FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding (Revised Summer 2006)

Proposal 199607705: Restore McComas Meadows/ Meadow Creek Watershed

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
July 14, 2006 Finalized Heidi McRoberts

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 199607705
Proposal Name: Restore McComas Meadows/ Meadow Creek Watershed
BPA Project Manager: David Kaplowe
Agency, Institution or Organization: Nez Perce Tribe DFRM Watershed Division
Short Description: Protect, restore, and enhance the Meadow Creek Watershed to provide quality habitat for anadromous and resident fish. This will be accomplished by watershed resotration projects such as culvert replacement, road obliteration, and streambank stabilization.
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.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Heidi McRoberts Nez Perce Tribe P.O. Box 365
Lapwai ID 83540
Ph: 208.843.7144
Fax: 208.843.9192
Email: heidim@nezperce.org
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Arleen Henry Nez Perce Tribe PO Box 365
Lapwai, ID 83540
Ph: 208-843-7317
Fax: 208-843-7319
Email: arleenh@nezperce.org
Administrative Contact
NPT Finance Department accountant
Mark Johnson Nez Perce Tribe P.O. Box 365
Lapwai, Idaho 83540
Ph: 208-843-7144
Fax: 208-843-9192
Email: markj@nezperce.org
Technical Contact
David Kaplowe
Ph:
Fax:
Email: djkaplowe@bpa.gov
BPA Project Manager
Heidi McRoberts Nez Perce Tribe P.O. Box 365
Lapwai ID 83540
Ph: 208.843.7144
Fax: 208.843.9192
Email: heidim@nezperce.org
Project Lead

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Mountain Snake ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Clearwater ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
45.55.00 115.52.30 Meadow Creek The Meadow Creek watershed is a tributary to the South Fork Clearwater River, 7 air miles east of Grangeville, Idaho. Idaho/Idaho, Clearwater No

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Steelhead Snake River ESU
Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Coho Unspecified Population
Rainbow Trout
Westslope Cutthroat

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 Completed two culvert replacements on Doe Creek and a tributary stream to Meadow Creek. Planted 2,500 riparian trees in Meadow Creek watershed. Maintenance of 5 miles of riparian protection fence. Monitoring and evaluation.
2004 Completed 20 miles of road decommissioning. Maintenance of 5 miles of riparian protection fence. Planted 3,100 riparian trees. Completed culvert designs for three culverts; awarded two culvert replacement contracts. Monitoring and evaluation.
2003 20 miles of road decommissioning contract awarded and begun. 2,500 riparian trees planted. Survey and design of upland sediment restoration within McComas Meadows ditch system. 5 miles of riparian protection fence maintenance. Monitoring.
2002 3,000 trees planted in the riparian zones of Meadow Creek and its tributaries. Analysis of Soils, Vegetation, and Revegetation Options document was published. Survey and design of 20 miles of road decommissioning. Maintained 5 miles of fence. Monitor.
2001 Re-vegetation (2,500 trees planted) within McComas Meadows riparian area. Relocation of Swede Creek tributary to its natural channel location. Monitoring & Evaluation. Maintenance of riparian protection fence.
2000 Intense monitoring (channel morphology, stream discharge, temperature, water table level, riparian regeneration). Re-vegetation (5,000 trees planted) of riparian zone within McComas Meadows.
1999 Cooperated and participated in Watershed Assessment of Meadow Creek with the Forest Service. Implemented monitoring parameters of temperature, gaging station, and habitat parameters.
1998 Constructed 3.5 miles of fence to protect over 600 acres of meadow/riparian habitat. Installed groundwater wells to evaluate groundwater levels associated with water levels in McComas Meadows.

