FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

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

Proposal 199607702: Protect and Restore Lolo 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: 199607702
Proposal Name: Protect and Restore Lolo Creek Watershed
BPA Project Manager: David Kaplowe
Agency, Institution or Organization: Nez Perce Tribe DFRM Watershed Division
Short Description: Protect and restore the Lolo 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
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?
46 22' 15" 116 09' 30" Stream Lolo Creek, tributary to the mainstem Clearwater River; Clearwater County, Idaho Clearwater, Idaho Clearwater No

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Chinook Snake River Fall ESU
Steelhead Snake River ESU
Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Pacific Lamprey
Rainbow Trout
Westslope Cutthroat
Bull Trout

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 Maintenance of riparian protection fence. Planted 2,000 riparian trees to enhance streambank protection. Replaced six culverts and restore two stream crossings to natural grade. Two miles of road decommissioning. Monitoring and evaluation.
2004 Maintenance of riparian protection fence. Planted 2,000 riparian trees to enhance streambank protection. Decommissioned four miles of road. Replaced two culverts to restore fish passage. Monitoring & Evaluaiton.
2003 Maintenance of riparian protection fence. Planted 2,000 riparian trees to enhance streambank protection. Replaced one culvert and restored three stream crossings. Survey & design for 2 culvert replacements. Monitoring & evaluation.
2002 Maintenance of riparian protection fence. Planted 3,000 riparian trees to enhance streambank protection. Inventory of culverts in Jim Brown Creek. Monitoring & evaluation.
2001 Maintenance of riparian protection fence. Planted 2,000 riparian trees to enhance streambank protection. Streambank stabilization through bioengineering on Jim Brown Creek. Monitoring & evaluation.
2000 Completed maintenance on all previously built fence. Completed bank stabilization project (100-feet) on Jim Brown Creek. Culvert inventories were started in Lolo Creek watershed.
1999 Installation of an additional off-site watering development to keep cattle in the uplands and out of ripairn areas. Completed 29 miles of road obliteration to reduce sediment delivery to streams. Constructed 2 mi of riparian protection fence.
1998 Construction on 10 miles of riparian protection/cattle exclusion fence. Installation of one off-site watering development to keep cattle in the uplands and out of riparian areas. Completed 15 miles of road obliteration to reduce sediment delivery.
1997 Construct 3.6 miles of fence for riparian habitat, cultural resource, and spawning habitat protection. Completed 12 miles of road obliteration to reduce sediment delivery to streams.

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
PCSRF - Idaho 031 04 CW Lolo Creek Passage Restoration This project cost shared with this BPA project to fund culvert replacements, and associated monitoring and evaluation.
BPA 198335000 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery O&M Hatchery supplementation to restore and recover Snake River Basin salmon stocks
BPA 198335003 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery M&E Evaluation of effectiveness of supplementation: snorkeling and redd counts
BPA 199607702 Protect & Restore Lolo Creek Watershed This is the ongoing BPA project in the Lolo Creek drainage focusing on watershed restoration activities such as culvert replacement, road decommissioning, and riparian restoration.
BPA 199706000 Clearwater Focus Watershed Np This project coordinates watershed projects within the Nez Perce Tribe Treaty Territory.
PCSRF - CRITFC 2000-1-01 Restore Habitat Access within Lolo Creek Five culverts were replaced and one culvert removed within Lolo Creek Watershed.

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
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 habitat improvement efforts consistent 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/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. 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 accommodate for aquatic species passage and propoerly funcitoning 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 methods 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 Agreements with Clearwater National Forest & Agreements with Potlatch Corporation The Nez Perce Tribe has been partners with both Potlatch Corporation and the Clearwater National Forest have been partners 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 $25,000
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. 3/2/2007 2/28/2010 $40,000
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 Clearwater National Forest will complete NEPA, cultural clearance, and ESA consultation for watershed restoration projects. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $15,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Develop programs and project proposals
No Metrics for this Work Element

1d: 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. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $60,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Develop programs and project proposals
No Metrics for this Work Element

1e: 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 Lolo Creek 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. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $11,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Develop programs and project proposals
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring
Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring

1f: Analyze/Interpret Data Lolo Creek 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. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $8,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Develop programs and project proposals
Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

1g: Produce Status Report Quarterly Reports or Pisces Formatted Data in Quarterly reports will track project work element completion. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $9,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Develop programs and project proposals
No Metrics for this Work Element

1h: Produce Annual Report Annual Report Annual reports summarize yearly activities. 3/1/2007 2/25/2010 $9,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Develop programs and project proposals
No Metrics for this Work Element

