FY07-09 proposal 200709200
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restore Selway River Watershed |
| Proposal ID | 200709200 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribe DFRM Watershed Division |
| Short description | Protect, restore, and enhance the Selway River Watershed to provide quality habitat for anadromous and resident fish. This will be accomplished by resotration projects such as culvert replacement, noxious weed removal, 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 information sharing. Data will also be summarized in report form and submitted to Bonneville Power Administration. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Heidi McRoberts | Nez Perce Tribe | heidim@nezperce.org |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Arleen Henry | Nez Perce Tribe | arleenh@nezperce.org |
| Mark Johnson | Nez Perce Tribe | markj@nezperce.org |
| Heidi McRoberts | Nez Perce Tribe | heidim@nezperce.org |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mountain Snake / Clearwater
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 46.0877 | -115.5166 | Selway River | The Selway River watershed is a tributary to the Middle Fork Clearwater River, 18 air miles east of Kooskia, Idaho. |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESUprimary: Steelhead Snake River ESU
secondary: Westslope Cutthroat
secondary: Bull Trout
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 199706000 | Clearwater Focus Watershed Np | This project coordinates all watershed restoration activities within the ceded territory of the Nez Perce Tribe. |
| BPA | 198335003 | Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery M&E | Evaluation of effectiveness of supplementation: snorkeling and redd counts |
| BPA | 199607703 | Restore Fishing to Bear Creek | This project works to restore habitat in the upper Lochsa River tributaries that also drain to the Middle Fork Clearwater River. |
| BPA | 199607702 | 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. |
| 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 |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anadromous fish habitat improvement | The use of the general and aquatic limiting factors defined in the assessment provides us with an initial starting point for the identification and treatment of problems affecting anadromous populations throughout the Clearwater. | 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. |
| Eval needs and opport to increase native pops | Evaluate needs and opportunities to increase native resident populations of westslope cutthroat and bull trout throughout the subbasin | Clearwater | 1. Refine knowledge of limiting factors and restoration opportunities. 2. Prioritize opportunities for protection and restoration. 3. Evaluate the physical and biological response to habitat projects. 4. Provide research, monitoring and evaluation |
| 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 | 2. Continue aquatic habitat improvement efforts. 4. Restore complexity with restoration activities designed to promote diverse habitats (temp & sediment). 7. Monitor long-term effectiveness of habitat improvements. |
| 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. |
| 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 | 3.Remove or modify human-caused barriers . 5. Monitoring and evaluation of biological/hydrological response resulting from removal/replacement. |
| Reduce the extent and diversity of noxious weeds | Work to implement effective methods for reducing noxious weeds and invasive plants. | Clearwater | 1. Prioritize noxious weed infestations for treatment. 2. Treat weed infestations with most economical and effective treatment mehtods for reducing densities or eliminating populations. 3. Encourage best practices. 4. Monitor and evaluate efforts. |
| Reduce the impact of the transportation system | Reduce the impact of the transportation system on wildlife and fish populations and habitats. | Clearwater | 3. Protect habitats-encourage continued protection of diverse communities and high quality habitats in existing roadless areas. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manage and Administer Projects | Management, Coordination and Communication | Project management includes coordinating project activities, attending meetings, seeking additional funding, preparing statements of work, managing budgets, and completing reports. Communications will include e-mail, telephone, compressed video conferencing, and face-to-face meetings. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $40,871 |
|
Biological objectives Anadromous fish habitat improvement |
Metrics |
||||
| 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. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $26,572 |
|
Biological objectives Anadromous fish habitat improvement |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Provide NEPA information to BPA for projects on Forest Service Lands | The Nez Perce National Forest will complete NEPA and ESA consultation for culvert replacements, road decommisioning, and upland sediment and erosion control projects. | 10/1/2006 | 6/1/2009 | $46,701 |
|
Biological objectives Anadromous fish habitat improvement |
Metrics |
||||
| Other | Reporting | Submit quarterly and annual reports at designated timeframes | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $20,000 |
|
Biological objectives Anadromous fish habitat improvement |
Metrics |
||||
| Plant Vegetation | Revegetate the riparian zone of O'Hara Creek | Riparian areas within O'Hara Creek have been impacted by road building. Revegetation of the riparian zone will improve stream habitat. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $93,572 |
|
Biological objectives Protect/restore add'l miles of riparian habitat |
Metrics * # of riparian miles treated: 3.0 miles |
||||
| 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 densitometer to measure stream shade in riparian zones. | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $6,200 |
|
Biological objectives Protect/restore add'l miles of riparian habitat |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/Compliance Monitoring |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Summarize moniroting data from riparian plantings | Summarize moniroting data from riparian plantings | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $1,500 |
