FY07-09 proposal 199901600
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Protect & Restore the Big Canyon Creek Watershed |
| Proposal ID | 199901600 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribe Dept. Fisheries Resource Management Watershed Division |
| Short description | This project is to protect, restore, and return critical spawning and reareing habitat using a ridgetop to ridge top approach, based on a complete watershed assessment and following the Clearwater Subbasin Management Plan. |
| Information transfer | Data will be housed at the Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resource Management, Watershed Division office. Data will be submitted to StreamNet for information sharing. Data will be presented and summarized in report form and submitted to BPA. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Mark D. Reaney, Jr., P.E. | Nez Perce Tribe DFRM/Watershed Div. | [email protected] |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Mark D. Reaney, Jr., P.E. | Nez Perce Tribe DFRM/Watershed Div. | [email protected] |
| Emmit Taylor, Jr. | Nez Perce Tribe DFRM/Watershed Div. | [email protected] |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mountain Snake / Clearwater
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 46.3329 | -116.3644 | Big Canyon Creek and it's tributaries | Big Canyon Creek is a tributary to the Clearwater River, joining it 31 miles east of Lewiston, Idaho and runs through the town of Peck, Idaho. |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Steelhead Snake River ESUsecondary: Chinook Snake River Fall ESU
secondary: Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
secondary: Coho Unspecified Population
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|---|
| 2005 | IMPLEMENTATION: -Ed/Outreach w/local schools -Road Erosion Report -Transportation Planning Draft -M&E fish dist., abund., comp. -2 barrier replacement designs -Culvert design estimating spreadsheet -2 mi.fence -20 ac. weed control -NRAMP 9 properties |
| 2004 | IMPLEMENTATION: -Coord. w/ NRCS, NPCSWCD, NPT Water Resources -Planted 5 acres of vegetation -60 acres of weed control -Ed/Outreach -Stream Crossing Report -M&E fish distribution, abundance, composition PLANNED: 3.5 mi. wetland/riparian fencing |
| 2003 | IMPLEMENTATION: -Survey stream crossings -surveyed roads for erosion potential -Prioritize fish barrier projects -Planted 3 acres of vegetation -Collaborated landowners, NRCS, and NPSWCD -Analyze CY2002 biol., chem., and habitat data |
| 2002 | IMPLEMENTATION: -Compiled road maps, obtained landowner permission to survey roads -Provided fish passage survey training -Surveyed stream crossings -4 miles of riparian/ wetland fencing -M&E fish distribution, abundance, etc. -Coordination w/NPSWCD |
| 2001 | Planned - Survey of all roads within Nez Perce Tribal lands for watershed restoration opportunities. Planned - Final Big Canyon Creek Watershed Assessment Document |
| 2000 | Field Check of Watershed Assessment Data 85% of the allocated budget was used to begin a required Clearwater Subbasin Assessment and Plan |
| 1999 | Draft Big Canyon Creek Watershed Assessment |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 198335000 | Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery O&M | This project compliments the hatchery supplementation to restore and recover Snake River Basin salmon stocks by improving habitat quantity/quality. |
| BPA | 198335003 | Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery M&E | Protection and restoration of fisheries habitat and water quality for fall chinook and coho satelite facility 0.8 miles upstream on Lapwai Creek from confluence with Clearwater River. |
| BPA | 199608600 | Clearwater Focus Program-IDSCC | This project implements the goals and objectives of this program. |
| BPA | 199706000 | Clearwater Focus Watershed Np | This project implements the goals and objectives of this program. |
| BPA | 199901500 | Big Canyon Fish Habitat | This project focuses on habitat restoration and protection implementation on tribal properites and compliments project 199901500 which implements BMPs on private lands to reduce sediment, nutrients, and stream temperature, and improves low summer flows. NPT Fisheries-Watershed works closely with NPSWCD. |
| Other: Region 10 EPA | [no entry] | NPT Water Resources Wetland Program Development Grant | This project works cooperatively with the NPT Water Resources Division to assess, protect and restore wetlands and water quality. This project also implements wetland restoration and protection actions as recommended by the NPT Water Resources. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biological Problem 2, Objective B. | Improve anadromous fish productivety and production, and life stage specific survival through habitat improvement. | 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. |