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
Other: Forest Service [no entry] Inventory and Prioritization of Stream Crossing Barriers The Forest Service is conducting a complete inventory of stream crossing structures in the Meadow Creek drainage. This will be complete in 2006
PCSRF - Idaho 035 04 CW Nez Perce Aquatic Restoration This project is cost shared with this ongoing project over the years of 2005-2006 for culvert replacement.
BPA 198335003 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery M&E Monitoring and Evaluation, including snorkeling and redd surveys have been completed for many years.
BPA 199706000 Clearwater Focus Watershed Np This project oversee's coordination of watershed restoration projects within the Nez Perce Tribe's ceded territory.
BPA 200003500 Rehabilitate Newsome Creek - S Watershed restoration activities within Newsome Creek, including road improvements/decommissioning and channel restoration, have contributed to South Fork Clearwater River subbasin improvements.
BPA 200003600 Protect And Restore Mill Creek Watershed restoration activities within Mill Creek, including fencing, culvert replacements, and riparian restoration have contributed to South Fork Clearwater River subbasin improvements.
BPA 200207200 Protect & Restore Red River Ws Watershed restoration activities within Red River, including road improvements/decommissioning and culvert replacements, have contributed to South Fork Clearwater River subbasin improvements.

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
Anadromous fish habitat improvement Increase available habitat for anadromous fish by eliminating existing barrier to provide access. Clearwater 1. Identify and prioritze primary limiting factors. 2. Evaluate alternative habitat treatments to address limiting factors. 4. Develop indicies to evaluate biological response to habitat improvement. 5. Implement projects following priotization. 7. M&E. 18
Develop programs and project proposals Develop programs and project proposals compatible with existing community needs and that integrate with local watershed protection, restoration, and management objectives and activities. Clearwater 1. Involve communities in program and project planning. 2. Coordinate plan implementation with all agencies. 3. Seek local support for programs and project proposals. 52
Encourage the development of ponderosa pine commun Encourage the development of 150,000 acres of additional ponderosa pine communities Clearwater Restore ponderosa pine communities--where historic ponderosa pine communities have been deforested, actively replant. 40-41
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) 37
Protect and restore add'l miles of riparian habita 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. 42-43
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. 35
Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing on the fish, wildlife, and plant populations in the watershed. Clearwater Reduce grazing impacts through established exclusion fences. 45-46
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. 32
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. 45
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. 50
Reduce water temperatures to levels ..... Reduce water temperatures to levels meeting applicable water quality standards fro life stage specific needs of anadromous and native resident fish, with an established upward trend in the number of stream miles meeting standards. Clearwater 1. Restore hydrologic functions. 2. Restore riparian functions related to temperature. 3. Monitor and evaluate the results of implementation. 33

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
1a: Coordination Prepare Partnering Agreement with the Nez Perce National Forest The Nez Perce Tribe has been partners with NPNF in 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. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $21,500
Biological Objectives Metrics
Develop programs and project proposals
No Metrics for this Work Element

1b: 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. Communications will include e-mail, telephone, compressed video conferencing, and face-to-face meetings. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $32,300
Biological Objectives Metrics
Develop programs and project proposals
No Metrics for this Work Element

1c: Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Provide NEPA information to BPA for projects on Forest Service Lands The Nez Perce National Forest completed NEPA and ESA consultation for culvert replacements, road decommissioning, and upland sediment and erosion control. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $21,500
Biological Objectives Metrics
Develop programs and project proposals
No Metrics for this Work Element

1d: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Stream Habitat Data Collection in Meadow Creek Watershed Collect biological, chemical, and physical habitat parameter data in the Meadow Creek drainage at three locations. 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. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $12,900
Biological Objectives Metrics
Develop programs and project proposals
Primary R, M, and E Type: Status & Trend Monitoring

1e: Analyze/Interpret Data Meadow Creek Data Analysis After data is collected on biological, chemical, physical habitat, and fish presence, abundance and distribution, it will be analyzed and compiled into a report. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $4,300
Biological Objectives Metrics
Develop programs and project proposals
Primary R, M, and E Type: Status & Trend Monitoring

1f: Produce Status Report Quarterly reports or Pisces formatted data in Quarterly reports will track project work element completion. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $9,700
Biological Objectives Metrics
Develop programs and project proposals
No Metrics for this Work Element

