments in restoration by conducting outreach through seminar/workshop presentations and public field trips of projects. Continue work with Missoula Public Schools and University of Montana as guest speaker on watershed restoration topics. Continue work with Wildlands CPR and Missoula Public Schools on Citizen Monitoring Efforts. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $20,000 |
|
Biological objectives Anadromous Fish Problem 2. Objective B. Environmental Problem 11. Objective CC. Environmental Problem 11. Objective DD. Environmental Problem 16. Objective JJ. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective E. Resident Fish Problem 4. Objective F. Socioeconomic Problem 18. Objective LL. |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | 1 FTE | $51,900 | $51,900 | $51,900 |
| Fringe Benefits | Fringe at 30% | $17,320 | $17,320 | $17,320 |
| Travel | Travel to field sites and project meetings | $918 | $918 | $917 |
| Supplies | Field Equipment, GSA Vehicle, Administrative Costs | $17,160 | $17,160 | $17,160 |
| Other | Subcontracts | $111,000 | $111,000 | $111,000 |
| Overhead | Indirect at 30% | $26,189 | $26,189 | $26,189 |
| Totals | $224,487 | $224,487 | $224,486 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $673,460 |
| Total work element budget: | $673,460 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clearwater National Forest | Cost Share | $25,000 | $25,000 | $25,000 | Cash | Under Review |
| Totals | $25,000 | $25,000 | $25,000 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $100,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $100,000 |
Comments: Project has limited anthroprogenic impacts and in five years, all active restoration projects should be completed. The exception being any culverts identified as barriers under US Hwy 12, the coordination and funds required for those culverts may extend |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date: 2012
Comments: Completed Active Restoration in the Middle Lochsa
Final deliverables: Restored, connected habitat for the benefit of anadromous and resident fish.
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] | ||||||
| $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? This proposal primarily addresses road decommissioning, culvert replacement, and control of non-native plants. It is unclear how much positive impact the proposed restoration activities will have on stream habitat and whether they will lead to measurable benefits for focal species. The sponsors could have improved the proposal by providing much more detail on how risks of particular human activities on stream habitat and focal species will be assessed, and how the proposed projects and project areas were prioritized. The M&E program needs to be explained better, especially in regard to sampling methods. The Middle Lochsa presents an opportunity for enhancement of apparently productive habitat for several focal species. The land is under single ownership (USFS), the sponsors state that human impacts are limited, and road densities tend to be low. The sponsors propose to take some straightforward management actions to ameliorate critical habitat problems: decommission roads on terrain at high risk for erosion and unnecessary for management needs, improve roads and trials that are sources of erosion, replace impassable culverts, and control invasive weeds. The proposed work directly addresses objectives and restoration priorities in the Clearwater Subbasin Plan. It also addresses elements of the Biological Opinion, the Fish and Wildlife Program objectives related to anadromous and resident fishes and wildlife, the USFWS Bull Trout Recovery Plan and a tribal fish restoration plan. Relationships to other projects: This project is closely linked with two other projects in the same area. The work elements directly address objectives in the Clearwater plan. A major concern is that restoration activities may occur in parts of the watersheds that may have little impact on stream habitat or that the affected streams are not productive for focal species. For each restoration activity, the sponsors need to describe how they determined that the proposed sets of restoration activities will have substantive impacts on stream habitat that is productive for focal species? Was some sort of risk assessment completed for each project? Specific examples of this concern are detailed below. Will all travel ways and trails be assessed for risk to stream habitat? How will the road and trail improvement/decommissioning opportunities be prioritized? Just the fact that they are not needed for USFS management purposes is an insufficient reason. Road decommissioning should have the potential to have a significant positive impact on stream habitat. Will the project prioritization be based on potential negative impacts on stream habitat? Will current or potential fish productivity be a factor in prioritization? How will the culvert replacement sites be selected and how will they be prioritized? Will passage be restored to productive habitat for focal species? Will the erosion problems in Graves and Lost creeks affect important fish habitat and fish populations? Where specific locations have been selected, they should be justified in relation to habitat and fish benefits. What is the specific purpose of the weed control? How will it improve habitat and for what species? The proposal needed a better explanation of the method for assessment of risk for stream habitat (Work Element 4 and 6). Tasks (work elements) and methods: The methods seem relatively straightforward. Monitoring and evaluation: The monitoring program needs to be better described. Will monitoring be done before and after project completion? How often will monitoring assessments be done? Facilities are adequate. A fish biologist should be involved in the project to aid with prioritization of project locations and assist with design of the monitoring program. Information will be conveyed via reports and outreach programs. Benefits to focal and non-focal species: The project could be of considerable benefit if the projects are sited in locations that will protect or improve important habitat and fish populations. Non-focal species could be benefited by actions that protect and improve access to habitat.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable in part (Qualified)
NPCC comments: The sponsors have provided an adequate response to ISRP concerns. They provide a clearer justification for road improvements or decommissioning, culvert removal, and weed control in terms of their risks to stream and riparian habitat and fish. The impact of trails on habitat and fish appears much less certain. The proposal is deemed Fundable in Part for road decommissioning, culvert removal, and weed control. Because the risks of erosion from trails do not appear to be well established, the ISRP recommends that this part of the proposal not be funded. Qualification: The sponsors should develop a credible weed control program. The ISRP is concerned that the weed control program could consist primarily of herbicide spraying. 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.