FY07-09 proposal 199901500
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Big Canyon Fish Habitat |
| Proposal ID | 199901500 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) |
| Short description | Proposal funds installation of BMPs to address agricultural and forestry related habitat degradations. |
| Information transfer | Information generated guides our project decisions and habitat restoration activities. Data generated from this project is provided to StreamNet, Nez Perce Tribe, Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the Lewis Soil Conservation District. Information regarding the success of habitat restoration activities is shared with private landowners in the watershed through newsletters, tours, and the District's website. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Lynn Rasmussen | Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District | [email protected] |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Lynn Rasmussen | Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District | [email protected] |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mountain Snake / Clearwater
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Big Canyon Creek | Big Canyon Creek watershed. Location represents approximate center of watershed. | ||
| 46 15 31.51 | -116 31 23.83 | Big Canyon Creek | Cold Springs subwatershed |
| 46 20 19.16 | -116 24 58.79 | Big Canyon Creek | Sixmile Canyon |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Steelhead Snake River ESUsecondary: Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|---|
| 2005 | Treated 1.25 miles, protected 2 acres of wetland, treated 4,100.1 acres of upland acres, and treated 45.4 riparian acres. Installed 14 water & sediment control structures, 2000 LF of riparian plantings, 0.42 acres of upland trees, and restored one pond. |
| 2004 | Treated 2 wetland acres, 106.4 riparian acres, 5,263.3 upland acres, and 2.7 riparian miles. Installed 18 sediment control structures, 6 erosion projects, 2 waterways, 2 watering systems, 4 grass seedings, and released 4 biocontrol treatments. |
| 2003 | Installed 0.95 miles of fence in riparian areas, improved 0.86 miles of instream habitat complexity, treated 3 wetland acres, 1.72 riparian acres, 2,665 upland acres, and 0.57 riparian miles; installed 15 sediment control structures, 1500lf waterway. |
| 2002 | Installed 0.33 miles of fence in riparian areas, 0.09 miles in upland areas. Treated .77 wetland acres, 2.55 riparian acres, 1,756.8 upland acres, and 0.71 riparian miles. Installed 12 sediment control structures, 2000 lF waterway, 2 water systems. |
| 2001 | Installed 0.35 miles of fence in upland areas, treated 0.02 wetland acres, 1.61 riparian acres, 1,943.2 upland acres and 0.5 riparian miles. Collected stream temperature data, conducted field inventories to prepare designs for installation in 2002. |
| 2000 | Installed 0.66 miles of road improvements in upland areas, 0.66 miles of instream habitat complexity improved, treated 0.33 wetland acres, 9.48 riparian acres, 95.95 upland acres, and 0.13 riparian miles. |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| Other: Idaho Soil Conservation Commission | WQPA | Big Canyon Water Quality Program for Agriculture Project | Provides cost-share for implementation of BMPs |
| BPA | 199901600 | Protect/Restore Big Canyon Cr. | Collects fish habitat and abundance monitoring data, assesses passage barriers, provides technical assistance to the NPSWCD project. Collaborates on tree plantings and fence installations. |
| BPA | 199608600 | Clearwater Focus Program-IDSCC | This project provides coordination on the sub-basin level as well as assists in providing technical and administrative assistance to the District projects. |
| Other: Idaho DEQ CWA 319 | 319-s-069 | North Idaho AFO Implementation Project - Phase I & II | Provides cost-share for improving water quality on 303(d) listed streams. Within Big Canyon the program is used to provide cost-share to treat livestock feeding operations. |
| Other: USDA-FSA | CCRP | Continous sign-up CRP program | CCRP provides rental payments to landowners who establish riparian buffers in cropland and rangelands. This program is promoted by NPSWCD staff. Staff assist in developing treatment plans and collecting data. |
| Other: USDA-NRCS | EQIP | Environmental Quality Incentive Program | Provides cost-share to landowners for water quality and habitat improvements. NPSWCD uses BPA funds to provide an additional 30-50% cost-share for high priority habitat projects. |
| Other: Idaho Soil Conservation Commission | RCRDP loan | RCRDP loan program | Provides low interest loans to landowners to purchase equipment needed to install conservation practices. Used mostly for direct seeding drill purchase. This program helps achieve soil loss reductions by facilitating the purchase of equipment needed to transition to a direct seeding system. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Successfully Implement the Project | Includes coordination activities to ensure that project administration, reporting, technical, planning and implementation activities are not duplicated within the watershed. Includes management of subcontracts for on the ground work. | Clearwater | Objective LL/strategy 1,2 Objective MM/strategy 1 Objective PP/strategy 1,2,3 Objective RR/strategy 1,3,4 |