1g: Produce Annual Report Annual Report Annual Report describes all pertinent yearly activities, successes, problems, and opportunities encountered to include photos as needed. Summarize data generated by the project. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $9,700
Biological Objectives Metrics
Develop programs and project proposals
No Metrics for this Work Element

2a: Plant Vegetation Plant riparian vegetation Meadow Creek was historically grazed and roaded. These activities have destroyed the riparian zone. Re-vegetation efforts have been going on since 2000 and have been successful. However, the Meadow Creek and its tributaries, within McComas Meadows consists of over four miles of stream length, which was practically devoid of vegetation in the 1990s. Additional plantings are warranted to provide a healthy functioning riparian zone that provides shade to the stream, which will reduce lethal stream temperatures. Approximately 2,000 trees will be planted each year. 3/1/2007 10/31/2009 $75,300
Biological Objectives Metrics
Protect and restore add'l miles of riparian habita
* # of riparian miles treated: 5 miles

2b: Maintain Vegetation Protect hawthorn trees within McComas Meadows Cages are installed around naturally regenerated hawthorn trees, that were being browsed by wildlife 4/1/2007 9/30/2009 $53,800
Biological Objectives Metrics
Protect and restore add'l miles of riparian habita
No Metrics for this Work Element

2c: 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. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $19,400
Biological Objectives Metrics
Protect and restore add'l miles of riparian habita
* # of general public reached: 100
* # of students reached: 60
* # of teachers reached: 3

2d: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Collect monitoring data for re-vegetation areas within McComas Meadows Collect data on success of riparian restoration and re-vegetation efforts. 9/1/2007 3/1/2010 $12,900
Biological Objectives Metrics
Protect and restore add'l miles of riparian habita
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

2e: Analyze/Interpret Data Summarize moniroting data from riparian plantings 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. 6/1/2007 9/30/2010 $4,300
Biological Objectives Metrics
Protect and restore add'l miles of riparian habita
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

3a: Produce Design and/or Specifications Design/cost estimate for 1 culvert on FS Land for FY08 contract For planning purposes, designs for culvert replacements are generally completed far in advance of the field season and often occur in the previous contract period. This work element is a cooperative effort between the NPT and the NPNF, where designs for the replacement of each culvert are completed by the NPNF, and the Nez Perce Tribe provides review and comment on all designs. The construction work is then solicited for bids. Farris Creek is a tributary to Meadow Creek and islocated on Forest Service lands. 3/1/2007 2/28/2008 $21,500
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
No Metrics for this Work Element

3b: Install Fish Passage Structure Replace Rock Creek Culvert Rock Creek culvert was identified as a priority for replacement as it was undersized and did not pass all life stages of fish. 3/1/2007 10/31/2007 $107,600
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 3.0
* Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes
* Was barrier Full or Partial?: Full

3c: Install Fish Passage Structure Replace Covert Creek Culvert Covert Creek culvert was identified as a priority for replacement as it was undersized and did not pass all life stages of fish. 3/1/2007 10/31/2007 $91,100
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 3.0
* Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes
* Was barrier Full or Partial?: Full

3d: Install Fish Passage Structure Replace Farris Creek Culvert. Farris Creek culvert was identified as a priority for replacement as it was undersized and did not pass all life stages of fish. 3/1/2008 10/31/2008 $96,900
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 1.0 miles
* Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes
* Was barrier Full or Partial?: Full

3e: Produce Design and/or Specifications Design/cost estimate for 2 culvert on FS Land for FY09 contract Produce designs for 2 culvert/bridge replacements for fish passage for implementation ifn 2009 3/1/2008 2/28/2009 $32,300
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
No Metrics for this Work Element

3f: Install Fish Passage Structure Replace 2 fish blockage culverts Replace culverts that are limiting to fish passage. Culverts will be replaced with culverts/bridges that are fully passable by all aquatic organisms and are designed for natural stream simulation. 3/1/2009 2/28/2010 $150,600
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
* Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes

3g: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Collect data on newly installed culverts. 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 2/28/2010 $14,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce water temperatures to levels .....
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