| Environmental Problem 10, Objective BB. | Protect and restore an additional 300 miles of riparian habitats by 2017. | Clearwater | 1. Strategy: Identify and prioritize riparian habitats for protection and restoration. 2. Strategy: Protect and restore riparian habitats through....conservation easements, land exchanges, promotion of BMPs and alternative grazing strategies.. |
| Environmental Problem 10, Objective Z. | Protect all currently functioning wetlands. | Clearwater | 2. Strategy: Protect wetland habitats through ... conservation easements .... public education, promotion of BMPs, promotion of alternative grazing strategies. 3. Strategy: Continue effective activities--continue existing programs ..... |
| Environmental Problem 11, Objective CC. | The introduction of noxious weeds and nonnative plant species into the Clearwater subbasin has negatively impacted native terrestrial focal species. | Clearwater | 1. Identify ans prioritize native plant communities for protection from exotic weeds. 3. Encourage the use of weed free seeds and feeds. 5. Increase public participation through education and awareness programs. 6. Prevent establishment of new invaders.. |
| Environmental Problem 11, Objective DD. | Reduce the extent and density of noxious weeds | Clearwater | 1. Prioritize for treatment - identify and prioritize noxious weed infestations for treatment. 2. Treat Weed infestations - implement methods for reducing weed densities. 3. Encourage best practices- 4. Monitor and evaluate efforts to reduce weeds. |
| Environmental Problem 12, Objective EE. | Reduce the negative impacts of livestock grazing on fish, wildlife and plant poulations in the watershed. | None | 1. Identify and prioritize areas impacted by grazing for protection and restoration. 2. Reduce grazing impacts--encourage establishment of riparian pasture, exclusion fences, off-site watering, or riparian conservation easments (Lease Land) |
| Environmental Problem 12, Objective FF. | Reduce conflicts between livestock and native wildlife and plant populations. | Clearwater | 4. Reduce cattle/elk conflicts--where possible, alter grazing management to minimize cattle/elk conflicts, especially on elk winter range areas. 5. Monitor and evaluate efforts to reduce impacts of cattle on plant and wildlife species. |
| Environmental Problem 16, Objective JJ | Reduce the impact of the transportation system on wildlife and fish populations and habitats | Clearwater | Reduce road impacts--implement road closures and decommissioning programs in areas identified in the assessment and Section 4.4 to have high road densities, high sediment production, high surface erosion, and/or landslide prone. Prioritize areas with..... |
| Environmental Problem 7, Objective P. | Reduce number of artificially blocked streams by 2017 | Clearwater | Remove or modify human-caused barriers--emphasize alteration/removal of unatural barriers over natural barriers. |
| Environmental Problem 7, Objective Q. | Reduce water temperature to levels meeting applicable water quality standards for life stage specific needs of anadromous and native resident fish, with an established upward trend in the number of stream miles meeting standards by 2017. | Clearwater | 3. Restore riparian functions related to temperature--continue efforts aimed at increasing streamside shading where shading has been removed by anthropogenic activities.....Restore watershed functions impacting temperatures. |
| Environmental Problem 7, Objective S. | Reduce instream edimentation to levels meeting applicable water quality standards and measures, with an established upward trend in the number of stream miles meeting such criterion by 2017. | Clearwater | 4.Reduce sediment--reduce sediment inputs by implementing practices that address problems from logging, mining agricultur and other historic and current sediment producing activities. This work item includes upgrades to road surface and drainage features. |
| Environmental Problem 7, Objective T. | Develop a nutrient allocation plan for the subbasin which investigates the potential benefits to fish and wildlife of nutrient additions or reductions. | Clearwater | 1. Inventory and map all potential anthropogenic nutrient inputs including waste water treatment facilities, industrial sources, feedlots, and non-point sources. Define nutrient poor or rich stream reaches throughout the basin. |
| Environmental Problem 7, Objective U. | Improve aquatic habitat diversity and complexity to levels consistent with other objectives outlined in this document, with particular emphasis on recovery of anadromous and fluvial stocks | Clearwater | 1. Identify the need--identify habitats that have been simplified to a degree detrimental to anadromous and residential populations. 2. Follow Existing Plans..3. Prioritize Actions...4. Restore complexity...5. Restore ecosystem function.. |
