View Project
View and print project details including project summary, purpose, associations to Biological Opinions, and area. To learn more about any of the project properties, hold your mouse cursor over the field label.
Please correct the errors noted below.
Verification warnings:
Project 1999-016-00: Protect and Restore the Big Canyon Creek Watershed
Print
| Number: |
1999-016-00 |
| Title: |
Protect and Restore the Big Canyon Creek Watershed |
Summary:
(from Pisces) |
Big Canyon Creek is a major tributary to the Clearwater River. The watershed drains approximately 227 square miles and ranges in elevation between 994 ft at the mouth and over 4,200 ft. near the origin. Precipitation ranges from an annual average of approximately 21 inches in the lower and central portions of the watershed to about 27 inches in the higher elevation areas. The watershed geology is comprised primarily of Columbia River basalt with dispersed outcrops of Idaho Batholith Granites. Most of the land within the watershed is used for agriculture with dry land grains and cattle among the most important products. The landownership is mixed with private, state, federal, and tribal entities as significant owners.
Big Canyon Creek Watershed provides habitat for a variety of anadromous and resident fish. The anadromous stocks include wild A-run Snake River Steelhead (listed as Threatened under the ESA - February 5, 1999, 56 FR 5740), Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon (listed as Threatened under the ESA - December 28, 1993, 58 FR 68543), and recently reintroduced Coho salmon. Resident fish include rainbow trout (Oncorhychus mykiss), suckers (Catostomus spp.), northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), chiselmouth (Acrocheilus alutaceus), as well as dace (Rhinichtys spp.) and sculpin (Cottus spp.) species. Local oral histories of the Nez Perce Tribe refer to the region’s once significant salmon runs. Similar to many anadromous streams in the Columbia River Basin, Big Canyon Creek has seen a significant decline in salmon and steelhead populations from historic levels. Despite current habitat conditions, rainbow-steelhead production continues to persist in the Big Canyon Creek Watershed, and considerable potential exists for improving anadromous fish populations in this watershed.
The Big Canyon Creek Watershed Rehabilitation Project was originally funded by BPA in 1999 to complete a watershed analysis. Since that time, the NPT Watershed Division has been working on resource assessments and project implementation throughout the watershed. Prior to the initiation of this project, a massive data gap existed on fish, the condition of fish habitat, and limiting factors within the watershed. Only a minimal amount of baseline data collection had occurred. We felt it was of utmost importance to address this issue prior to any large-scale implementation of restoration efforts. Thus, the early years of the project (1999-2001) were focused on watershed assessment and subbasin planning. Unfortunately, these efforts were very broad in scope, and the watershed assessment was based on what minimal data existed on the watershed at that time. This proved to be much too coarse to provide any substantial direction or to guide our restoration activities.
To fill this data gap, beginning in 2002 the NPT Watershed Division developed and/or modified existing protocols to facilitate the collection of relevant baseline data within the watershed. In realizing that this data collection phase would involve a substantial amount of personnel and take several years to complete, NPT Watershed in collaboration with the Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District (NPSWCD), began implementing watershed rehabilitation activities concurrently with data gathering activities. Due to the lack of a comprehensive, detailed watershed assessment to help prioritize restoration activities, implementation activities since 2002 have been concentrated on the “hot spots” or obvious areas in need of rehabilitation (e.g., livestock feeding operations, un-vegetated riparian areas, passage barriers, and areas with direct livestock access to the stream). As mentioned previously, these projects have been implemented in the interim while the detailed baseline data collection phase is completed. The NPT Water Resources Division, Watershed Division, and NPSWCD are all involved in the data collection/analysis process. By fall 2007, a very comprehensive baseline data set for the Big Canyon Creek Watershed should be assembled. These data sets will include some or all of the following as available: 1.) fish distribution and abundance data, 2.) fish habitat data, 3.) riparian canopy data, 4.) thermal imagery, 5.) LiDar imagery, 6.) water quality data, and 7.) aquatic/riparian assessments. These data will be compiled and analyzed together in 2007 to create a 10-year restoration plan for the Big Canyon Creek Watershed. This important plan will be used to prioritize, select, and justify future watershed restoration and protection activities in the Big Canyon Creek Watershed. |
| Proposer: |
<none>
|
| Proponent Orgs: |
Nez Perce Tribe (Tribe)
|
| Starting FY: |
1999 |
| Ending FY: |
2011 |
| BPA PM: |
David Byrnes
|
| Stage: |
Closed |
| Area: |
Provincial - Mountain Snake/Clearwater: 100.0%
|
| Purpose: |
Habitat |
| Emphasis: |
Restoration/Protection |
| Focal Species: |
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU (threatened)
Steelhead - Snake River DPS (threatened) |
| Species Benefit: |
Anadromous: 100.0%
Resident: 0.0%
Wildlife: 0.0%
|
| Tags: |
<none>
|
| Special: |
<none>
|
| BiOp Association: |
FCRPS 2008
– view list of
FCRPS 2008 BiOp Actions
Overview: Lists all Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) actions within the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) 2008 Biological Opinion (BiOp), broken down by Approach and Strategy. Provides drill-downs into each RPA showing descriptions and subactions if the RPA has them.
