FY07-09 proposal 200003500

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mountain Snake / Clearwater

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs:

Termination date: 2020
Comments: Work in the Newsome Creek Watershed must be phased over several years in order to keep restoration impacts (short-term) at a minimum. The project leader has secured several years worth of work under one NEPA EIS, however to continue work in other subwatersheds of the Newsome Creek Watershed will require another NEPA effort(s), but most likely at a smaller scale. A complete watershed assessment has been completed for Newsome Creek and the project will be on-going until all recommendations have either been implemented or other direction is given.

Final deliverables: Newsome Creek Watershed will be an intact, healthy, functioning watershed that is able to sustain all species at historical or near-historical levels. Watershed will meet South Fork Clearwater River TMDL and Nez Perce National Forest Plan standards.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This is an ongoing project to restore and protect habitat for resident and anadromous fish in a tributary of the South Fork of the Clearwater River. The actions involved in this proposal include reducing sediment input from roads, rehabilitating channel reaches damaged by dredge mining, and replacing culverts to allow fish passage. The project’s focal species are spring/summer Chinook salmon, Pacific lamprey, and steelhead. Non-focal species include bull, redband, westslope cutthroat and rainbow trout, as well as mountain whitefish. This project will benefit the focal species as well as non-focal species. This proposal is well written and reasonably thorough. The proposal contains a comprehensive description of the problems. Significance to the subbasin plan and relationships to other projects are adequately shown. A few items, however, need to be addressed and incorporated into a response. The project history section lists actions performed but does not present evidence of the physical and biological results. A response should summarize the physical and biological results of the project. Measured physical and biological results belong in this section. Some results are presented in Appendix A, but it is not always clear whether that data represent benefits from the project's restorative efforts. Appendix A is not referred to or summarized in the Project History. The project’s objectives apparently come directly from the subbasin plan. The objectives are arranged in no apparent logical sequence but seem to cover the problems well. The long list of work elements and methods could have been organized in some hierarchical fashion to show how the elements are related. Some of the descriptions of methods are unhelpfully vague. For example, under work element 13, what will be done to increase “stream habitat complexity” (a vague concept—what are the units of complexity?) is not explained. The sponsors state that they plan to modify instream structures that were installed in the late 1980s to early 1990s to bring them up to “today’s design standards.” A response should provide descriptions of the types of structures involved, tell what is wrong with them, and describe the new designs and the basis for concluding that they will benefit fish. The response needs to give detailed attention to geomorphic analysis to reaches affected by the mining, including the impacts of headward incision (disconnection of stream from floodplain, for example). It is imperative that the proposal incorporate these considerations. The statistical design of the sampling and analysis involved in project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) (work elements 18 through 21) is missing. The proposed M&E is presented largely as a listing, rather than as a synthesized approach to identifying what is needed and describing how to measure it. This deficiency needs to be corrected in the response. Finally, in the response loop, the ISRP recommends that the Nez Perce Tribe suggest a priority and rank of the numerous proposals submitted under the titles “protect” and “restore.” Where do habitat actions and protection in the Clearwater offer the most potential benefit?