| Environmental Problem 7, Objective U. | Improve aquatic habitat diversity and complexity to levels consistent with other objectives outlined in this document, with particular emphasis on recovery of anadromous and fluvial stocks | Clearwater | 1. Identify the need--identify habitats that have been simplified to a degree detrimental to anadromous and residential populations. 2. Follow Existing Plans..3. Prioritize Actions...4. Restore complexity...5. Restore ecosystem function.. |
| Socioeconomic Problem 18, Objective LL. | 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 and finer scale efforts in subbasin planning and project planning. 2. Coordinate plan implementation with federal, state, tribal, local to avoid program and project duplication. 3. Seek formal local support for programs/projects. |
| Socioeconomic Problem 18, Objective LL. | Identify high priority habitat areas requiring protection or restoration. | Clearwater | 1. Develop a prioritization process to achieve multiple objectives, values, and benefits. 2. Integrate prioritization processes to increase the comprehensiveness of criteria considered, and to increase the strategic effectiveness of programs/projects. |
| Socioeconomic Problem 21, Objective PP. | Participate in existing, and contribute to the further development of, local watershed and technical advisory groups. | Clearwater | Assist NPSWCD and the WAG and other existing groups to organize project goals and implementation strategies. 2. Assist interested groups with organizing local watershed programs. 3. Facilitate networking of these groupswith technical assistance... |
| Socioeconomic Problem 21, Objective QQ. | Maximize social and economic benefits as much as possible while implementing the Clearwater Subbasin Plan. | Clearwater | 1. Maximize economic benefits of plan--for land purchases or easements, efforts should be made to minimize loss of local government revenues. 2. Efforts should be made to utilize local labor forces, contractors, and suppliers when implementing habitat.... |
| Socioeconomic Problem 21, Objective RR. | Increase resource information and education delivery in the subbasin. | Clearwater | 1. Promote ridgetop to ridgetop stewardship of natural resources through enhanced local involvement and support. 2. Implement information/education activities identified in subbasin plan. 3. Provide information/assistance to NPSWCD. 4. Provide opport... |
| Terrestrial Problem 6, Objective M. | Increase understanding of the composition, population trends, and habitat requirements of the terrestrial communities of the Clearwater. | Clearwater | 1. Collect data--develop a subbasin-wide survey program and database for terrestrial focal, ESA listed, neotropical migrant, and culturally important species. 2. Increase documentation - supoport the efforts of the Idaho Conservation Data Center (CDC) |
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 | Project Management, Coordination and Communication | Project Mangement includes coordinating project activities, attending meetings, seeking additional funding, preparing statements of work, managing budgets, completing reports and responding to BPA requests. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $51,391 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 7, Objective S. Environmental Problem 7, Objective U. |
Metrics |
||||
| Coordination | Coordination with federal, tribal, state, local and other interests | Coordination with federal, tribal, state, local and other interests to avoid program and project duplication, increase cooperation/collaboration, coordinate efforts and education and outreach goals. Involve the community in project planning and implementation including the completion of public meetings for local input and involvement. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $21,179 |
|
Biological objectives Socioeconomic Problem 18, Objective LL. |
Metrics |
||||
| Provide Technical Review | Technical Assistance to NPSWCD, NPT Natural Resources-Water Resources and Forestry Divisions and NP County Road & Bridge Dept. | Technical Assistance to NPSWCD, NPT Natural Resources-Water Resources and Forestry Divisions and NP County Road & Bridge Dept. with design, consultation, technical review of project plans and implementation. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $18,613 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Create/Manage/Maintain Database | Maintain project installation database | Develop and update database and GIS layers to track project installation location and project specific information over time. This database will be in coordination with the NPWSCD and shared with other agencies as well as BPA's annual RPA reporting. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $20,144 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Status Report | Quarterly Reports To BPA | Produce Status Reports/Pisces | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $14,888 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Annual Report | Produce Annual Report | Annual report describes all yearly activities, successes and problems encountered including photos and data collected summarized. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $14,888 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Natural Resource Assessment and Management Plan | Conduct NRAMP surveys of 10 individual tribal properties per year, assessing stream and management activities. Produce restoration project recommendations utilizing an IDT team. This work element is the primary basis for identifying restoration actions. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $54,723 |
