Response for project 200207400: Restore Crooked Fork Creek
Comment on proposed FY 2006 budget
The Nez Perce Tribe-DFRM Watershed Division would like to renew this project. The current level of funding is sufficient for us to maintain our on-going levels of project implementation. One of the highest priority activities that came out of a watershed scale assessment is the need to explore land acquistion opportunities as one of the major private land holder in the project area prepares to sell nearly 30,000 acres of land. The need for land acquisition was not identified in the 2001 proposal and, consequently, the project sponsor now has no abiltiy to begin exploring funding opportunities for land acquisition. Some additional funds...approximately $10,000 would be required to add in this task.
Accomplishments since the last review
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | The project sponsor worked with the Clearwater National Forest to write all NEPA for implementation work. The project sponsor will provide BPA with NEPA and related permits. | |
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Three types of inventories to direct future implementation have been completed since 2002. | |
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Completed comphrehensive watershed scale assessments and riparian inventories to prioritize areas of project work. | |
| Coordination | Planning and implementation of road and culvert work are coordinated inter- and intra-agency. Partners include Clearwater National Forest and Plum Creek Timber Company. Activities are also coordinated with NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, and IDFG. | |
| Manage and Administer Projects | The Project Sponsor's activities included under this metric include writing annual contracts, reviewing contractor's bids, providing information to BPA including reporting, SOW, and other information as needed. | |
| Produce Plan | Developed plan and protocols for riparian condition inventory and noxious weed inventory. | |
| Produce Design and/or Specifications | Engineering designs for 5 fish passage replacement structures have been completed. | |
| Type of decommissioning (B/S/R): (Blocked, Scarified/Ripped, Recontoured) | Recontour. | |
| # of road miles decommissioned (0.01 mi.) | 10 miles. | |
| Start and end lat/long of each treated road segment (0.1") | Crooked Fork Drainage:– 114 40 53.99 W | |
| # of acres of vegetation planted (0.1 ac.) | Planted transplanted native vegetation and seeded grasses and forbs along reclaimed road. Approximately 1,650 acres. | |
| # of acres treated (0.1 ac) | Removed 12 failing drainage structures to prevent road failure. Approximately 12 acres. | |
| Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier? (Y/N) | Y | |
| # of miles of habitat accessed (0.1 mi.) | 1 mile | |
| Was barrier Full or Partial? (F/P) | Full | |
| Submit/Acquire Data | Transfer field data from inventory projects including roads, weed, and riparian inventories into databases and GIS layers. | |
| Manage/Maintain Database | Developed and refined databases for weed inventory and riparian inventory. | |
| Manage/Maintain Database | Developed database to store and transfer riparian condition data. Worked with USFS to revise and develop databases for weed inventory data. |
The implementation work under this project focuses on reducing management related impacts to stream habitat quality and aquatic resources. The primary management impacts are extraordinarily high road densities associated with timber management. With the roads comes increased sedimentation from failures, surface erosion, and conversions of areas to noxious weeds. In addition, the roads and barrier drainage structures result in a loss of habitat connectivity. All non-implementation work elements are aimed at preparing for, developing, securing funds for, and coordinating implementation. Target species are spring chinook, steelhead, bull trout, and west slope cutthroat trout.
FY 2006 goals and anticipated accomplishments
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | The project sponsor will work as member on the Clearwater Naitonal Forest's NEPA team and provide all required NEPA and related permits to BPA as they are completed. | |
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Complete weed inventories and road surveys to identify and prioritize needs. | |
| Coordination | Planning and implementation of restoration work will be coordinated inter- and intra-agency. Partners include Clearwater National Forest and Plum Creek Timber Company. Activities are also coordinated with NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, and IDFG. | |
| Manage and Administer Projects | The Project Sponsor's activities included under this metric include all work with employees and logistics, writing annual contracts, reviewing contractor's bids, providing information to BPA including reporting, SOW, and other information as needed. | |
| Produce Plan | Work with the Clearwater National Forest to develop comprehensive transportation plan using completed Road and Culvert Risk Assessment. | |
| Type of decommissioning (B/S/R): (Blocked, Scarified/Ripped, Recontoured) | Recontour | |
| # of road miles decommissioned (0.01 mi.) | 20 miles. | |
| # of road miles improved, upgraded, or restored | Upto 10 miles. | |
| # of acres of vegetation planted (0.1 ac.) | Transplant native vegetation on reclaimed road. Seed disturbed areas with grasses and forbs. Approximately 3,300 acres. | |
| # of acres treated (0.1 ac) | Treat approximately 200 acres of invasive plant species. | |
| # of acres treated (0.1 ac) | Remove up to 40 failing drainage structures, treating approximately 40 acres. | |
| Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier? (Y/N) | y (4 culverts) | |
| # of miles of habitat accessed (0.1 mi.) | 8 | |
| Was barrier Full or Partial? (F/P) | 2 culverts are barriers only to juveniles. | |
| Submit/Acquire Data | Transfer field data from field sheets into databases and GIS layers. Field data includes road and weed inventory as well as project monitoring data. | |
| Manage/Maintain Database | Update databasses as needed. Make sure data is easily geo-referenced. Update hardware and software into to ensure data can be easily transfered to partners and other interested agencies. | |
| Disseminate Raw & Summary Data | Provide data as needed to interested agencies as requested by the public. |
There doesn't appear to be a straight forward metric just for project monitoring. In areas of proposed project work we are collecting baseline data. In areas of completed road decommissioning and culvert replacements we are monitoring efficacy of work.
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 focuses on resident fish. Problem 7(p.31) summarizes problems #2 and #4. Strategies under Problem 7, 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 11 (p.44) refers to the damage to resources by noxious weed invasion. Strategies under Objectives CC and DD (pp.44-45) call for inventory, assessment, prioritizing, treating noxious weeds, and monitoring noxious weeds. 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: MX-6, FD-5, 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 with the exception of mixed ownership (MX-6) 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.