| 2. Identify and prioritize treatment needs. | Identify fish habitat limiting factors and prioritize treatment needs for the restoration, protection and enhancement of steelhead spawning and rearing habitat within the Big Canyon Creek watershed. | Clearwater | Objective B/strategy 1,2 Objective M/strategy 2 Objective O/strategy 3 Objective Q/strategy 1 Objective S/strategy 1 Objective U/strategy 1,3,5 Objective BB/strategy 1 Objective EE/strategy 1 Objective JJ/strategy 1 Objective MM/strategy 1 |
| 3. Prioritize stream temperature problems | Establish baseline temperature database, identify and prioritize stream temperature problems, and evaluate project implementation effectiveness. | Clearwater | Objective B/strategy1 Objective Q/strategy 1,6 Objective LL/strategy 2 Objective RR/strategy 4 |
| 4. Identify Projects | Inventory, assess, identify projects and produce watershed/stream restoration plans on specific lands within the Big Canyon Creek Watershed. | Clearwater | Objective B/strategy 1 Objective Q/strategy 1,2,3 Objective S/strategy 3 Objective U/strategy 1-5 Objective BB/strategy 1,3,4 Objective CC/strategy 1,3,4 Objective EE/strategy 1,2,3 Objective JJ/strategy 1 |
| 5. Implement habitat restoration practices | Implement agricultural, livestock and riparian structural and management practices to restore, enhance, and protect andadromous fish habitat, streambank stability, watershed hydrology, water quality, and floodplain function within the Big Canyon Creek watershed. | Clearwater | Objective Q/strategy 2,3 Objective S/strategy 4 Objective U/strategy 2 Objective Y/strategy 3 Objective Z/strategy 2 Objective BB/strategy 2, Objective CC/strategy 6, Objective DD/Strategy 2,3 Objective EE/strategy 2,3 Objective JJ/strategy 2 |
| 6. Remove man-made barriers | All historical fish habitat within the Big Canyon Creek watershed is accessible and connectivity is re-established | Clearwater | Objective P/strategy 3 |
| 7. Market project to watershed stakeholders | Continue to market the project to watershed stakeholders | Clearwater | Objective BB/strategy 4 Objective CC/strategy 5 Objective DD/strategy 3 Objective LL/strategy 1 Objective PP/strategy 1,2,3 Objective RR/strategy 1,2,3,4 |
| 8. Ensure project installation compliance | Ensure project installation compliance and revise implementation strategies based on monitoring installed practices. | Clearwater | Objective B/strategy 2 Objective O/strategy 7 Objective P/strategy 5 Objective Q/strategy 6 Objective S/strategy 5 Objective U/strategy 7 Objective W/strategy 5 Objective X/strategy 6 Objective AA/strategy 5 Objective BB/strategy 6 Objective CC/strategy 7 |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manage and Administer Projects | Manage and Administer Project | Coordinate and communicate project administration, planning, technical, reporting, and implementation activities with BPA, regional partners, and regulatory agencies to ensure project goals, objectives, and expections are being met and to comply with environmental regulations. Includes meeting attendance, preparing statements of work, seeking funding, managing budgets, completing reports, and responding to BPA requests. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $15,000 |
|
Biological objectives 1. Successfully Implement the Project |
Metrics |
||||
| Coordination | Coordinate project implementation to reduce duplication and improve project delivery. | Project coordination includes coordination with federal, state, tribal, local and other interests to avoid program and project duplication. Activities under this work element include one interagency watershed meeting per year to coordinate projects, disseminate information and identify joint projects. In addition, project coordination includes working with NRCS and IDFG to coordinate implementation of projects for fish habitat improvement using the EQIP, CCRP, WHIP, PL566, and HIP programs. The local communities of Peck and Craigmont as well as rural residents in Nez Perce and Lewis Counties will be involved in the planning and implementation for specific sites installed through this project proposal. This will be accomplished through public meetings. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $15,000 |
|
Biological objectives 1. Successfully Implement the Project |
Metrics |
||||
| Provide Technical Review | Provide technical assistance to agencies within the watershed in order to share technical expertise and reduce project costs. | Technical assistance provided to NPT, IDFG, NCRS, SCC, NPC for designs, site inventory, and development of recommendations for projects occurring within the watershed and impacting fish habitat. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $8,000 |
|
Biological objectives 1. Successfully Implement the Project |
Metrics |
||||
| Create/Manage/Maintain Database | Develop project database to facilitate information sharing and improve efficiency in BPA metrics reporting. | Develop and update database and GIS layers to track project installation location and project specific information over time. This database will be developed in coodination with the Nez Perce Tribe and shared with other agencies as well as BPA annual reporting. The current database was originally organized in 2003 and includes previous project data from 1999-2005. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $15,000 |