2a: Plant Vegetation Plant Riparian Vegetation Plant 2,000 native riparian trees per year in riparian areas where shade is needed to improve riparian habitat and temperatures need to be reduced to meet standards. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $70,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Protect/restore add'l miles of riparian habitat
* # of riparian miles treated: 5.0 miles

2b: 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 $18,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Protect/restore add'l miles of riparian habitat
* # of general public reached: 100
* # of students reached: 60
* # of teachers reached: 3

2c: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Monitor success of riparian plantings Data will be collected to monitor success of riparian plantings. This is done on a rotating basis of one year after re-vegetation and then every five years using circle plots and with a densiometer to measure stream shade in riparian zones. 3/1/2007 9/30/2009 $7,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Protect/restore add'l miles of riparian habitat
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/Compliance Monitoring

2d: 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. 10/1/2007 12/31/2009 $4,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Protect/restore add'l miles of riparian habitat
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/Compliance Monitoring

3a: Produce Design and/or Specifications Designs for All Culverts Designs for culvert replacement are a cooperative effort between the NPT and both Potlatch Corporation 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. For culverts on Potlatch Corp. (PC) lands, the NPT takes the lead and PC reviews and approves the designs. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $170,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
No Metrics for this Work Element

3b: Install Fish Passage Structure Replace Rat Creek Culvert Rat Creek culvert was identified in the Lolo Creek culvert inventory assessment as a priority for replacement as it was undersized and did not pass all life stages of fish. 3/1/2007 11/15/2007 $72,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 6.87 miles
* Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes

3c: Install Fish Passage Structure Replace Stray Creek Stray Creek culvert was identified in the Lolo Creek culvert inventory assessment as a priority for replacement as it was undersized and did not pass all life stages of fish. 3/1/2007 10/31/2007 $43,331
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 3.92 miles
* Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes

3d: Install Fish Passage Structure Replace Dan Lee Creek Dan Lee Creek culvert was identified in the Lolo Creek culvert inventory assessment as a priority for replacement as it was undersized and did not pass all life stages of fish. 3/1/2007 10/31/2007 $50,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
* Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 1.58 miles

3e: Install Fish Passage Structure Replace Fan Creek Culvert Fan Creek was identified in the Lolo Creek culvert inventory assessment as a high priority for replacement as it was undersized and did not pass all life stages of fish. 3/1/2007 11/15/2007 $67,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
* Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 3.5

3f: Upland Erosion and Sedimentation Control Replace Weaver Creek Culvert # 4 Weaver Creek #4 was identified in the Lolo Creek culvert inventory assessment as a priority for replacement as it was undersized and poses a risk of failure. 3/1/2007 11/15/2007 $20,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
* # of acres treated: 10

3g: Install Fish Passage Structure Replace Eldorado Creek Tributary Culvert Eldorado Creek Tributary Culvert was identified in the Lolo Creek culvert inventory assessment as a need for replacement as it was undersized and did not pass all life stages of fish. 3/1/2007 11/15/2007 $55,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 0.88 mi

3h: Install Fish Passage Structure Replace Mox Creek Culvert #2 Mox Creek #2 was identified in the Lolo Creek culvert inventory assessment as a high priority for replacement as it was undersized and did not pass all life stages of fish. 3/1/2008 11/15/2008 $75,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 1.79 miles
* Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes

3i: Install Fish Passage Structure Replace Mox Creek Culvert #3 Mox Creek # 3 was identified in the Lolo Creek culvert inventory assessment as a high priority for replacement as it was undersized and did not pass all life stages of fish. 3/1/2008 11/15/2008 $75,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 2.57 miles
* Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes

3j: Upland Erosion and Sedimentation Control Replace Tray Creek Culvert Tray Creek was identified in the Lolo Creek culvert inventory assessment as a high priority for replacement as it was undersized and did not pass all life stages of fish. 3/1/2008 11/15/2008 $53,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
* Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 1.02 miles
* # of acres treated: 10

3k: Install Fish Passage Structure Replace Mud Creek Culvert #1 Mud Creek # 1 was identified in the Lolo Creek culvert inventory assessment as a high priority for replacement as it was undersized and did not pass all life stages of fish. 3/1/2009 11/15/2009 $75,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 1.30 miles
* Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes

3l: Install Fish Passage Structure Replace Mud Creek Culvert #2 Mud Creek # 2 was identified in the Lolo Creek culvert inventory assessment as a high priority for replacement as it was undersized and did not pass all life stages of fish. 3/1/2009 11/15/2009 $75,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 0.11 mi
* Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes

3m: Install Fish Passage Structure Replace Mud Creek Culvert #3 Mud Creek # 3 was identified in the Lolo Creek culvert inventory assessment as a high priority for replacement as it was undersized and did not pass all life stages of fish. 3/1/2009 11/15/2009 $75,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 5.86 miles
* Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes

3n: Install Fish Passage Structure Replace culvert on Clearwater County Road This culvert was prioritized as it is located at the mounth acts as a complete barrier to the stream as well as poses a risk of failure. 3/1/2008 12/31/2008 $165,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 2.5

3o: Upland Erosion and Sedimentation Control Improve drainage within Musselshell Creek Culverts within the 5204 road are not functioning properly. The road is of low usage, so the culverts will be removed so natural drainage can occur and habitat can be reconnected. 3/1/2009 11/15/2009 $20,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
* # of acres treated: 4

3p: 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 2/28/2010 $10,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce the impact of the transportation system
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

3q: Analyze/Interpret Data Collect data on culverts that were replaced. Write report summarrizing data from culvert monitoring. 6/1/2007 9/30/2009 $8,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

4a: Decommission Road Decommission 10 miles of road within White Creek drainage. Decommission 10 miles of road to reduce sediment delivery to streams via surface erosion and landslide prone areas. 3/1/2007 12/1/2007 $130,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce the impact of the transportation system
* # of road miles decommissioned : 10.0 miles

4b: Decommission Road Decommission 10 miles of road within Yakus Creek drainage Decommission 10 miles of road to reduce sediment delivery from surface erosion and landslide prone roads. 3/1/2008 12/1/2008 $130,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce the impact of the transportation system
* # of road miles decommissioned : 10.0 miles

4c: Decommission Road Decommission 10 miles of road within the Long Ridge area of Lolo Creek Decommission 10 miles of road to reduce sediment delivery from surface erosion and landslide prone roads. 3/1/2009 11/15/2009 $130,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce the impact of the transportation system
* # of road miles decommissioned : 10

4d: 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 2/28/2010 $10,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce the impact of the transportation system
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

4e: Analyze/Interpret Data Summarize data from road decommissioning monitoring Write report on findings from monitoring of road decommissioning. 6/30/2007 11/30/2009 $8,000
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 Riparian zone/Floodplain through bioengineering of streambanks Streambanks are eroding and are devoid of riparian vegetation on Jim Brown Creek. Bioengineering techniques will restore the riparian zone, and decrease sedimentation delivery to the stream. 3/1/2007 9/15/2009 $60,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Improve aquatic habitat diversity and complexity
Reduce instream sedimentation to levels .....
* # of acres treated: 0.25

5b: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Collect data on stream morphology before and after implementation of bioengineering projects. Data is collected before restoration, the year of implementation, the year following, and five years later. Parameters collected include stream morphology, vegetation plots, and in-stream sediment. 6/1/2007 9/30/2009 $9,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce instream sedimentation to levels .....
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

5c: Analyze/Interpret Data Summarize data on monitoring of stream bioengineering projects Data is summarized and reported to BPA. 8/31/2007 10/31/2009 $7,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce instream sedimentation to levels .....
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

8a: Produce Plan Identify Noxious Weed Projects Data on noxious weed infestations within the Lolo Creek drainage will be completed in 2007. This data will be entered into a database, and will now be prioritized for treatment areas and applications. 9/30/2007 2/28/2008 $10,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce the extent and diversity of noxious weeds
No Metrics for this Work Element

8b: Remove vegetation Reduce noxious and invasive weeds along travel corridors, including decommissioned roads Weeds are a problem on newly disturbed soils such as decommissionned roads. Treatment of roads, prior to decommissioning will become practice. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $40,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce the extent and diversity of noxious weeds
* # of acres treated: 60.0 acres

9a: Maintain Vegetation Maintain 15 miles of riparian protection fence Fence was constructed in 1998 and 1999 of wooden posts and four-strand barbed wire. Due to heavy snow loads, annual maintenance is required to maintain a properly functioning fence that protects riparian and stream habitat. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $75,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing
No Metrics for this Work Element

9b: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Collect data on success and progress of riparian zone due to cattle exclusion fences Take photopoints every three years to determine success of riparian zone due to cattle exclusion. 6/1/2008 9/30/2008 $6,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