|
Biological objectives Biological Problem 2, Objective B. |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Design and/or Specifications | Prepare Engineering & Technical Designs for Restoration Projects | 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. A list of projects is developed each Fall following the filed season and then designs are prepared through the Winter for the highest priority projects. Designs are completed through a coordinated team of professionals including NPSWCD, Nez Perce County Road & Bridge Dept., local Highway Districts, Idaho Department of Fish & Game, and others. | 3/7/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $39,182 |
|
Biological objectives Biological Problem 2, Objective B. Environmental Problem 16, Objective JJ Environmental Problem 7, Objective S. |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Landowner Approval, NEPA, ESA and Cultural Resource Compliance | Secure landowner approval for restoration action implementation. Landowner approval will be from the Nez Perce Tribe, Tribal Allotment owners and BIA. Produce Environmental Compliance documentation for review and approval for all on-the-ground implementation projects and actions. NEPA will occur through BPA's NEPA process checklist and ESA compliance through BPA's HIP BiOp process. Cultural resource surveys and compliance will be contracted to the Nez Perce Cultural Resources Department. In addition, NEPA will be completed through the NPT's process. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $16,822 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 7, Objective S. Environmental Problem 7, Objective U. |
Metrics |
||||
| Install Fish Passage Structure | Replace Fish Passage Barrier Structures | Due to funding cuts, seek and utilize alternative funding sources to replace barrier culverts with fish friendly structures as recommended and prioritzed by IDT team and NRAMP . Implementation items will include advertisement for bid, site inspection, bid award and notification, contract management and administration, final inspection, and implementation monitoring. Target is to replace 2 structures per year in 2007, 2008 and 2009. This work item is to be a cost-share item with alternative funding sources. | 7/15/2007 | 8/31/2009 | $19,772 |
|
Biological objectives Biological Problem 2, Objective B. Environmental Problem 7, Objective P. |
Metrics * Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: yes * Was barrier Full or Partial?: full |
||||
| Develop Alternative Water Source | Create Alternative Water Source for Livestock with Alternative Funding | Where livestock water directly from stream sources or springs, alternative water sources will be developed utilizing alternative funding sources. These water sources include wind, solar and gravity fed systems. Typical components of a water system include a trough and pipeline. Target is to construct 2 off-site watering structures per year in 2007, 2008 and 2009. This work item is to be a cost-share with alternative funding. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $10,460 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 10, Objective Z. Environmental Problem 12, Objective EE. Environmental Problem 7, Objective U. Socioeconomic Problem 21, Objective QQ. |
Metrics |
||||
| Install Fence | Install Fence to Protect Wetlands/Riparian Areas | Install riparian protection fencing as recommended by NRAMP. Work items include prepare materials list, order and aqcuire materials, install fence using NPT Fencing Crew. Target is to construct 0.5 miles of fence per year in 2007, 2008, and 2009 protecting 1.5 miles of stream. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $13,771 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 12, Objective EE. |
Metrics * # of miles of fence: 1.0 |
||||
| Remove vegetation | Treat Exotic Invasive Plant Species | Implement invasive weed treatment methods before planting as recommended by NRAMP, for reducing weed densities and competition to assist the establishment of native plant communities. Treatments will be completed by mechanical (pulling or by weed eaters) or chemical means. Target is to treat 3 acres per year in 2007, 2008, and 2009. This work element is directly related to the "Plant 3 acres of vegetation per year" work element below. Work will be completed by the Idaho Department of Corrections Prison Crews. | 1/1/2007 | 7/31/2009 | $15,021 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 11, Objective CC. Environmental Problem 11, Objective DD. |
