nez perce tribe department of fisheries resource management watershed division fcrps biological...

Nez Perce TribeDepartment of Fisheries Resource Management

WATERSHED DIVISION

FCRPS Biological OpinionFCRPS Biological OpinionExpert PanelExpert Panel

““Gap Filling by Habitat Actions”Gap Filling by Habitat Actions”

Increased Increased FundingFunding

Increased Increased FundingFunding

New StartsNew Starts

Snake River Snake River Salmon Recovery Salmon Recovery

BoardBoard

• NPT Watershed NPT Watershed • Clearwater/NP NFClearwater/NP NF

• Conservation DistrictsConservation Districts• IF&GIF&G

• NPT Watershed NPT Watershed • Payette NFPayette NF• Boise NFBoise NF• IF&GIF&G

Grande Ronde Grande Ronde Model Model

WatershedWatershed

2012 FCPRS BiOp Expert Panels

Cross-walk to NMFS Standardized Limiting Factors

ESU Population Watershed LimFactor Ecological Concern Ecological Concern-Sub CategorySnake River Basin Steelhead Lochsa

Badger-WendoverLack of passage - Lack of access to diversity of habitats,

Habitat Quantity Anthropogenic Barriers

Snake River Basin Steelhead Lochsa

Badger-WendoverLoss of riparian vegetation and complexity, lack of shade, loss of nutrients

Riparian Condition Riparian Condition


Badger-Wendover

Sediment effects on rearing and spawning success - lack of intersticial space, reduced pool volume, reduced spawning success

Sediment Conditions Increased Sediment Quantity


Colt Killed CreekConnectivity - Lack of access to diversity of habitats



Colt Killed CreekInstream Habitat-poor quality pools and structure

Channel Structure and Form Instream Structural Complexity


Colt Killed Creek




Colt Killed Creek Temperature Water Quality Temperature


Crooked ForkConnectivity - Lack of access to diversity of habitats



Crooked Fork

Sediment effects on rearing and spawning success - lack of interstitial space, reduced pool volume, reduced spawning success



Crooked ForkTemperature and Instream Habitat-poor quality pools and structure

Water Quality Temperature


Fishing Creek (formerly Squaw)

Lack of passage - Lack of access to diversity of habitats




Loss of riparian vegetation and complexity, lack of shade, loss of nutrients

Riparian Condition Riparian Condition







Temperature Water Quality Temperature

Assessment Unit Boundary Update

• Previously developed by NOAA

• Difficult to determine consistent limiting factors

Assessment Unit Boundary Update

• Land types• Fish species

and distribution

• Level of impairment

• Management direction

Based on:

Habitat Actions – 2012-2018

ESUPopulation

Assessment Unit

2012 Standardized Limiting Factor Action Work Element Metric

Metric Value

Snake River Steelhead

Lochsa River

Crooked Fork

1.1: Habitat Quantity: Anthropogenic Barriers

2017: Shotgun Culvert Removal/Replacement and Decommissioning

85. Remove/Breach Fish Passage Barrier

1441. # of miles of habitat accessed to the next upstream barrier(s) or likely limit of habitable range 3


Lochsa River

Crooked Fork


2014: Brushy Fork Culvert Replacements (3)

184. Install Fish Passage Structure

1441. # of miles of habitat accessed to the next upstream barrier(s) or likely limit of habitable range 7.5


Lochsa River

Crooked Fork


2013: Pack Creek Culvert Replacements ( 3)

184. Install Fish Passage Structure

1441. # of miles of habitat accessed to the next upstream barrier(s) or likely limit of habitable range 5


Lochsa River

Crooked Fork

7.2: Sediment Conditions: Increased Sediment Quantity

2014: Cherokee/Twin Road Decommissioning

33. Decommission Road/Relocate Road

1395. # of miles of road improved or decommissioned in an upland area 20


Lochsa River

Crooked Fork


2015: Tree Planting on decommissioned roads- Powell Divide 47. Plant Vegetation 1404. # of upland acres treated 75


Lochsa River

Crooked Fork


2013: Cherokee/Twin Road Decommissioning




Lochsa River

Crooked Fork


2017: Checkerboard Road Decommissioning (Spruce/Brushy)




Lochsa River

Crooked Fork


2014: Dispersed Camp site Mitigation - Crooked Fork

55. Erosion and Sedimentation Control

1638. # of acres of riparian habitat treated 15


Lochsa River

Crooked Fork


2017: Tree Planting on decommissioned roads- Pack/Cherokee Twin 47. Plant Vegetation 1404. # of upland acres treated 100


