Response for project 199901600: Protect/Restore Big Canyon Cr.
Comment on proposed FY 2006 budget
The Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resource Management Watershed Division desires renewal of this project for FY2006. The $237,759 budget for FY2006 is consistent with expectations.
Accomplishments since the last review
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | 2002 - Completed 2 cultural surveys for restoration work | |
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | 2002 - Surveyed 199 road crossings (culverts, bridges, fords) for fish passage; 2002 - Surveyed 217.7 miles of roads using the WEPP methodology for transportation planning | |
| Coordination | 2002 - Completed 2 public meeting and 2 letters for the conservation district newsletters | |
| Coordination | 2002/2003/2004 - Coordination with multiple agencies to include; Nez Perce Water and Soil Conservation District and Road Department, Idaho Fish and Game, Idaho Department of Transportation,Nez Perce Tribe Water Resource, Land Management, and Forestry, Ida | |
| Produce Plan | 2002 - Completed M&E plan, Protocols for Inventory and Monitoring and Evaluation of Streams within Lapwai Creek and Big Canyon Creek Watersheds | |
| Produce Plan | 2003- Completed “Fish Passage Assessment: Lapwai Creek Watershed” report; 2004- Completed Lapwai Creek Road Erosion Final Report | |
| Produce Annual Report | 2002 - Completed CY2002 annual report; 2003 - Completed CY2003 annual report; 2004 - Completed CY2004 annual report | |
| # of miles of fence (0.01 mi.) | 2002 - 2 miles of fence on tribal property on a tributary to Big Canyon Creek | |
| # of acres of vegetation planted (0.1 ac.) | 2002 - 10 acres (800 native plants) | |
| # of riparian miles treated (0.01 mi.; count each bank separately) | 2002 - 1/2 mile of stream | |
| Maintain Terrestrial Structure | 2004- Fence maintenance on 2 miles previously constructed | |
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | 2002 - Electrofishing data collected from 36 sites on 2 streams; 2002/2004 - Biological, chemical, and physical data collected at 4 sites on Big and Little Canyon Creeks for a total of 8 sites each year; 2004- electro-fished Little Canyon Creek | |
| Disseminate Raw & Summary Data | 2003 - analyzed 2002 fish presence, abandance and distribution data; 2003 - analyzed 2002 biological, chemical and physical habitat data collected; 2004 - put monitoring data into database |
Past accomplishments: There is more accomplishments, but because unsure of desired amount, limited it to the above response. If more is needed or greater detail, please contact the project manager or refer to the annual reports. In addition, the 2005 contract year just began in March, therefore there will be 2005 accomplishments that are not listed but follow similar to past years (please refer to 2005 SOW).
FY 2006 goals and anticipated accomplishments
| Coordination | 1- Research and write grants for cost-sharing funds relating to fish passage , fencing, off-site watering, planting and weed control. | |
| Coordination | 2- Coordinate with agencies involved in land management activities to include the ones mentioned above in past accomplishments. | |
| Manage and Administer Projects | 3- Provide any information needed by BPA such as accrual estimates. Write grant for next provencial review and provide any information or presentations related to the review. Provide logistics for multiple projects under this grant. Oversee budget. | |
| Produce Plan | 4- Complete assessments on 3 individual tribal properties or allotments using our Natural Resource Assessment and Management Protocol to determine restoration activities. Choosen properties or allotments will be based on critical areas for fish. | |
| Produce Design and/or Specifications | 5- Design 2 fish passage barriers for replacement. Barriers to be designed will be determined by the barrier assessment or priority opportunities that give the most amount of stream miles returned. | |
| Type of decommissioning (B/S/R): (Blocked, Scarified/Ripped, Recontoured) | 6- Recontoured | |
| # of road miles decommissioned (0.01 mi.) | 6a- 5 miles | |
| Start and end lat/long of each treated road segment (0.1") | 6b- Specific roads to be identified during transportation planning this year. | |
| Maintain Terrestrial Structure | 7- Mantain 3 miles of constructed fence. | |
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | 8- Collect abundance and distribution for fish species through electo-fishing on Long Hollow and Holes Creeks. | |
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | 9- Collect habitat data at established sites on 4 sites on Big and Little Canyon Creeks each. Parameters to collect include; macroinvert, periphyton, flow, temp, sus solids, water chemistry, and habtiat parameters. Follows our M&E protocal. | |
| Analyze/Interpret Data | 10- Analyze electro-fishing and habitat data and put into report form. |
The proposed restoration and protection of the Big Canyon Creek watershed follows the watershed restoration approach mandated by the Fisheries and Watershed Program. Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program vision focuses on protecting, restoring, and enhancing watersheds and treaty resources within the ceded territory of the Nez Perce Tribe under the Treaty of 1855 with the United States Federal Government. The program uses a holistic approach, which encompasses entire watersheds, ridge top to ridge top, emphasizing all cultural aspects. We strive toward maximizing historic ecosystem productive health, for the restoration of anadromous and resident fish populations. The ultimate goal of this project is to work within a holistic approach to protect and restore the ecological and biological functions of the Big Canyon Creek watershed, to assist in the recovery of anadromous and resident fish species.