Metrics * # of acres treated: 5.0 |
||||
| Plant Vegetation | Plant 3 Acres of Vegetation per year | Plant vegetation in riparian areas recommended by NRAMP to increase stream shading and habitat diversity and complexity. Trees, shrubs and grasses include only native species and will be certified weed-free. Target is to plant 3 acres of riparian buffer vegetation per year in 2007, '08 and '09. | 4/1/2007 | 7/31/2009 | $18,133 |
|
Biological objectives Biological Problem 2, Objective B. Environmental Problem 7, Objective Q. Environmental Problem 7, Objective U. |
Metrics |
||||
| Lease Land | Lease Tribal Grazing Lands | Lease Tribal Grazing allotmentswith alternative funding sources as leases expire to eliminate further livestock grazing, as recommended by NRAMP. Target is to lease 250 acres per year in 2007, '08 and '09 with 10 year easements. This work item will be a cost-share items to be used with alternative funding for implementation | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $8,639 |
|
Biological objectives Biological Problem 2, Objective B. Environmental Problem 10, Objective BB. Environmental Problem 10, Objective Z. Environmental Problem 11, Objective DD. Environmental Problem 12, Objective EE. Environmental Problem 12, Objective FF. Environmental Problem 7, Objective Q. Environmental Problem 7, Objective S. Environmental Problem 7, Objective U. |
Metrics * # of acres of new lease: 250.0 |
||||
| Upland Erosion and Sedimentation Control | Install Upland Erosion and Sediment Control | Utilizing alternative funding sources, implement erosion control measures such as grassed waterway, terraces, and buffers as recommended by NRAMP to reduce or prevent sediment from reaching the stream. The target is to implement practice on 1 mile of stream per year in 2007, 2008 and 2009. This work item is intended to be a cost-share with other funding sources. | 6/1/2007 | 7/31/2009 | $8,639 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 7, Objective S. |
Metrics * # of acres treated: 25 |
||||
| Create, Restore, and/or Enhance Wetland | Restore and Enhance Wetlands | Implement wetland restoration and enhancement measures as recommended by NRAMP. Target is to restore or enhance 1 acres of wetland per year in 2007, 2008 and 2009. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $5,886 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 10, Objective Z. |
Metrics * # of acres treated: 1.5 |
||||
| Produce Design and/or Specifications | Bid Package and Contract Development for Road Decommissioning and Improvements | Produce bid packages and contract documents for 2 miles of road decommissioning and 0.5 mile of road improvement projects each year. | 8/31/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $25,918 |
|
Biological objectives Biological Problem 2, Objective B. Environmental Problem 7, Objective S. |
Metrics |
||||
| Decommission Road | Decommission 2 miles of Road Per Year | Decommission 2 miles of forest road per year. Work items include contract administration and site inspection. | 6/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $26,328 |
|
Biological objectives Biological Problem 2, Objective B. Environmental Problem 16, Objective JJ Environmental Problem 7, Objective S. |
Metrics * # of road miles decommissioned : 5.0 * Type of decommissioning: Recontoured |
||||
| Plant Vegetation | Road Decommissioning: Planting/Revegetation | All decommissioned roads will be revegetated with native grass seed and/or native vegetation. | 7/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $10,129 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 7, Objective Q. |
Metrics * # of acres of planted: 25.0 |
||||
| Improve/Relocate Road | Improve 0.5 mile of road per year | Improve permanent roads, as specified by 2005 Transportation Plan, by upgrading cross section to a 14' width, with 2" of crushed gravel driving surface and an adequate roadside drainage ditch. Improvements include upgrading cross section and ditch, addition of base and surface aggregates and upgrading inadequate cross drains to reduce erosion from entering the streams. | 6/1/2007 | 10/1/2009 | $48,440 |
|
Biological objectives Biological Problem 2, Objective B. Environmental Problem 16, Objective JJ Environmental Problem 7, Objective S. |
Metrics * # of road miles improved, upgraded, or restored: 0.5 |
||||
| Maintain Vegetation | Maintain Riparian Vegetation Planted in Previous Years | Maintenance of vegetation planted by controlling noxious invasive weeds. Weed control methods include one or a combination of mechanical (pulling or mowing) herbicide (spot spraying) or biological means as recommended by NRAMP. Target is to implement 25 acres of weed control per year in 2007, 2008 and 2009. Control will be completed by a combination of prision and tribal crews. | 6/30/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $13,398 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 7, Objective Q. Environmental Problem 7, Objective S. Environmental Problem 7, Objective U. Socioeconomic Problem 21, Objective QQ. |