9c: Analyze/Interpret Data Summarize data collected on monitoring of riparian zone Write report and summarize photopoints on results of excluding cattle from riparian zone. 9/30/2008 2/28/2009 $4,000
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 3.5 FTE $170,317 $180,536 $191,368
Fringe Benefits 30 % $51,095 $54,161 $57,411
Supplies Field Supplies, non-expendable property $19,000 $19,000 $19,000
Travel 2 Vehicles & Travel to Meetings, etc. $21,000 $21,000 $21,000
Overhead 29.64 % $78,965 $82,902 $87,076
Other Sub-contracted Items $330,500 $330,500 $253,500
Other Training/Conferences $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Totals $675,877 $693,099 $634,355

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$2,003,331
Total Work Element budget$2,003,331

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
Forest Service Aquatic Restoration $46,000 $46,000 $46,000 In-Kind Under Development
Forest Service Road Decommissioning $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 Cash Under Development
Forest Service Culvert Replacement $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Cash Under Development
Forest Service Drainage maintenance/slide repair $27,000 $60,000 $27,000 In-Kind Under Development
Forest Service Fisheries Improvement $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 In-Kind Under Development
Forest Service Watershed Restoration $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 In-Kind Under Development
Forest Service Project Design, Contract prep & admin, monitoring $3,700 $5,400 $3,700 In-Kind Under Development
Forest Service Contract Award Funding $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Cash Under Development
Idaho Office of Species Conservation/ PCSRF Road & Culvert Restoration $125,000 $ 0 $ 0 Cash Confirmed
IOSC/PCSRF Culvert Upgrades/ Road Improvements $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Cash Under Development
Potlatch Corporation Culvert Upgrades/Road Improvements $135,000 $ 0 $ 0 In-Kind Confirmed
Totals $564,700 $339,400 $304,700

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$650,000 $660,000 Primarily road decommissioning, culvert replacement, habitat restoration, and monitoring.
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
Riparian protection fence maintenance and monitoring.
 
Termination Date Comments
2020
 
Final Deliverables
Lolo Creek watershed meeting all standards and supporting fish, wildlife, and cultural aspects.

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
$260,722
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$260,722
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$260,722
Total NPCC Rec
$782,166
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Fund
NPCC Comments: 2007 Revised Budget: 1) Reduced budget associated with riparian revegetation and noxious weed treatment; and 2) eliminate budget associated with culvert designs/replacements (work element 3a-q) and education component (work element 2b).


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

FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$260,722
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$260,722
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$260,722
Total NPCC Rec
$782,166
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
NPCC Comments:

Local or MSRT Comments: 2007 Revised Budget: Reduced riparian reveg, eliminate culvert designs & culvert replacements, reduce noxious weed treatment, eliminate education component.


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

Recommendation: Fundable
Comments: General comments concerning Nez Perce Tribe proposals to “protect and restore” various watersheds:

Justifications need to address several questions for each individual project:

1. What was the historic and current status and importance of the focal species population(s) in this watershed?

2. What was the historic and current condition of the habitat?

3. What is the potential to restore this watershed?

4. And if restored, what contribution will this project make to the focal species’ future?

The sponsors are encouraged to formulate a separate proposal to monitor and evaluate all such projects together with the entire budget devoted to this activity. This would provide consistency across projects, facilitate discovering the best methodologies to implement and monitor such projects, ensure the foundation for successful adaptive management, and reduce the monitoring burden on implementation teams. Linking to the Nez Perce Tribal Fish Hatchery monitoring would be an efficient way to deal with fish response while habitat factors could be evaluated separately, thus accounting for the fact that single habitat projects alone may be difficult to link to future fish response. The exception to this would be the relatively simple before/after monitoring of fish use and abundance above and below current passage barriers, which could be monitored as part of the individual habitat projects.

Removing passage barriers can - but not necessarily will - result in increased fish production. Thus the ISRP seeks justification of each specific project based on the quality and quantity of habitat above a barrier (not just miles of stream) and the potential increase in fish use and benefit. Risks associated with exotic fish species should also be included. A quantitative evaluation of habitat quality and quantity above each barrier should play a major role in prioritizing barrier replacement/removal projects. Similar logic can be followed for other projects (such as road decommissioning or weed management).

Several proposals included weed control, but no species or strategies were included. The only identifiable budget items were herbicide-related, which alone does not constitute a supportable strategy. Establishment or improvement of desirable alternative vegetation was not described. The sponsors should ensure that integrated pest management practices are followed and include quantifiable population or species distribution goals. Projects should employ a landscape level perspective. Developing such a program may require a cooperative effort with other landowners and agencies involved in invasive species control.

ISRP comments specific to this proposal 199607702:

The project’s purpose is to rehabilitate stream and riparian processes in the Lolo Creek watershed that were damaged by human activities: logging, road building, mining, farming, and grazing. Chinook salmon and steelhead are the focal species that are to benefit from improved habitat. Five other salmonid species are involved. The sponsors see disrupted sediment regimes as a major problem. To resolve it, they will focus work on road obliteration and streambank stabilization. The latter involves bioengineering methods and riparian plantings. They also will replace culverts that block fish passage.

