Response for project 200206800: Evaluate Nez Pt Stream Habitat
Comment on proposed FY 2006 budget
The Nez Perce Tribe does desire to receive this contract. The total sum of $303,831 is sufficient to begin this project.
Accomplishments since the last review
|Produce Plan||Developed monitoring plan to evaluate effectiveness of habitat restoration actions. Plan reviewed by ISRP, NOAA, NWPCC, and BPA. Recommended for implementation by Counsel.|
Since 2002, the Nez Perce Tribe has received 12 months of funding. During that time we subcontracted the existing watershed monitoring plan in order that a statistical design could be applied to our data collection. Our plan was reviewed by NOAA Fisheries, BPA, Northwest Power Conservation Council, and ISRP. With the exception of BPA, reviewers recognized the need to begin implementing work to collect baseline whilst continuing to refine the monitoring plan design and framework. Currently, BPA is not willing to fund any implementation and has also requested certain coordination and planning tasks be completed prior to the receipt of contract, i.e., coordinating exact locations of monitoring work. However, the Tribe has no funding to provide personnel to do this kind of coordination without the receipt of the contract; consequently, we are caught in the proverbial Catch-22.
FY 2006 goals and anticipated accomplishments
|Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation||Project sponsor will provide BPA with all relevant NEPA and permitting documentation.|
|Identify and Select Projects||Project Leader will work with NPT-DFRM-Watershed Project Leaders to review plans of work for the next several years and prioritize and identify areas to begin and/or continue project monitoring and collection of baseline data.|
|Coordination||Protocol refinement will occur by two primary mechanisms: 1. feedback from initial implementation of monitoring and 2. Direct communication with other monitoring project sponsors. Direct communication will require travel to meetings, phone calls, and dat|
|Manage and Administer Projects||Provide information on metrics, programmatic review, and financial reporting as needed by BPA. Manage monitoring work through field work, site visits, crew training, and subcontracting.|
|Develop RM&E Methods and Designs||Refine NPT Watershed Monitoring Plan through trial and error and coordination with other agencies developing regional scale watershed monitoring including NOAA, EPA, and the PNMAP plans.|
|Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data||Collect data on restoration project effectiveness including road decommissioning, culvert replacement, riparian restoration, mine reclaimation, and road improvement projects. Data collection will occur in all locations where NPT-Watershed has projects.|
|Submit/Acquire Data||Enter field data into GIS reference database. May require computer upgrades and additional database and GIS training.|
|Manage/Maintain Database||Develop, maintain, and manage database in order that data might be readily accesible to fellow management agencies through internet queries.|
|Analyze/Interpret Data||Analyze data to begin evaluating restoration project effectiveness.|
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. Under problem 2, Strategies #2,3,4,and 7 (p. 18)recommend developing index streams across the Clearwater Subbasin, developing monitoring protocols, and monitoring habitat improvement projects. Problem 4 (p.22) same as Prob#2 but focus on resident fish. Under problem 4, Objectives F (p.23), strategy 3 and 4 as well as Obj.G (p.23), strategy 5 call for evaluating biological response to habitat work as well develop monitoring strategies to evaluate the effectiveness of projects. Problem 7(p.31) summarizes problems #2 and #4. Strategies under objectives P, Q, S (pp.32-35) call for developing methods of project monitoring. 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) monitoring the impact of roads. The need for monitoring habitat project work occurs through out the strategies stated for each identified problem. Proposed research and monitoring is summarized in Table 5 on page 55 of the Plan.
How do goals match subbasin plan priorities?
Monitoring and types of monitoring are not prioritized specifically like habitat restoration actions in the Clearwater Subbasin Plan. In general monitoring is treated as a high priority for both the terrestrial and aquatics section. Detailed monitoring needs are described in Section 4.3: Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Plan (p.62). The aquatics section (Section 4.3.1 pg. 63) calls for water quality monitoring (p.64), effectiveness monitoring for temperature reduction projects (p.65), water quantity and passage monitoring (p.66), and general habitat monitoring (p. 68).