Metrics |
||||
| Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage | Maintain Previous Years Fence Construction | Maintain previously constructed fence. Maintanence is required to ensure a properly functioning fence that protects riparian and stream habitat. Target is to maintain approximately 10 miles of fence per year. | 6/1/2007 | 10/1/2009 | $10,315 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 10, Objective Z. Environmental Problem 7, Objective Q. Environmental Problem 7, Objective S. Socioeconomic Problem 21, Objective QQ. |
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. | 5/1/2007 | 12/1/2009 | $9,797 |
|
Biological objectives |
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 NRAMP plans. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $5,328 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Outreach and Education | Outreach and Education | Provide project specific and general fish habitat protection and restoration information to the public through local news papers, school news letters, radio announcements, public awareness meetings, billboards and educational presentations at the local schools. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $17,040 |
|
Biological objectives Socioeconomic Problem 21, Objective RR. |
Metrics * # of general public reached: 500 * # of students reached: 250 * # of teachers reached: 6 |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Salaries& Wages | $74,860 | $79,352 | $84,113 |
| Fringe Benefits | Employee benefits | $22,458 | $23,805 | $25,234 |
| Other | Contracts | $23,500 | $23,500 | $23,500 |
| Travel | Travel/Per Diem | $2,768 | $2,768 | $2,768 |
| Other | Training | $1,365 | $1,365 | $1,365 |
| Other | Telecommunicatios | $240 | $240 | $240 |
| Supplies | Office Supplies | $450 | $450 | $450 |
| Supplies | Field Supplies/Materials/Hardware | $3,815 | $3,815 | $3,815 |
| Other | Repairs/Maintenance | $425 | $425 | $425 |
| Overhead | GSA Vehicle Rent | $2,415 | $2,415 | $2,415 |
| Overhead | Indirect Administrative Costs | $32,247 | $33,978 | $35,812 |
| Overhead | Office Rent | $683 | $683 | $683 |
| Totals | $165,224 | $172,793 | $180,817 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $518,834 |
| Total work element budget: | $518,841 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Idaho Transportation Department | Include Fish Friendly Designs in all future Hwy Improvement Projects in the Watershed | $2,500 | $2,500 | $2,500 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| Local Hwy Districts, LHTAC | Culvert Upgrades projects to incorporate fish friendly designs. Assist in '05 BMP Manual distribut | $1,250 | $1,250 | $1,250 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| Nez Perce County Road & Bridge Department | Design Reviews, Permenant Signing, Traffic Control Plans, Construction Inspection, NPDES Plans | $1,500 | $1,590 | $1,685 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| NPSWCD | Coordination, Land Owner Education, Project Oversight, Design Assistance and Review | $7,613 | $8,069 | $8,553 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| NPSWCD | Landowner Relationship Building Assistance, Negotiating of Property entry permission | $750 | $750 | $750 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| NPT Natural Resources- Forestry Division | Assstance with Transportation Planning, road maintenace recommendations, consultations | $1,500 | $1,500 | $1,500 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| NPT Natural Resources-Land Services Division | GIS Data Base data, training, consulting, map printing | $6,250 | ($6,250) | $6,250 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| NPT Natural Resources-Water Resources Division | Water Quality Monitoring and Consultation | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| PL 566 | In cooperation with NPSWCD, technical assistance and BMP installation cost-share (cash & in-kind) | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | Cash | Confirmed |
| Totals | $36,363 | $24,409 | $37,488 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $485,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $485,000 |
Comments: Following copletion of all assessment work, this project will be focused on implementation of protection and restoration BPM's. Implementation costs more due to the necessary contracts associated with construction and materials costs |
Future O&M costs: Fence Maintenance annually
Termination date: None
Comments: Since begining this project, the NPT Fisheries Watershed Division has completed Road Erosion Surveys, Fish Barrier Assessments, Watershed Assessments, etc., throughout the watershed. We are now in an implementation based phase of this project and this proposal includes increased funding associated with implementation.