|
Biological objectives 1. Successfully Implement the Project |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Complete environmental compliance documentation. | Produce environmental compliance documentation for review and approval for all on-the-ground implementation projects and actions. NEPA will occur through BPAs, NEPA process checklist, and ESA compliance through BPAs HIP BiOp process. Cultural resource compliance shall be through SHIPO. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $9,000 |
|
Biological objectives 1. Successfully Implement the Project |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Collect stream inventory data on 60 miles of Big Canyon Creek | Using protocols established in the 2005 proposal, complete the stream inventory on BIg Canyon Creek. Sixty miles are planned for completion. | 5/1/2007 | 9/1/2008 | $50,000 |
|
Biological objectives 2. Identify and prioritize treatment needs. |
Metrics |
||||
| Create/Manage/Maintain Database | Maintain stream inventory database in order to capture data and facilitate analysis. | Maintain the database and associated spatial layer established through the 2002 BPA project # 2002-015-00. This database is used to manage and analyze the stream inventory and assessment data. Data entry components will be completed by the NPSWCD and GIS components by a subcontractor. | 12/1/2007 | 2/28/2009 | $4,000 |
|
Biological objectives 2. Identify and prioritize treatment needs. |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Stream Temperature Data collection in the Big Canyon Creek Watershed. | Continue to monitor stream water temperature at six sites within the watershed. The sites are selected through a coordinated effort with the Nez Perce Tribe and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. In addition, collect stream temperature data at 4 sites where stream temperature practices were installed through the 2002-2005 proposal. Onset Hobo temperature dataloggers are used to measure stream water temperatures. The loggers consist of logger, submersible case and chain. The loggers are placed in the stream in March of each year and are retrieved in November of each year. | 3/1/2007 | 11/1/2009 | $6,000 |
|
Biological objectives 3. Prioritize stream temperature problems |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Evaluate effectiveness of stream temperature reduction practices. | Collect stream temperature data at four sites where riparian vegetation was planted for the purpose of reducing stream temperatures. HOBO temperature loggers will be deployed at upstream and downstream ends of projects. Deployment, data collection, quality assurance, and data management will follow Idaho DEQ protocols. Loggers are placed in March and collected in November of each year. Work will be completed by NPSWCD. | 3/1/2007 | 11/1/2009 | $3,000 |
|
Biological objectives 3. Prioritize stream temperature problems |
Metrics |
||||
| Identify and Select Projects | Identify and select projects for restoration plan development, site specific inventories, and project designs. | Applications are accepted throughout the year and prioritized twice per year. The District newsletter is used to advertise the application periods. Visit potential project sites and collect inventory data for high priority project applications. In general when an inventory is completed the planner will have collected information on the existing vegetation type and condition, soil resource concerns, water quality issues, fish habitat limitations and potentials of the site. Rank project applications received for installation. Projects will be ranked based on fish habitat improvement potentials. | 5/1/2007 | 7/1/2009 | $20,000 |
|
Biological objectives 4. Identify Projects |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Plan | Develop habitat restoration plans. | The highest ranking projects identified through the Identity and Select Work Element are forwarded for plan development. Plans are developed which provide alternative treatments for solving identified fish habitat related resource concerns. Develop land management, habitat restoration and conservation plan which identified site specific practices to address fish habitat needs. This process involves an on-site resource inventory of existing natural resources, identification of resource problems (focusing on fish habitat), development of alternatives to improve the identified problem, and the selection of an alternative and list of habitat improvement practices. Habitat plans are developed by NPSWCD staff and interdisciplinary team of resource professionals from the Nez Perce Tribe - Fisheries Watershed Division and Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Depending upon the site specific problem additional resource assessment and planning assistance is obtained from the Idaho Department of Agriculture, Idaho Soil Conservation Commission, and USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service. As part of the habitat plan development process, document the occurrence of rare species and report to the Conservation Data Center (CDC). The goal is to complete 4 habitat plans per year. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $35,000 |