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: The qualification is that the sponsors carry out a genuine geomorphic analysis to ensure the effectiveness of their instream work (see item 4, below). The purpose of this project is to restore stream fish habitat from damage cause by human activities, mainly upland and riparian road building, excessive timber harvest, and mining. Proposed actions include reducing sediment input from roads, rehabilitating channel reaches damaged by dredge mining, and replacing culverts to allow fish passage. The focal species are Chinook salmon, Pacific lamprey, and steelhead. Non-focal species include bull, redband, westslope cutthroat and rainbow trout, as well as mountain whitefish. This project will benefit the focal species and non-focal species. This proposal is well written and reasonably thorough. It contains comprehensive description of the problems. Significance to the subbasin plan and relationships to other projects are adequately shown. The ISRP asked the sponsors to respond on the following: (1) The project history listed actions performed but did not present evidence of physical and biological results. Some data were presented in an appendix (not referred to in the project history), but without narrative interpretation, it was not always clear whether they represented benefits from the project's restorative efforts. The sponsors responded that the appendix data came only from pre-construction measurements in 2003 for project planning purposes. The only management completed to date is six miles of road decommissioning. Thus, little of the planned restoration work has been done, and no results exist. The sponsors are collecting more pre-restoration data. (2) The project’s objectives apparently came verbatim from the subbasin plan. They were arranged in no logical sequence but seemed to cover the problems. The long list of work elements and methods in Section F was not organized in hierarchical fashion to show how the elements related. The sponsors responded by pointing out that the organization of work elements by objective is better seen in that section’s tables. The tables usefully supplement but do not substitute for narrative text, which needs to be more informative. This proposal, like several others did not incorporate much narrative into Section F (objectives, work elements and methods). This made it hard to know in many respects what is actually planned for the methods. The next problem relates to this. (3) Some of the descriptions of methods were vague. For example, under work element 13, it was not said what would be done to increase “stream habitat complexity” (a vague concept—what are the units of complexity?). The sponsors stated they plan to modify instream structures built in the 1980s-1990s to bring them up to “today’s design standards.” The ISRP asked for descriptions of the structures involved, explanation of what is wrong with them, and descriptions of the new designs and how they will benefit fish. The sponsors responded that habitat complexity would involve “restructuring several reaches of the 4 mile section of mainstem Newsome Creek,” that a feasibility study gave detailed reach drawings of conceptual channel alignment and tables on “what type and how many habitat units will be constructed.” They included some of drawings in the response document. The sponsors, in explaining why they feel some earlier artificial structures should be replaced, may reveal some misunderstanding about stream form and fish habitat. They say with respect to log structures that were placed perpendicular in the stream (and which create scours on the stream banks) that “today’s design standards would put them more at a natural angle, therefore reducing bank scour.” The ISRP points out that perpendicularity of logs to the stream course is not necessarily unnatural (logs can fall that way in nature) and need not cause bank erosion if suitably installed. Logs placed at some other angles can indeed have more beneficial effects than perpendicular installations, including diversion of current toward a stream bank to form a scour pool and undercut bank where fish will find shelter with drifting food within close reach. The sponsors failed to respond on the question of how their work would benefit fish. They could have responded with information such as is shown in the last sentence in the preceding paragraph. However, the response information shows in general, by drawing on referenced documents, greater cognizance of fish habitat characteristics than the original proposal did. It includes a table showing intended quantifiable changes in physical parameters of the channel but does not indicate how this relates to fish. (4) The ISRP asked that the response give detailed attention to geomorphic analysis of reaches affected by the mining, including the impacts of headward incision (disconnection of stream from floodplain, for example). The ISRP commented that it is imperative that the proposal incorporate these considerations. The sponsors responded that a major part of their feasibility study was “geomorphic analysis, including past, present, and the desired (as close to historic as possible) geomorphology of the stream,” that the study analyzed current geomorphology of the stream in detail, and that “the final design for the stream rehabilitation will incorporate geomorphic analysis and potential impacts of headward incision as well as other issues such as sedimentation, gradient, sinuosity, etc." This response indicates that the sponsors’ understanding of geomorphic analysis is the past, present and desired future shape of the stream - in effect, three “snapshots.” However, the analysis should include assessment of the dynamic changes taking place--incision or aggradation, for example. Unless the stream is assessed in this way, it is unlikely that the sponsors will know whether their proposed works will be scoured out or buried within a few years. The ISRP recommends the qualification that the sponsors will carry out a geomorphic analysis to ensure the effectiveness (including cost-effectiveness) of their instream work. (5) The statistical design of the sampling and analysis involved in project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) (work elements 18 through 21) was missing. The proposed M&E was presented largely as a listing, rather than as a synthesized approach to identifying what is needed and describing how to measure it. The ISRP asked that this deficiency be corrected in a response. The response indicated that a more detailed M&E plan is being developed between agencies via consultation. It noted that this project was not designed to have extensive M&E, but rather to collect enough M&E data to evaluate project compliance and effectiveness. (6) The ISRP recommended that, in the response loop, the Nez Perce Tribe prioritize and rank the numerous proposals submitted under “protect and restore” titles. This was covered in response attachments. For full comments on "restore and protect" type projects, please see heading “General comments concerning Nez Perce Tribe proposals to protect and restore various watersheds” at the beginning of the ISRP comments on project # 199607702, Protect & Restore Lolo Creek Watershed.