3h: Analyze/Interpret Data Summarize data collected on culvert replacements Write report summarrizing data from culvert monitoring. 9/1/2007 2/28/2010 $4,300
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

4a: Decommission Road Decommission 20 miles of road within Orchard Creek Decommission 20 miles of road within Orchard Creek by re-contouring roads back to natural topography and decompacting landing areas which will reduce surfacr erosion and sediment delivery to streams. 3/1/2007 12/31/2007 $269,100
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce the impact of the transportation system
* # of road miles decommissioned : 20.0 miles
* Type of decommissioning: Scarified/Ripped, Recontoured

4b: Decommission Road Decommission 20 miles of road within Meadow Creek (Phase II) Decommission 20 miles of road within Meadow Creek by re-contouring roads back to natural topography and decompacting landing areas which will reduce surfacr erosion and sediment delivery to streams. 3/1/2008 12/15/2008 $269,100
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce the impact of the transportation system
* # of road miles decommissioned : 20 miles
* Type of decommissioning: Recontoured

4c: Decommission Road Decommission 25 miles of road within the Whitman Creek tributary Road densities are 4.6 miles per square mile, and 90 miles were slated for decommissioning in the Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale. 3/1/2009 12/15/2009 $290,600
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce the impact of the transportation system
* # of road miles decommissioned : 25 miles
* Type of decommissioning: Recontoured

4d: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Collect data on roads that were removed in 2003, 2004 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. A monitoring plan has been developed for decommissioned roads. Data is used to monitor success and for suggesting improvements that could be made. Monitoring is completed on one, two, five, and ten year intervals. 6/1/2007 2/28/2010 $11,800
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce the impact of the transportation system
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/Compliance

4e: Analyze/Interpret Data Summarize data from road decommissioning monitoring Write a report on the findings with summarized data on monitoring from road decommissioning. 12/1/2007 3/1/2010 $3,300
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce the impact of the transportation system
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

5a: Increase Instream Habitat Complexity Restore habitat wtihin False Creek Restore 1.0 miles of stream within False Creek by adding habitat features/grade control with materials such as wood. 3/1/2007 12/31/2008 $75,300
Biological Objectives Metrics
Improve aquatic habitat diversity and complexity
* # of stream miles treated: 1.0 mile

5b: Increase Instream Habitat Complexity Restore stream habitat within Orchard Creek Restore 1.5 miles of stream that is negatively impacted by roads within Orchard Creek 3/1/2007 2/28/2008 $75,300
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce instream sedimentation to levels .....
* # of stream miles treated: 1.5 miles

5c: Increase Instream Habitat Complexity Restore stream habitat within Whitman Creek Restore 1.75 miles of stream that is negatively impacted by roads within Whitman Creek 3/1/2007 12/21/2008 $75,300
Biological Objectives Metrics
Improve aquatic habitat diversity and complexity
* # of stream miles treated: 1.75 miles

5d: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Monitor in-stream habitat restoration Collect data on in-stream habitat improvements, including channel morphology and bank stability measurements. 7/1/2007 10/1/2009 $8,600
Biological Objectives Metrics
Improve aquatic habitat diversity and complexity
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

5e: Analyze/Interpret Data Summarize data from in-stream habitat monitoring Write report summarizing data and findings from in-stream habitat improvement monitoring. 9/1/2007 3/1/2010 $3,300
Biological Objectives Metrics
Improve aquatic habitat diversity and complexity
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

6a: Plant Vegetation Restore native plants to portion of McComas Meadows Using a 5-8 acre plot, remove non-native plants from McComas Meadows and plant native species, such as ponderosa pine and native grasses 3/1/2007 12/31/2008 $73,437
Biological Objectives Metrics
Encourage the development of ponderosa pine commun
* # of acres of planted: 8 acres

6b: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Monitor success of ponderosa pine development Collect data to detemine success of native re-vegetation using plots and photopoints. 6/1/2007 9/30/2009 $8,600
Biological Objectives Metrics
Encourage the development of ponderosa pine commun
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