|
Biological objectives 4. Identify Projects |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Design and/or Specifications | Complete designs identified in habitat restoration plans. | Designs are prepared for projects identified in the habitat improvement plans developed under the produce plan work element. Complete surveys to obtain site specific data for the completion of engineering and technical designs. This work includes, but is not limited to, cross-sections, benchmark elevation determination, topographic and photometric surveys. Design package includes surveys, engineering or technical drawings, site maps, construction or installation specifications and material specifications, and cost-estimates. Site locations for designs are determined from the annual prioritization of projects submitted by landowners. A list of projects is developed each fall and then designs are prepared for the highest priority projects. Designs are completed through a coordinated team of professionals including Nez Perce Tribe, Nez Perce County, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Idaho Department of Agriculture, and subcontractors. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $30,000 |
|
Biological objectives 4. Identify Projects |
Metrics |
||||
| Develop Alternative Water Source | Develop alternative livestock water sources. | Install alternative water developments in areas identified through the stream inventory and conservation planning process. Where livestock water directly from stream sources or springs, alternative water sources will be developed. These water sources include wind, solar and gravity fed systems. Typical components of a water system include a trough,collector and pipeline. Target is to construct 3 off-site watering facilities per year in 2007, 2008, and 2009. | 6/1/2007 | 10/1/2009 | $45,000 |
|
Biological objectives 5. Implement habitat restoration practices |
Metrics |
||||
| Install Fence | Install Fence to Protect Wetlands/Riparian Areas | Install fence in areas identified through the stream inventory and conservation planning process. Work items include obtaining materials identified in fence designs and installation. Fence will be installed by landowners or by the Nez Perce Tribe Fence Crew. Target is to construct 1 miles of fence per year in 2007, 2008, and 2009. | 5/1/2007 | 11/1/2009 | $15,000 |
|
Biological objectives 5. Implement habitat restoration practices |
Metrics * # of miles of fence: 3 |
||||
| Upland Erosion and Sedimentation Control | Install Erosion Control Practices | Install erosion control measures such as grassed waterways, terraces, grade control structures, sediment basins, diversions, water and sediment control structures and buffers as recommended through the stream inventory process and habitat plan development on specific land owner properties. The target is to install 8 practices per year in 2007, 2008, and 2009. | 5/1/2007 | 11/1/2009 | $40,000 |
|
Biological objectives 5. Implement habitat restoration practices |
Metrics |
||||
| Create, Restore, and/or Enhance Wetland | Restore and enhance wetlands | Implement wetland restoration and enhance measures as recommended through the stream inventory and habitat planning process. The target is to restore and/or enhance 0.5 acres of wetland per year in 2007, 2008, and 2009. | 5/1/2007 | 11/1/2009 | $25,000 |
|
Biological objectives 5. Implement habitat restoration practices |
Metrics |
||||
| Improve/Relocate Road | Improve forestry, agriculture, and rangeland access roads | Road improvements consist of upgrading cross-sections and ditch, addition of base and surface aggregates, and upgrading inadequate cross-drains to reduce sediment delivery to the stream. Work inspection will occur during installation to ensure design parameters and material specifications are followed. Target is to improve 1 mile of road per year. | 5/1/2007 | 11/1/2009 | $30,000 |
|
Biological objectives 5. Implement habitat restoration practices |
Metrics |
||||
| Increase Instream Habitat Complexity | Restore instream habitat complexity within the Big Canyon Creek Watershed. | Restore instream habitat complexity through the installation of LWD in areas recommended by the stream inventory. However, completion of inventory in 2007 may reprioritize locations. Target is to increase habitat complexity in 1 miles of stream in 2007, 2009, and 2009. | 5/1/2007 | 11/28/2009 | $10,000 |
|
Biological objectives 5. Implement habitat restoration practices |
Metrics |
||||
| Remove vegetation | Control weeds to assist in establishment of riparian vegetation. | Implement invasive weed treatment prior to planting vegetation. Weed control will be performed using mechanical and chemical control methods to assist in the establishment of riparian vegetation. The control of weed competition is critical in the first two to three years after a riparian planting. Mechanical weed control is performed with weed eaters and mowers. Chemical weed control is performed using hand sprayers with herbicide application occurring in spot treatment areas. Weed control will be performed in late spring and early fall depending upon weed growth during the year. Work will be completed by NPSWCD staff, Idaho department of Correction Inmate Labor, and subcontractors. Target is to treat 8 acres per year in 2007, 2008, and 2009. This work element is directly related to the plant vegetation work element below. | 4/1/2007 | 10/28/2009 | $15,000 |