Final deliverables: Big Canyon Creek and it's tributariy watersheds will be intact, healthy, and properly functioning so that they are able to support all native anadromous and resident fish species at historical or near-historical levels. Streams within the watershed will meet TMDL and Nez Perce Tribal DFRM Watershed standards.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $165,000 | $165,000 | $165,000 | $495,000 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $165,000 | $165,000 | $165,000 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
|
Comments: ISRP fundable in part. Funding in FY 2007 to complete reports on abundance, habitat status and a comprehensive presentation of prioritized restoration projects. Funding for restoration actions in 08 and 09 is conditioned on favorable ISRP and Council review of revised proposal linked to completed reports (per ISRP comments) |
||||||
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) Several principal questions are not sufficiently addressed. Was this watershed ever substantial (important) spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead - or was it a peripheral satellite region? Is it a critical independent population now? Can the watershed be restored in a reasonable timeframe at a reasonable cost? Sponsors indicate that this is one of the top producing steelhead populations on the Nez Perce Reservation. But the citation is from 1986. What has happened in the intervening 20 years? And, what does this population contribute to the productivity, abundance, spatial structure, and diversity of the ESU. How important is this population? Discussion of the NOAA Biological Opinion Remand (2004) reports that Big Canyon is listed as a primary fish-producing area for the steelhead subpopulation along with Lapwai Creek, Little Canyon Creek, and the Potlatch River. Reference is made to Lapwai Creek producing significant numbers in recent history, but is currently depressed. Does this mean that Big Canyon Creek is not depressed, or does it mean it has not produced significant numbers in recent history? Providing the numbers is important for a transparent proposal. According to the summary, Big Canyon Creek has "medium" potential to increase the population and to improve ecological conditions. This needs to be placed into the full context. How many categories were there and how many streams were evaluated. Is this the location most likely to improve to a threshold that will contribute to recovery (ESA) and eventual self-sustaining populations (Fish and Wildlife Program), or is it one of the worst. The proposal needs to be clear about the status of recovery/restoration potential both for steelhead and for the coho reintroduction. (b) Results to date need to be reported. How do we know this is working? Summarize the realized benefits to anadromous fish. An explanation is needed as to why project funding is being used to perform work on Lapwai Creek as indicated on p 24. (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 ii being used to develop the work elements in this proposal. Regarding the 2005 Road Erosion Survey and the 2004 Fish Passage Assessment, a short discussion on the management and restoration recommendations from these projects is needed. How much sediment is coming off the roads, how many miles need to be obliterated? How many miles need to be repaired? How is the obliteration and repair prioritized? Same for the passage problems - how many are there, where are they, what can be done about them, how much is it going to cost, and how long will it take? 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?
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable in part
NPCC comments: The preliminary ISRP review of this proposal principally raised three questions. What was the historic and current status and importance of the steelhead population in the Big Canyon Creek watershed? What are results from habitat restoration undertaken by this project to date? And what is the potential to restore this water and if restored what kind of contribution will the steelhead population contribute to restoring the ESU and providing benefits to the focal species? The sponsor replies that because there was a paucity of data on fish and their habitats the first few years of the project were spent determining fish distribution and abundance and performing stream and riparian habitat assessments. The sponsor reports that the field collections for these assessments are completed and that reports are presently being finalized. In the interim period the sponsor has undertaken habitat improvement in areas thought to be "hot spots." It is not clear whether these are areas that have outstanding potential to produce fish if improved, or if they are areas that are especially degraded. There is an intent announced to remove possible barriers in the form of agricultural equipment crossings that are very high in the tributaries for $1-2 million, but no biological justification was advanced. The ISRP is uncomfortable agreeing with the sponsors that this is a stronghold for steelhead based on earlier surveys, when the sponsors themselves argued that more abundance information was needed to initiate habitat actions. Further, until the reports from the fish abundance and habitat surveys are completed it is not possible to conclude that the watershed has the potential to contribute to improving the status of the focal species and provide fish and wildlife benefits. Although the response shows significant effort in its preparation, the response provided does not constitute an adequate reporting of satisfactory results. Based on this situation, the project is Fundable in Part for FY07 to complete the reports on fish abundance, habitat status, and a comprehensive presentation of prioritized restoration 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.