6c: Analyze/Interpret Data Summarize data from monitoring of native plant restoration within McComas Meadows Write report summarizing monitoring data from native plant restoration within McComas Meadows. 9/1/2007 12/31/2009 $3,300
Biological Objectives Metrics
Encourage the development of ponderosa pine commun
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

7a: Remove vegetation Reduce noxious and invasive weeds along travel corridors, including decommissionned roads Inventory of weeds has been completed by the Forest Service and/or Idaho County along common travelways. In addition, weeds can become a problem on newly disturbed soils such as decommissioned roads. Treatment of roads, prior to decommissioning will become practice. Additionally, treatment of noxious/invasive weeds along travel corridors by either pulling or spraying is proposed. 3/1/2007 12/31/2009 $43,100
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce the extent and diversity of noxious weeds
* # of acres treated: 120 acres

8a: Maintain Vegetation Maintain riparian protection fences within Meadow Creek Protect riparian zones by maintaining previously built fence in the Meadow Creek watershed. Approximately 5 miles of fence has been built to exclude cattle from riparian zones; this fence requires annual maintenance after winter snowmelt, due to heavy snow loads. 3/1/2007 8/31/2009 $75,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing
No Metrics for this Work Element

8b: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Monitor success of riparian zone improvements as a result of fencing to exclude cattle Collect data via photopoints to determine success of riparian zone improvements as a result of fencing to exclude cattle 7/1/2007 12/31/2009 $8,600
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

8c: Analyze/Interpret Data Summarize results within report on monitoring of cattle exclusion fences Write report summarizing results of monitoring of cattle exclusion fences 10/1/2007 2/28/2010 $3,300
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
Personnel 3.0 FTE $143,964 $152,602 $161,758
Fringe Benefits 30% $43,189 $45,781 $48,527
Supplies supplies, non-exendable property, planting stock $14,000 $14,000 $14,000
Capital Equipment computer, GPS, etc. $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Travel vehicles/travel to meetings $21,000 $21,000 $21,000
Overhead 29.64% $68,810 $72,139 $75,667
Other subcontracts $399,500 $344,500 $401,500
Other training/conferences $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Totals $700,463 $660,022 $732,452

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$2,092,937
Total Work Element budget$2,092,937

Cost sharing
Funding Source or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status
Central Idaho Resource Advisory Committee Meadow Creek Slide Contract Funding $14,000 $ 0 $ 0 Cash Confirmed
Nez Perce National Forest Project design, contract prep, contract admin, monitoring, etc. $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 In-Kind Under Development
NOAA, US Fish & Wildlife, National Forest Found. contract award funding $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 Cash Under Development
NPNF, PCSRF, Central Idaho RAC Contract Award Funding $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 Cash Under Review
Totals $219,000 $205,000 $205,000

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$650,000 $660,000 Continue meadow and riparian restoration and fish passage improvements.
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
Operation and Maintenance of riparian protection fence will continue to be maintained at a cost of approximately $655,000 annually.
 
Termination Date Comments
2030 This project will continue to be on-going.
 
Final Deliverables

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date
Fix-it Loop Documents
Documents Originally Submitted with this Proposal

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
Location:
Province: No Change
Subbasin: No Change
Primary Focal Species
No Change
ARG Comments:


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$331,259
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$331,259
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$331,259
Total NPCC Rec
$993,777
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Fund
NPCC Comments: 2007 Revised Budget: 1) Reduced budget associated with riparian revegetation, road decommissioning (and find other cost share funds to complete project) and noxious weed treatment; and 2) eliminate budgets associated with culvert designs (work element 3a and e), two culvert replacements, and education component (work element 2c). Address ISRP concerns during contracting.


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$331,259
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$331,259
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$331,259
Total NPCC Rec
$993,777
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
NPCC Comments:
NPCC Staff Comments: Address ISRP concerns during contracting.