Dimensions: FCRPS 2008 BiOp, Approach, Strategy, RPA, Action, Subaction
|
No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.
| Expense |
SOY |
Working Budget |
Contracted Amount |
Modified Contract Amount |
Expenditures * |
| FY2011 (Previous) |
$0 |
$0 |
|
|
($1,877) |
| FY2012 (Current) |
|
|
|
|
|
| FY2013 (Next) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total Expense Budget (FY2004-FY2009): $1,121,153; Total Expense Expenditures (FY2004-FY2009) *: $1,117,199 |
|
| No Capital budgets |
|
| * Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Jan-2012 |
|
No Decided Budget Transfers
No Project Cost Share
No Current Contracts
More details about assessments of this project are available in the
Assessments
area.
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Legal Assessment (In-Lieu):
Capital Assessment:
| Completed Date: | 2/27/2007 |
|---|
| Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
|---|
| Capital Rating: | Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding |
|---|
| Capital Asset Category: | <none> |
|---|
Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment:
| Completed Date: | 8/31/2006 |
|---|
| Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
|---|
| Final ISRP Rating: |
Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part |
|---|
Council Recommendation:
| Completed Date: | 10/23/2006 |
|---|
| Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
|---|
| Recommendation: | Fund |
|---|
- 1 - No Problems Exist
- No in lieu concerns identified.
- 2 - Problems May Exist
- Potential in lieu funding issues: another entity is authorized or required to undertake the activity proposed for BPA funding, but BPA funding appears to be in addition to, not in lieu of the other entity's funding, typically due to cost-sharing. Projects receiving a "Problems May Exist" rating also have a Cost Share Reasonableness rating.
- 3 - Problems Exist
- In lieu funding problems: another entity is authorized or required to undertake the activity, and BPA's funding is in lieu of that entity's funding, e.g., the other entity is authorized or required to undertake the activity and there is no cost-share offset.
- 1 - Appears reasonable
- From the BPA perspective, taking into account the relative proportion of cost-sharing, the nature and extent of the other entities responsibility, and other factors described in the rating comments, this project appears to have reasonable cost share.
- 2 - May be reasonable
- From the BPA perspective, taking into account the relative proportion of cost-sharing, the nature and extent of the other entities responsibility, and other factors described in the rating comments, this project may have reasonable cost share.
- 3 - Does not appear reasonable
- From the BPA perspective, taking into account the relative proportion of cost-sharing, the nature and extent of the other entities responsibility, and other factors described in the rating comments, this project does NOT appear to have reasonable cost share.
- 1 - Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
- Most projects do not qualify for capital funding due to NOT meeting one or more of the capital funding criteria outlined in BPA's Capitalization Policy:
http://efw.bpa.gov/IntegratedFWP/FW%20Capitalization%20Policy%2011-4-04.pdf
- 2 - Qualifies for Capital Funding
- BPA capitalizes investments in facilities for fish and wildlife (e.g. hatchery or passage improvements) and land acquisitions (i.e., securing a real property interest for the primary benefit of fish and/or wildlife) that are made to fulfill its obligations under the Northwest Power Act or other authorities, consistent with the Northwest Power Act. In order to be capitalized these investments must meet the following criteria:
1. Power rates have been set and provide for recovery of costs over time.
2. The facility (hatchery or passage improvement) or land provides a measurable future benefit in that it does not fulfull a legal obligation of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). For land acquisitions, the receipt of Habitat Units accomplishes this requirement.