The ISRP agrees that the project will benefit the focal and non-focal species and recommends that it is fundable.

Note: Some of the sponsors’ response to ISRP comments was done in ways that required much time-consuming further review. The main problem was brief reference to lengthy attached documents instead of writing direct answers.

The ISRP found that the proposal adequately analyzed problems and showed significance to regional programs and relationships to other projects.

The proposal’s project history section was inadequate. It did not include quantified evidence of the project’s physical and biological results. The ISRP asked for a response on effectiveness of project activities in terms of habitat created or improved and in terms of fish produced. The sponsors did not rewrite the project history but instead attached a 94-page report on (rather preliminary) physical and biological monitoring of Lolo Creek—and asked for ISRP comments on it. The report contains much data and some brief analyses from measurements of 11 parameters, covering the years 2003 to 2005, apparently the first period in which this monitoring was done for the 10-year-old project. Therefore, little or no time-trend information exists, but it was helpful to see the report’s methods. In the future, it would be more helpful for the sponsors to summarize pertinent material from such reports in the proposal itself.

The sponsors added that their project is minimally funded for biological M&E, and they referred to fish population monitoring being done under project #198335003. It would be appropriate for the sponsor to present and interpret data from that other project in the present project’s proposal.

In addition, the sponsors attached reports on monitoring of the road decommissioning effort and of culvert replacement (41 pages in total). Again, the results embodied in these reports should have been incorporated in the narrative proposal’s project history.

The ISRP commented that the general thrust of the objectives is sound, but their organization and clarity could be improved. The difference between certain objectives was unclear and needed to be rethought and reorganized and clarified in a response. The sponsors did this in editing their revised proposal. (But instead of describing the changes in the response document, they just said there that they had done it, forcing reviewers to spend much time and expense searching and comparing texts of the original and revised proposals to find out what the changes were.)

The proposal inadequately described monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plans. In particular, the methods for biological M&E were unacceptably sketchy. ISRP asked sponsors to present a thorough M&E program, including the appropriate statistical design. In response, the sponsors pointed to lack of direction and agreement within the Columbia Basin on monitoring strategies, again referenced the monitoring report for 2005, and said they would appreciate ISRP “input.” They say that the NPCC limitation of 5% of project budget for M&E will prevent them from implementing “the monitoring plan in the future, to its full capacity.” Review of their attached monitoring reports indicates that judicious sampling design improvements by statistical consultants (possibly including omission of some parameters) might reduce the M&E program’s size without hampering effectiveness. This project’s M&E value may be much reduced by lack of pre-construction measurements.

The ISRP recommended that, in the response loop, the Nez Perce Tribe prioritize and rank the numerous proposals submitted under “protect and restore” titles. This was covered in response attachments.


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

Recommendation: Response requested
Comments: This project proposal will benefit fish and wildlife. The focal species fall Chinook salmon and steelhead, will undoubtedly benefit from the project, as will non-focal species, including spring/summer chinook salmon, Pacific lamprey, and rainbow trout, which are listed in the proposal, as well as others.

The section on technical and scientific background adequately analyzes the problem. The section could be improved by omitting bureaucratic matter, as well as the outlines regarding outreach and education activities of the project. These outlines may fit better in the objectives and methods section. The significance to regional programs is adequately shown, as are relationships to other projects.

A response is needed on the ISRP’s comments below. The project history section is inadequate and should be rewritten to include quantified evidence of project results. Specifically, the project history contains fine descriptions of previously performed activities. However, it does not include data on physical or biological results. The sponsors mention completions of “effectiveness monitoring” but do not present the results. How effective were the activities in terms of habitat created or improved and in terms of fish produced? In particular, statistics on responses of focal species populations to the work done are needed.

The overall direction of the objectives is sound, but their organization could be improved. The difference between objectives 1, 2, and 5 is unclear. It seems that objectives 2 and 5 should be parts of objective 1. Other objectives also seem to be part of the statement for objective 1. Perhaps objective 1 is too broad or is misstated. The objectives need to be rethought and reorganized and clarified in the response.

The methods are for the most part straightforward and sound. The project methods will be more appropriate and evident once the project objectives are clarified. More detailed method descriptions should be provided in the response.

The monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is inadequately described. In particular, the methods for biological M&E are unacceptably sketchy. The response should provide evidence of a thorough M&E program element including the appropriate statistical design for such a program.

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.