|
Biological objectives 5. Implement habitat restoration practices |
Metrics |
||||
| Plant Vegetation | Plant riparian and upland grass plantings to reduce sediment delivery, improve base flows, increase stream shading and improve habitat complexity. | Plant vegetation to reduce sediment delivery to Big Canyon Creek, restore base flows, increase stream shading and improve habitat diversity and complexity. Locations are determined from recommendations in the stream inventory and habitat planning processes. Native species will be used where appropriate and feasible. All seed used will be certified weed free seed. Target is to plant 7 acres of riparian plantings and 20 acres of upland plantings per year in 2007, 2008, and 2009. | 4/1/2007 | 10/28/2009 | $29,893 |
|
Biological objectives 5. Implement habitat restoration practices |
Metrics |
||||
| Remove/Modify Dam | Maintain connectivity within the Big Canyon Creek watershed in low flow months | Install 2 low flow crossing barrier improvements. A different technique will be used at each site to demonstrate to land owners and users alternatives for low flow condition stream crossings. Stream inventory data collected in the 2002-2005 proposal identified fish passage barriers during low flow summer months. These barriers typically occur where the stream is used for agricultural equipment crossings. The need for low cost, low maintenance alternatives was identifed. Crossing types will be identified in the 2006 Restoring Anadromous Fish Habitat Proposal. These alternatives will be applied through this proposal and used as demonstration sites to assist in land owner/manager adoption. | 5/1/2007 | 11/28/2008 | $20,000 |
|
Biological objectives 6. Remove man-made barriers |
Metrics |
||||
| Install Fish Passage Structure | Restore connectivity | Replace barrier culverts with fish friendly structures as recommended and prioritized by IDT team and stream inventory. Implementation items will include advertisement for bid, site inspection, final inspection, and implementation monitoring. Target is to replace 1 structure per year 2007, 2008, and 2009. | 5/1/2007 | 11/28/2009 | $15,000 |
|
Biological objectives 6. Remove man-made barriers |
Metrics |
||||
| Outreach and Education | Inform public about fish habitat needs within the watershed | Provide project specific and general fish habitat information to the public through the District newsletter, radio announcements, local papers, and educational presentations. | 2/1/2007 | 10/28/2009 | $6,000 |
|
Biological objectives 7. Market project to watershed stakeholders |
Metrics |
||||
| Maintain Vegetation | Maintain riparian vegetation. | Previously planted vegetation will be maintained by an annual site review to monitor establishment and determine if weed control is needed. If weed control is needed, then weed control will be performed. Weed control methods include mechanical (mowing) and herbicide (spot spraying). The NPSWCD contracts with the landowners to maintain the vegetation after the establishment period. Costs associated with vegetation maintenance after year 3 of the planting are the responsibility of the landowner. Landowner maintenance costs are shown as cost share in the budget portion. | 3/1/2007 | 10/28/2009 | $5,000 |
|
Biological objectives 8. Ensure project installation compliance |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Project compliance and Implementation Monitoring | Post project monitoring to ensure project specifications were completed. Set up and collect data to evaluate restoration projects to ensure desired outcomes are met. Data collection may include photo points, vegetation plots, cross-sections and post year site inspections. | 9/1/2007 | 11/28/2009 | $4,000 |
|
Biological objectives 8. Ensure project installation compliance |
Metrics |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Analyze Project Compliance and Implementation Monitoring Data. | Analyze project compliance and implementation monitoring data to ensure projects are meeting desired outcomes. Additional work and lessons learned will be incorporated into conservation plans. | 12/1/2007 | 2/28/2009 | $15,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | project leader, field technicians, planner, biologist | $89,460 | $89,460 | $89,460 |
| Travel | [blank] | $1,000 | $1,000 | $1,000 |
| Overhead | Training | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Overhead | telephone | $2,000 | $2,000 | $2,000 |
| Supplies | [blank] | $2,000 | $2,000 | $2,000 |
| Other | materials for bmp installation | $8,000 | $8,000 | $8,000 |
| Other | repairs and maintenance | $750 | $750 | $750 |
| Other | vehicle lease, pov mileage | $8,000 | $8,000 | $8,000 |
| Overhead | computer services | $1,000 | $1,000 | $1,000 |
| Overhead | 10% | $11,221 | $11,221 | $11,221 |
| Other | office rent | $7,200 | $7,200 | $7,200 |