3. The facility has a 15-year or greater life; or the land acquisition's Habitat Units or other units of credit are protected for 15 or more years.
4. The facility (or combined interdependent facilities) or land costs more than $1 million.
5. If the land acquisition involves multiple parcels and in total they:
- cost at least $1 million, and
- mitigate for a single FCRPS hydroelectric dam, and
- are purchased within a single fiscal year, and
- are in an area identified by a protection, mitigation, and enhancement plan created prior to 12/31/2000, and
- are shown to be functionally interdependent.
For more details on BPA's Capitalization Policy, please see:
http://efw.bpa.gov/IntegratedFWP/FW%20Capitalization%20Policy%2011-4-04.pdf
- 1 - Meets Scientific Review Criteria
- Assigned to a proposal that substantially meets each of the ISRP criteria. Each proposal does not have to contain tasks that independently meet each of the criteria but can be an integral part of a program that provides the necessary elements. For example, a habitat restoration project may use data from a separate monitoring and evaluation project to measure results as long as such proposals clearly demonstrate this integration. Unless otherwise indicated, a "Meets Scientific Criteria" recommendation is not an indication of the ISRP's view on the priority of the proposal, nor an endorsement to fund the proposal, but rather reflects its scientific merit and compatibility with Program goals.
- 2 - Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
- Assigned to a proposal that substantially meets each of the ISRP criteria. Each proposal does not have to contain tasks that independently meet each of the criteria but can be an integral part of a program that provides the necessary elements. For example, a habitat restoration project may use data from a separate monitoring and evaluation project to measure results as long as such proposals clearly demonstrate this integration. Unless otherwise indicated, a "Meets Scientific Criteria" recommendation is not an indication of the ISRP's view on the priority of the proposal, nor an endorsement to fund the proposal, but rather reflects its scientific merit and compatibility with Program goals.
(Qualified) is assigned to recommendations in the two categories above for which additional clarifications and adjustments to methods and objectives by the sponsor are needed to fully justify the entire proposal. The ISRP expects that needed changes to a proposal will be determined by the Council and Bonneville in consultation with the project sponsor in the final project selection process. The ISRP also uses "Qualified" for (1) proposals that are technically sound but appear to offer marginal or very uncertain benefits to fish and wildlife, and when (2) further ISRP review of a project's final implementation plan or analysis of results will be needed before the project moves to full implementation. Regardless of the Council's or Bonneville's recommendations, the ISRP expects that, if a proposal is funded, subsequent proposals for continued funding will address the ISRP's comments.
- 3 - Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part
- Assigned to a proposal that includes some work that substantially meets each of the ISRP criteria and some work that does not. The ISRP specifies which elements do not meet the review criteria and recommends that initiating work be delayed until certain technical issues are properly addressed. Examples are proposals that include objectives that are not scientifically supported, for instance, a proposal for both background assessment work and concurrent on-the-ground implementation that cannot be justified before results of the assessment are known, or proposals that include use of unsound methods to meet a particular objective. "In Part" is also used for proposals that are justified for a portion of the years proposed for funding, but would benefit from an interim review within those years - for example, a proof of concept research project for which methods need to be tested at a pilot scale before full implementation. Required changes to a proposal will be determined by the Council and Bonneville in consultation with the project sponsors in the final project selection process.
- 4 - Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part (Qualified)
- Assigned to a proposal that includes some work that substantially meets each of the ISRP criteria and some work that does not. The ISRP specifies which elements do not meet the review criteria and recommends that initiating work be delayed until certain technical issues are properly addressed. Examples are proposals that include objectives that are not scientifically supported, for instance, a proposal for both background assessment work and concurrent on-the-ground implementation that cannot be justified before results of the assessment are known, or proposals that include use of unsound methods to meet a particular objective. "In Part" is also used for proposals that are justified for a portion of the years proposed for funding, but would benefit from an interim review within those years - for example, a proof of concept research project for which methods need to be tested at a pilot scale before full implementation. Required changes to a proposal will be determined by the Council and Bonneville in consultation with the project sponsors in the final project selection process.