Subbasin planning
How is this project consistent with subbasin plans?
This project is consistent with and implements the following: * Prob 2, object B, strategy 1,2,4,5,7 (pg. 18) - coordination (1,2 - from goals above) and collect field data (8,9) * Prob 7, object P, strategy 2,3 (pg. 32) - produce design (5) * Prob 7, object Q, strategy 1,2,3,6 (pg. 33) - coordination (1), produce plan (4), collect data (9) * Prob 7, object U, strategy 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 (pg. 37) - coordination (1,2), produce plan (4), rds decom (6), collect data (8,9) * Prob 16, object JJ, strategy 1,2,4 (pg. 50) - decomm (6) * Prob 18, object LL, strategy 1,2,3 (pg. 52) - coord (1,2) * Prob 21, object PP, strategy 1,2,3 (pg. 58) - coord (2) * Prob 21, object QQ, strategy 2 (pg. 59) - decomm (6) * Aquatics II, 1 (pg. 64) - collect data (11,12) * Aquatics IV, 1,2 (pg. 68,69) - collect data (11,12) * Aquatics VIII, 1 (pg. 75) - collect data (11) * Terrestrial X, 3,4 (pg.79) - produce plan (4), collect data (12) This projects focus is on protecting and restoring habitat for threatened steelhead and spring chinook salmon and monitoring evlauating trends in stream health and fish populations.
How do goals match subbasin plan priorities?
The Big Canyon Creek Watershed is within Potential Management Units PR-6,7,8. Within PR-6, this project addresses the following issues; * Water Temp - High Priority - goal 4 (produce plan on tribal lands to address temp) * Sediment - High Priority - goal 6 (rd decommissioning) * Grazing Impacts - Moderate - goal 4 (produce plan on tribal lands to address grazing implacts) * Landslide Prone Roads - Moderate/Low - goal 6 (rd decommissioning) * Riparian/Wetlands - Undefined - goal 4 (produce plan on tribal lands to protect riparian/wetland areas) * Instream - Low - goal 5 (design fish passage barriers) PR-7&8 * Same as above for; * Water Temps (High Priority) * Surface Erosion - High Priority - goal 4 (produce plan on tribal lands to address sed), 6 (rd decomm) * Grazing Impacts (Low) * Instream (Low) * Riparian/Wetlands (undefined)
Other comments
The objectives and tasks for this project are formulated using 2 main documents: the Big Canyon Aquatic Assessment (2001)(Draft) and the Natural Resource Conservation Services (NRCS) Water Quality Project (1995). These are the most current and comprehensive documents directly related to the protection and restoration of fish habitat in the Big Canyon Creek watershed. Both documents were used together, in additions to coordinating with agencies actively protecting or restoring within the watershed, in determining what restoration and M&E activities are priorities within the Big Canyon Creek watershed. Major Players: • NPT DFRM – Watershed Division, • Natural Resource Conservation Service, • Nez Perce County Soil and Water Conservation District (NPSWCD), • Nez Perce Tribal Water Resources, Forestry and Land Services Departments, • Lewis County Soil and Water Conservation District, and • Idaho Fish and Game