Lochsa River

Crooked Fork


2018: Tree Planting on decommissioned roads- Pack/Cherokee Twin 47. Plant Vegetation 1404. # of upland acres treated 150


Lochsa River

Crooked Fork


2013: Pack Creek Road Decommissioning




Lochsa River

Crooked Fork


2014: Pack Creek Road Decommissioning



Habitat Action Scoring

Assessment Unit

2012 Standardized Limiting Factor Cycle

Low Bookend

2013-2018

Estimate

High 2018

Bookend2033

Estimate

High 2033

BookendLF

WeightAU

WeightLF Weight and Bookend Comments Estimates Comments

Crooked Fork


2013-2018 65 70 100 70 100 5.00% 11.10%

Level of certainty = 3; Sources = 5, 7

There are currently 12 known passage barriers in this AU. 3 will be replaced in 2013.

Crooked Fork

4.2: Riparian Condition: LWD Recruitment

2013-2018 50 50 55 50 60 35.00% 11.10%


No projects currently planned.

Crooked Fork

6.2: Channel Structure and Form: Instream Structural Complexity

2013-2018 45 45 50 45 55 35.00% 11.10%


No projects currently planned.

Crooked Fork


2013-2018 45 55 70 55 75 20.00% 11.10%


Most of the problem on private land; some actions proposed on USFS land. Weed treatment and tree planting on decommissioned roads will address this LF.

Crooked Fork

8.1: Water Quality: Temperature

2013-2018 50 50.5 55 51 57 5.00% 11.10%

Level of certainty = 3; Sources = 3 (Doesn't meet state standards)

Benefits from sediment projects

Habitat Action Scoring

NPT DFRM Watershed Division Tributary Habitat Programmatic M&E Plan

• Purposeo Provide clear and consistent directiono Allow optimal prioritization and

adaptive management of actionso Facilitate coordination and

standardization with regional programs

• In collaboration with NOAA NWFSC• Timelines

o Began in December 2012o Draft by summer 2013 for reviewo Final by December 2013

• Potential collaboration with local ISRP members

NPT DFRM Watershed Division Tributary Habitat Programmatic M&E Plan

• Implementation and Compliance o BPA Pisceso Post-treatment

• Action Effectivenesso BPA programmatic approacho Two case studies

• Status and Trendo CHaMP (Lolo, SF Clearwater, Imnaha)

• Adaptive Management• Data Management and Storage• Reporting and Information Dissemination• Strategy to Track and Utilize Regional

Monitoring Efforts

Components

Data Management

• Spatial Databaseo Microsoft SQL Server and ESRI

ArcSDEo Organized by Project Areao Tracks all Restoration

Implementation location data (Feature Classes), implementation metrics & Monitoring data (SQL Tables)

Outreach / Information Dissemination

• Reports, Summarized Datao Nez Perce Tribe DFRM

Website http://www.nptfisheries.org/

DFRMHome.aspx

• Spatial Data Viewer and Queryingo Watershed Division Mapping

Site http://imsland.nezperce.org/

DFRMWatershed/nexviewer_flex.html

Road Decommissioning Monitoring

• For every 10 miles of road decommissioned, one ¼ mile monitoring segment is established and monitored

• Monitored in years 0, 1, 2, 5, and 10 post decommissioning

• To date there have been 100 monitoring segments set up

• Parameters monitored:o Longitudinal Profileo 3 cross sections o 500’ vegetation plots o Visual assessment o Overall segment condition – erosion, slash, weeds,

failureso Temperature data at SGCo Photos o Yearly tracking of mass failures

Lessons Learned

• There are never too many clump plantings• Stream bottoms = 2 times bankfull width to

minimizing erosion• Erosion control mattresses are not necessary• The use of “brush blankets” has greatly

reduced erosion in CDC’s• Spreading “duff” layer from above or below

road speeds up the process of establishing native plants and shrubs

• 40-60% slash coverage for optimal revegatation

• Too much straw which will inhibit revegetation

• Fertilizer not necessary

Fish Passage Monitoring

• Monitored in years 0, 1, 5, and 10 post construction

• There have been 99 monitoring sites set up to date

• Each monitoring segment consists of:o Longitudinal Profileo Cross-sections o Site sketcho Presence/absence of fish o Bankfull widths o Substrate size o Site photos

Lessons Learned

• Squashed pipes with substrate retention baffles do not always retain substrate

• Bridge is best option, followed by bottomless arch

• When at all possible, rock weirs constructed within bottomless arch or under bridges are best option for passage

• Planting of fill slopes at inlet and outlet ends helps with stability of slope and creates shade for stream

• If using rip rap as fill, cover with soil to allow planting

nez perce tribe department of fisheries resource management watershed division fcrps biological...

Documents