|
Biological objectives Protect/restore add'l miles of riparian habitat |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/Compliance Monitoring |
||||
| Outreach and Education | Public outreach and education | Educate the public, fellow professionals, and students about Nez Perce Tribe Treaty Rights and culture, about the principles and practice of watershed restoration, andp provide positive outreach and publicity for the accomplishments and on-going work we do. Inspire public stewardship of resources. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $34,219 |
|
Biological objectives Protect/restore add'l miles of riparian habitat |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Design and/or Specifications | Design/cost estimate for 4 culverts on FS Land for FY08-FY10 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. Culverts on Glover Creek, Boyd Creek, Cache Creek, and Twentythree Mile Creek are proposed for replacement, all are located on on Forest Service lands. | 6/1/2007 | 6/1/2008 | $92,126 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce number or artificially blocked streams |
Metrics |
||||
| Install Fish Passage Structure | Replace Glover Creek Culvert | Replace currently undersized fish passage barrier with a culvert/bridge that will pass all aquatic organisms and flows. The new feature will simulate natural stream conditions. | 6/1/2008 | 9/30/2008 | $181,152 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce number or artificially blocked streams |
Metrics * Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes * Was barrier Full or Partial?: Full * # of miles of habitat accessed: 8.4 |
||||
| Install Fish Passage Structure | Replace Boyd Creek Culvert | Replace currently undersized fish passage barrier with a culvert/bridge that will pass all aquatic organisms and flows. The new feature will simulate natural stream conditions. | 6/1/2009 | 9/30/2009 | $196,119 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce number or artificially blocked streams |
Metrics * Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes * Was barrier Full or Partial?: Full * # of miles of habitat accessed: 8.5 |
||||
| 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. | 9/1/2008 | 9/30/2010 | $6,200 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce number or artificially blocked streams |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Summarize moniroting data on culverts that were replaced | Write report summarrizing data from culvert monitoring. | 9/1/2008 | 9/30/2010 | $1,500 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce number or artificially blocked streams |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring |
||||
| Install Fish Passage Structure | Replace Cache Creek Culvert | Replacing Cache Creek culvert will allow passage to 2 miles of tributary habitat above the barrier. It will be replaced with a culvert/bridge that allows for natural stream simulation and passage of all aquatic organisms. | 6/1/2010 | 9/30/2010 | $0 |
|
Biological objectives Eval needs and opport to increase native pops |
Metrics * Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes * # of miles of habitat accessed: 2.2 * Was barrier Full or Partial?: Full |
||||
| Install Fish Passage Structure | Replace Twentythree Mile Creek Culvert | Replacing the Twentythree Mile Creek culvert will allow passage to 3 miles of tributary habitat above the barrier. It will be replaced with a culvert/bridge that allows for natural stream simulation and passage of all aquatic organisms. | 6/1/2010 | 9/30/2010 | $0 |
|
Biological objectives Eval needs and opport to increase native pops |
Metrics * # of miles of habitat accessed: 3.7 * Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes * Was barrier Full or Partial?: Full |
||||
| Improve/Relocate Road | Improve stream crossing features on 20 miles of Selway Trail #4 | Improve failing log culverts and stream crossings on Selway Trail to reduce sedimentation into the stream. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2007 | $38,042 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce the impact of the transportation system |
Metrics * # of road miles improved, upgraded, or restored: 20 |
||||
| Improve/Relocate Road | Improve stream crossing features on 10 miles of Bear Creek Trail #516 | Improve failing log culverts and stream crossings on Bear Creek Trail to reduce sedimentation into the stream. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2007 | $45,042 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce the impact of the transportation system |
Metrics * # of road miles improved, upgraded, or restored: 10 miles |
||||
| Improve/Relocate Road | Improve stream crossing features on 8 miles of East Moose Trail #421 | Improve failing log culverts and stream crossings on East Moose Trail to reduce sedimentation into the stream. | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2008 | $50,093 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce the impact of the transportation system |
Metrics * # of road miles improved, upgraded, or restored: 8 miles |
||||
| Remove vegetation | Reduce noxious and invasive weeds along travel corridors | Inventory of weeds has been completed by the Forest Service along common travelways. In addition, weeds can become a problem on newly disturbed soils such as decommissionned roads. Treatment of roads, prior to decommissioning will become practice. Additionally, treatment of noxious/invasive weeds along travel corridors by either pulling, spraying, or bio-control is proposed. | 6/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $51,219 |
|
Biological objectives Reduce the extent and diversity of noxious weeds |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Stream Habitat Data Collection in Selway River Watershed | Collect biological, chemical, and physical habitat parameter data in the Selway River drainage at designated 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. | 6/1/2007 | 9/30/2010 | $8,358 |
|
Biological objectives Improve aquatic habitat diversity and complexity |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Selway River 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. | 6/1/2007 | 9/30/2010 | $2,767 |