Local or MSRT Comments: 2007 Revised Budget: Reduced riparian reveg, eliminate culvert designs, eliminate 2 culvert replacements, reduced road decommissioning (and find other cost share funds to complete project) and noxious weed treatment, eliminate education component.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable in part
Comments: This is a 10-year-old project to restore the watershed’s physical and biological characteristics. The focal species is steelhead. The secondary species are spring/summer Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and rainbow and cutthroat trout. The project involves planting riparian vegetation, replacing passage-blocking culverts, decommissioning roads, controlling weeds, maintaining previously built livestock fencing, and installing salmonid habitat features in streams. All of these can be scientifically justified except the latter item, which is inadequately covered under Biological Objective 5 “Improve aquatic habitat diversity and complexity.” The proposed actions under that objective included installation of rock structures and wood material, such as tree stumps. Some of these, particularly the wood material, may be beneficial, but the sponsors have not justified it. The project’s hard-engineered structures bring the value of the entire plan for in-channel work into doubt (more on this below). The ISRP is also concerned that too much reliance is placed on the hydrodynamic modeling that was stated in the response. It might be useful for some objectives but not for assessing fish habitat and for the probably ill-advised ideas for hard-engineered structures.

The section on technical and scientific background adequately describes problems that need to be addressed. One particularly strong aspect is the recognition of anthropogenic causes of harm to the watershed and streams -- not just the instream symptoms. The ISRP suggested some reorganization of proposal material, which the sponsors did in response.

The significance to regional programs is adequately shown, as are relationships to other projects. The project history contained descriptions of past activities performed but lacked data on physical and biological results that would indicate what the 10 years of activities have accomplished in terms of improved habitat characteristics and fish populations. Also, it was not clear what assessment may have been made of the dynamic aspects of the fluvial geomorphic process. The ISRP asked for a response on these issues, and the sponsors responded with adequate discussion of physical matters. However, on the subject of the project’s biological effects, the response was as follows: “This project has never been under contract with BPA to determine the response of focal species. It is a project focused on implementing on-the-ground watershed restoration projects.”

Clearly, the project's overarching goal is to restore habitat for salmonid fishes. This cannot be claimed to have been achieved unless the results compose the suite of conditions that fish actually use and thrive in. It could be argued that monitoring fish abundance is not needed where it is reasonably certain that the work will result in an environment meeting that suite of conditions for the focal species. The proposal does not show that the project will meet that test. The proof of fish habitat restoration is fish.

The proposal’s objectives and methods were generally adequate with respect to planned actions but not with respect to in-channel work. The reviewers asked that the methods for increasing “instream habitat complexity” be described in more detail and justified in the response. They asked specifically that the response include description of the kinds of “grade control structures” to be built, and what is supposed to be their function in terms of fish habitat. They asked for discussion of how focal species would use the grade control structures, and what evidence exists that these devices would benefit the focal species and be cost-effective. They also asked what form the “wood material” structures would take, and requested description and literature-based evidence (or statistics from the project’s past work) that the planned methods are beneficial.

The response on drop structures and other in-channel work raised ISRP concern that the plan emphasizes hard-engineered methods (e.g., cross-vanes, w-weirs and J-hook vanes), which are of uncertain benefit to fish, and which may harm habitat. The proposal did not deal adequately with the fish habitat aspects of stream processes. From a non-biological literature source, the response lists 12 objectives for “properly designed” stream structures. One is “improve fish habitat,” but others would often conflict with it. An example is the objective, “decrease near-bank velocity, shear stress or stream power.” There was no consideration that some of the project’s focal and secondary species benefit from strong near-bank velocities that bring the most food per unit time past their preferred hiding places under stream banks or in wood lodged against banks—and that strong current against banks is needed to form and maintain hiding cover.