(Qualified) is assigned to recommendations in the two categories above for which additional clarifications and adjustments to methods and objectives by the sponsor are needed to fully justify the entire proposal. The ISRP expects that needed changes to a proposal will be determined by the Council and Bonneville in consultation with the project sponsor in the final project selection process. The ISRP also uses "Qualified" for (1) proposals that are technically sound but appear to offer marginal or very uncertain benefits to fish and wildlife, and when (2) further ISRP review of a project's final implementation plan or analysis of results will be needed before the project moves to full implementation. Regardless of the Council's or Bonneville's recommendations, the ISRP expects that, if a proposal is funded, subsequent proposals for continued funding will address the ISRP's comments.
- 5 - Does Not Meet Scientific Review Criteria
- Assigned to a proposal that is significantly deficient in one or more of the ISRP review criteria. One example is a proposal for an ongoing project that might offer benefits to fish and wildlife, but does not include provisions for monitoring and evaluation or reporting of past results. Another example is a research proposal that is technically sound but does not offer benefits to fish and wildlife because it substantially duplicates past efforts or is not sufficiently linked to management actions. In most cases, proposals that receive this recommendation lack detailed methods or adequate provisions for monitoring and evaluation. Some propose actions that have the potential for significant deleterious effects to non-target fish or wildlife. The ISRP notes that proposals in this category may address needed actions or are an integral part of a planned watershed effort, but the proposed means or approaches are not scientifically sound. In some cases, a targeted solicitation may be warranted to address the needed action.
- 6 - Not Applicable
- Assigned to proposals that are not amenable to scientific review, such as coordination or administrative proposals that need to be grouped with other projects that are amenable to scientific review.
- 7 - Response Requested
- Assigned to a proposal in a preliminary review that requires a response on specific issues before the ISRP can make its final recommendation. This does not mean that the proposal has failed the review. The ISRP requests responses from a majority of proposals, and a majority of proposals provide sufficient information in the response loop to meet the ISRP's scientific review criteria.
- 8 - Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part, Response Requested
- Assigned to a proposal in a preliminary review that includes some work that substantially meets each of the ISRP criteria and some work that does not. The ISRP specifies which elements do not meet the review criteria and recommends that initiating work be delayed until certain technical issues are properly addressed. Examples are proposals that include objectives that are not scientifically supported, for instance, a proposal for both background assessment work and concurrent on-the-ground implementation that cannot be justified before results of the assessment are known, or proposals that include use of unsound methods to meet a particular objective. "In Part" is also used for proposals that are justified for a portion of the years proposed for funding, but would benefit from an interim review within those years - for example, a proof of concept research project for which methods need to be tested at a pilot scale before full implementation. Required changes to a proposal will be determined by the Council and Bonneville in consultation with the project sponsors in the final project selection process.
Requires a response on specific issues before the ISRP can make its final recommendation. This does not mean that the proposal has failed the review. The ISRP requests responses from a majority of proposals, and a majority of proposals provide sufficient information in the response loop to meet the ISRP's scientific review criteria.
- Response Requested
- Response Requested.
- Supports 2008 FCRPS BiOp
- Supports 2008 FCRPS BiOp.
- Does not support 2008 FCRPS BiOp
- Does not support 2008 FCRPS BiOp.
- Supports 2008 FCRPS BiOp (In Part)
- Supports 2008 FCRPS BiOp (In Part).
| Project Relationships: |
<none> |
| Name |
Role |
Organization |
|
Emmit Taylor, Jr.
|
Supervisor |
Nez Perce Tribe |
|
Mark Fritsch
|
Interested Party |
Northwest Power and Conservation Council |
|
Bruce Hollen (Inactive)
|
Interested Party |
Bonneville Power Administration |
|
Justin Peterson
|
Technical Contact |
Nez Perce Tribe |
|
David Byrnes
|
Project Manager |
Bonneville Power Administration |
|
Bobby Hills
|
Project Lead |
Nez Perce Tribe |
|
Paul Krueger
|
Supervisor |
Bonneville Power Administration |
|
Donald Rose
|
Env. Compliance Lead |
Bonneville Power Administration |
Follow this via RSS feed. Need help setting up RSS feeds?