|
Biological objectives Improve aquatic habitat diversity and complexity |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Status and Trend Monitoring |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | 1.6 FTE | $87,981 | $84,866 | $89,958 |
| Fringe Benefits | 30% | $26,394 | $25,460 | $26,987 |
| Supplies | planting stock, misc. supplies & materials | $14,000 | $14,000 | $14,000 |
| Travel | vehicles and travel | $12,000 | $12,000 | $12,000 |
| Capital Equipment | computer, GPS, etc. | $6,000 | $3,000 | $3,000 |
| Other | subcontracts | $113,000 | $133,000 | $125,000 |
| Overhead | 29.64% | $44,275 | $42,185 | $44,147 |
| Other | training/conferences | $3,000 | $3,000 | $3,000 |
| Totals | $306,650 | $317,511 | $318,092 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $942,253 |
| Total work element budget: | $942,253 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nez Perce National Forest | Project design & prepartation, contract administration, monitoring, etc. | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| Nez Perce National Forest | Noxious weed inventory and control | $30,000 | $30,000 | $30,000 | In-Kind | Under Review |
| NPNF, PCSRF, Central Idaho RAC | Contract award funding | $75,000 | $60,000 | $45,000 | Cash | Under Review |
| Totals | $110,000 | $95,000 | $80,000 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $300,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $300,000 |
Comments: Additional culvert replacements and effectiveness monitoring |
Future O&M costs: Continued road obliteration, culvert replacement, revegitation, etc. will continue in the watershed. Annual effectiveness monitoring will occur for 5 years from the completion of the project
Termination date: 2016
Comments: Annual effectiveness monitoring will occur for 5 years from the completion of the project
Final deliverables: Annual M & E reports
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
| NPT DFRM Watershed Umbrella Comments | Jul 2006 |
| Mtn Snake NPT DFRM Project Recommendations with comments | Jul 2006 |
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: The ISRP finds the quality of this proposal very marginal but will consider a response on the issues raised below before making a final recommendation. In the response, 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? The Selway is important for sustaining and increasing populations of listed salmonids. IDFG has rated the Selway as having high potential for recovering steelhead. The proposal is consistent with the Biological Opinion, the Clearwater Subbasin Plan, and the USFWS draft Bull Trout Recovery Plan, it includes collaboration with the Nez Perce NF and complements several BPA- and non-BPA funded projects. Much of the habitat in the watershed is in reasonably good condition, but some sections are degraded. In areas where sediment control is proposed, how large of a problem is sedimentation in that area and how much habitat is being affected? Where barrier removal is proposed, is the habitat above the barriers suitable, what species and life stages of fish will benefit, and how much habitat will be made available? Most objectives are only generally stated and methods are not clearly described and referenced so that scientific adequacy could be assessed. Frequently, the work elements bear little relationship to the objective. The weeds component should aim to control spread of weeds that are already there and establish surveillance for new species. A response is needed on the issues raised above. The ISRP concludes that if a convincing case can be made for removal of the four problem culverts (e.g., will open large rearing area and will not permit access of exotics, specifically brook trout), a one-year project for their removal would be expected to provide some benefit. The monitoring program was not well explained. M&E needs to have an assessment of brook trout distribution in the Selway.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: A specific response was not provided for this proposal rather only a response to the ISRP's group review. Consequently, the ISRP's specific concerns with this project were not addressed, and the project is not fully justified. The Tribe ranked this in the second tier of protect and restore 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. ISRP preliminary comments (June 2006): Response requested. The ISRP finds the quality of this proposal very marginal but will consider a response on the issues raised below before making a final recommendation. In the response, 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? The Selway is important for sustaining and increasing populations of listed salmonids. IDFG has rated the Selway as having high potential for recovering steelhead. The proposal is consistent with the Biological Opinion, the Clearwater Subbasin Plan, and the USFWS draft Bull Trout Recovery Plan, it includes collaboration with the Nez Perce NF and complements several BPA- and non-BPA funded projects. Much of the habitat in the watershed is in reasonably good condition, but some sections are degraded. In areas where sediment control is proposed, how large of a problem is sedimentation in that area and how much habitat is being affected? Where barrier removal is proposed, is the habitat above the barriers suitable, what species and life stages of fish will benefit, and how much habitat will be made available? Most objectives are only generally stated and methods are not clearly described and referenced so that scientific adequacy could be assessed. Frequently, the work elements bear little relationship to the objective. The weeds component should aim to control spread of weeds that are already there and establish surveillance for new species. A response is needed on the issues raised above. The ISRP concludes that if a convincing case can be made for removal of the four problem culverts (e.g., will open large rearing area and will not permit access of exotics, specifically brook trout), a one-year project for their removal would be expected to provide some benefit. The monitoring program was not well explained. M&E needs to have an assessment of brook trout distribution in the Selway.