The response is too vague about “habitat diversity and complexity.” To say instream structures will be designed to “accommodate” fish habitat by creating pools where they naturally would form is important in a general sense, but it should also be considered that creating proper stream conformation for fish involves far more than that. It also says structures will “protect the stream bank from eroding into the channel; therefore, decreasing excessive sediment into the stream . . .” This intent seems laudable, but over-stabilization with “hard structures” can be harmful, and the response indicates hard engineering. Restoring riparian vegetation (perhaps also adding large woody debris along banks) would often reduce streambank erosion, while still allowing the moderate channel migration that is essential to form and reform natural stream features that compose fish habitat. Channel migration (which involves bank erosion) not only creates undercut banks that shelter fish, but can also recruit gravel from stream banks to replenish the streambed gravel beds that salmonids need for reproduction. The proposal does not consider the benefits of natural rates of channel migration.

In the previous funding cycle, the ISRP review of this project expressed reservation about funding because a complete and detailed monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan was not provided. Consequently, a detailed M&E plan was expected in this proposal. This proposal contained good general description of an M&E plan but remained deficient with respect to statistical design and methodological details. The ISRP asked for a response to include details of the plan and methods. The sponsors responded by attaching a monitoring report for 2005, that includes methods, but they did not summarize the methods because it “would be rather lengthy,” and instead said ISRP “input would be appreciated,” thus implying the ISRP should undertake the lengthy task.

As the project has not been funded for biological M&E, the sponsors should obtain biological M&E in the future via another project which is monitoring their stream and incorporate the results in their proposals.

Finally, in the response loop, the ISRP recommended that the Nez Perce Tribe suggest a priority and rank of the numerous proposals submitted under the titles “protect” and “restore,” indicating where habitat actions and protection in the Clearwater offer the most potential benefit. In response, a table showing priorities of projects was attached for this and other projects.

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.

.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Response requested
Comments: The proposal describes a 10-year-old project to restore physical and biological characteristics of this watershed. The focal species is steelhead. The secondary species are spring/summer Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and rainbow and cutthroat trout. This project involves planting riparian vegetation, replacing passage-blocking culverts, decommissioning roads, controlling weeds, maintaining previously built livestock fencing, and installing salmonid habitat features in streams.

The section on technical and scientific background adequately describes problems that need to be addressed in the project. One particularly strong aspect is the recognition of anthropogenic causes of harm to the watershed and streams -- not just the instream symptoms. The technical and scientific background could benefit by reorganizing some of the material and moving the material to a more appropriate section in the proposal. For example, the outlines of outreach and education activities of the project belong in the objectives and methods section.

The significance to regional programs is adequately shown, as are relationships to other projects. The project history contains descriptions of past activities performed but lacks data on the physical and biological results. What have the 10 years of activities accomplished in terms of improved habitat characteristics and in terms of fish populations? What assessment has been made of the dynamic aspects of the fluvial geomorphic process? A response should address these questions.

Statistics on the response of focal species populations to the work done are missing. The authors refer to a thesis (McRoberts 2002) that reports on change in physical characteristics of the stream channel but does not show the statistics. A general reference to a publication is not helpful. The project history section is inadequate and should be addressed in a response that also includes information on the response of the focal species, and changes in the stream channel.

The objectives and methods are generally adequate with respect to planned management. However, the methods for increasing “in-stream habitat complexity” should be described in more detail and justified in the response. The response also should include answers to the following questions and needs. What kind(s) of “grade control structures” will be built (form, dimensions, materials), and exactly what is supposed to be their function in terms of fish habitat? How does the focal species actually use grade control structures? What evidence exists from projects elsewhere that these devices would benefit the focal species and be cost-effective? What form will the “wood material” structures take? The sponsors should describe and present literature-based evidence (or statistics from results of past years’ work in the present project) that the planned methods are beneficial (such evidence could be presented in the section on technical and scientific background).

The last ISRP review of this project expressed reservation about funding because a complete and detailed monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan was not provided. Consequently, a detailed M&E plan was expected in this proposal. This proposal contains good general description of an M&E plan but remains deficient with respect to statistical design and methodological details. A response should include details of the plan and methods.

The focal and secondary species will undoubtedly benefit from much of the planned work. However, evidence of this needs to be measured and must be thoroughly presented in statistical terms in the next proposal cycle (and in the response of the present proposal, if such data exit).

Finally, 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?

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.