| Other | equipment | $1,000 | $1,000 | $1,000 |
| Other | consultants and contracts | $30,000 | $30,000 | $30,000 |
| Totals | $161,631 | $161,631 | $161,631 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $484,893 |
| Total work element budget: | $484,893 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Farm Service Agency | CRP program payments | $34,000 | $34,000 | $34,000 | Cash | Confirmed |
| Idaho Department of Agriculture | Engineering design assistance | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| Nez Perce Tribe | technical assistance for planning and designs | $12,000 | $12,000 | $12,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| WQPA | cost share for BMPs | $10,000 | $8,000 | $8,000 | Cash | Confirmed |
| Totals | $61,000 | $59,000 | $59,000 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $180,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $180,000 |
Comments: [Outyear comment field left blank] |
Future O&M costs: Operation and maintenance of BMPs is the landowners responsibility
Termination date: estimated 2020
Comments:
Final deliverables:
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
| ISRP Comments | Jul 2006 |
| Revised proposal narrative | 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: A response is needed regarding three issues: (a) priority and feasibility of restoration, (b) results to date, and (c) watershed assessment. (a) Why is continuing to expend effort on restoration in the watershed justified? The proposal's technical and scientific background provides a compelling case that there is much habitat degradation in the Big Canyon watershed. What is NOT evident is the extent to which this watershed ever was a major producer of fish (in this case steelhead which are ESA listed, and coho which are being reintroduced). It is not identified in either the Clearwater Subbasin Plan or federal recovery plans as being a focal point of sustainable populations under anticipated landscape conditions, or with the likelihood of recovering sustainable populations by recovering or restoring habitat forming ecological functions in the watershed. For example, "Presence of at-risk-species: wild A-run steelhead" is not enough detail. In response, please provide evidence that this is an essential watershed for the continued persistence of these fish, and some idea that recovery is possible. Please consider both the steelhead and the coho reintroduction. (b) Results to date need to be reported. How do we know this is working? In response, please summarize the realized benefits to anadromous fish. The first paragraph of the section Rationale and Significance to Subbasin Plans and Regional Programs includes a final sentence with the historic miles of stream restored and sediment reduction left blank. In response, please fill in the numbers. (c) Some watershed assessments have been completed but the results and implications of these analyses are not adequately summarized in the proposal. The Big Canyon Creek Environmental Assessment (1995) and Big Canyon Creek Watershed Assessment ("expected completion 2001") are identified as related projects. It seems this project should be designed and based on the assessments provided by those efforts. Also, why is Big Canyon Creek Watershed Assessment still listed as expected completion 2001 in 2005/6? Is the assessment completed and released yet? If not, how is it being used to develop the work elements in this proposal? Please provide answers to these questions and expand your summary of the implications of completed watershed assessments.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: The revised narrative and response to the ISRP questions from the preliminary project review are insufficient to form the basis for the ISRP to find that this proposal has sufficiently defined objectives (biological or physical habitat) that are to be accomplished within a specified period and are measurable for assessment and evaluation. There is insufficient information provided for the ISRP to find that continuing to implement this proposal is likely to benefit the focal species. Past surveys and environmental and watershed assessments are cited as justification for this creek to support steelhead and reintroduced coho salmon. However, there is little quantitative support for the very general statements made. For example, reporting that Fuller et al. (1986) determined that the Big Canyon Creek was one the top steelhead producing streams on the Nez Perce reservation and that Kucera et al. (1983) concluded that of the 23 streams surveyed in the lower Clearwater, Little Canyon and Big Canyon creeks had the highest and 4th highest densities of over yearling steelhead respectively does not inform us of the actual status of the populations, only their status relative to other presumably degraded environments. Further, it tells little about the restoration potential. It is very likely that installing agricultural Best Management Practices throughout the watershed would improve a number of water quality challenges facing the creek and Clearwater subbasin. The proposal, however, is insufficient for the ISRP to determine whether the actions proposed will actually benefit the focal species. On this basis, the proposal is Not Fundable.