Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resource Management WATERSHED DIVISION

1. Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resource Management WATERSHED DIVISION FCRPS Biological Opinion Expert Panel “Gap Filling by Habitat Actions”

4. Increased Funding Increased Funding

5. New Starts

6. 2012 FCPRS BiOp Expert Panels Snake River Salmon Recovery Board • NPT Watershed • Clearwater/NP NF • Conservation Districts • IF&G Grande Ronde Model Watershed • NPT Watershed • Payette NF • Boise NF • IF&G

7. Cross-walk to NMFS Standardized Limiting Factors

8. Assessment Unit Boundary Update • Previously developed by NOAA • Difficult to determine consistent limiting factors

9. Assessment Unit Boundary Update Based on: • Land types • Fish species and distribution • Level of impairment • Management direction

10. Habitat Actions – 2012-2018

11. Habitat Action Scoring

12. Habitat Action Scoring

13. NPT DFRM Watershed Division Tributary Habitat Programmatic M&E Plan • Purpose • Provide clear and consistent direction • Allow optimal prioritization and adaptive management of actions • Facilitate coordination and standardization with regional programs • In collaboration with NOAA NWFSC • Timelines • Began in December 2012 • Draft by summer 2013 for review • Final by December 2013 • Potential collaboration with local ISRP members

14. NPT DFRM Watershed Division Tributary Habitat Programmatic M&E Plan Components • Implementation and Compliance • BPA Pisces • Post-treatment • Action Effectiveness • BPA programmatic approach • Two case studies • Status and Trend • CHaMP (Lolo, SF Clearwater, Imnaha) • Adaptive Management • Data Management and Storage • Reporting and Information Dissemination • Strategy to Track and Utilize Regional Monitoring Efforts

15. Data Management • Spatial Database • Microsoft SQL Server and ESRI ArcSDE • Organized by Project Area • Tracks all Restoration Implementation location data (Feature Classes), implementation metrics & Monitoring data (SQL Tables)

16. Outreach / Information Dissemination • Reports, Summarized Data • Nez Perce Tribe DFRM Website • http://www.nptfisheries.org/DFRMHome.aspx • Spatial Data Viewer and Querying • Watershed Division Mapping Site • http://imsland.nezperce.org/DFRMWatershed/nexviewer_flex.html

17. 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: • Longitudinal Profile • 3 cross sections • 500’ vegetation plots • Visual assessment • Overall segment condition – erosion, slash, weeds, failures • Temperature data at SGC • Photos • Yearly tracking of mass failures

18. 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

19. 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: • Longitudinal Profile • Cross-sections • Site sketch • Presence/absence of fish • Bankfull widths • Substrate size • Site photos

20. 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