Response for project 200003400: Protect N Lochsa Face Analysis

Comment on proposed FY 2006 budget

The proposed restoration work under this project is covered under a large-scale Environmental Impact Statement that is currently under appeal because it contains activities that would further impair the anadromous and resident fish resource as well as the restoration work. The Nez Perce Tribe would like to move forward with this contract but our ability to implement is pending judicial decisions about the NEPA or a decision by the Regional Forester to issue a separate decision for restoration work outside of proposed harvest and prescribed burns. $0.00 is not sufficient to implement activities proposed under this contract. Approximately $190,000 would be suffient to implement road survey, decommissioning, and monitoring of project work.

Accomplishments since the last review

Past work focused on project planning, coordination with partnering agencies, road surveys, and preparing project logistics.

FY 2006 goals and anticipated accomplishments

Produce Inventory or AssessmentComplete road survey of roads proposed for decommissioning.
CoordinationInter- and Intra-agency coordination of all project work. All implementation will be completed in cooperation with the Clearwater National Forest.
Manage and Administer ProjectsIncludes all tasks related to securing and reporting for BPA contract, training employees, managing field logistics, and letting contracts for work.
Produce PlanUse data collected during road survey to develop a plan for road decommissioning.
Type of decommissioning (B/S/R): (Blocked, Scarified/Ripped, Recontoured)Recontour
# of road miles decommissioned (0.01 mi.)20 miles per year.
# of acres of vegetation planted (0.1 ac.)Revegetate reclaimed roads with native grasses, forbs, and transplanted rooted vegetation. 20 miles of reclaimed road is equivalent to about 3,300 acres of plantings.
# of acres treated (0.1 ac)Remove failing drainage structures on 20 miles of road. Approximately 20 acres.
Submit/Acquire DataPrepare data from monitoring work in databases and GIS layers. Data will also be available in report form.

Target species: steelhead, spring chinook, bull trout, and westslope cutthroat trout.

Subbasin planning

How is this project consistent with subbasin plans?

The actions in this project are consistent with addressing several problems and objectives/strategies summarized as follows from the Clearwater Plan. Problem 2(p.18):Anadromous fish production is limited by habitat quantity, quality, and connectivity in portions of the Subbasin. Problem 4 (p.22) same as #2 but focus on resident fish. Problem 7(p.31) summarizes problems #2 and #4. Strategies under objectives E, F, G (pp.22-24) call for protecting and restoring habitat through restoration projects. Strategies under Objectives P, Q, S (pp.32-35) call for fish passage improvement, reducing stream temperature through restoring hydrologic function, and reducing instream sedimentation all utilizing on-going watershed-scale assessments to plan and priorite projects. Problem 16 (p.50)refers to impairment of habitat as a result of logging, related transportation system, and fire suppression. Strategies under Objective JJ (p.50) call for planning and implementing road decommissioning. The need for monitoring habitat project work occurs through out the strategies stated for each identified problem.

How do goals match subbasin plan priorities?

Priorities for action are assigned by PMU designation which is a grouping of watersheds based on land ownership, known management history, and any known stream or watershed data. The project area contains the following PMU areas as defined by the Clearwater Subbasin Plan: FD-6, FD-7, FD-8, FD-9. The area is defined as having a high opportunity for effective restoration (Table 7 and 8 on pp.85-92). All PMUs express a high priority to mitigate the impacts of roads and sediment or it is unknown for the general PMU. Temperature reduction is labeled as moderate priority in some PMUs or unknown. There is not enough data to determine instream work needs in the PMUs where it was included in analysis. Changes to vegetative structure rank from a moderate to high priority across the PMUs. Protection of existing high quality habitat in these areas is labeled high priority. The priorities are tabled in Table 7 and 8 on pages 85-92. A shorter summary table, Table 15 occurs on page 137 for the Clearwater Subbasin.

Other comments