FY07-09 proposal 200712600

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Snake Lower

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: None

Termination date: On-going
Comments: This project will be on-going until tribal and regional habitat monitoring parameters are achieved that are currently under development, and tribal and recovery fish numbers are met for specific species (Steelhead) that are also under development.

Final deliverables: Lower Snake Subbasin tributary watersheds will be intact, healthy, and properly functioning so that it is able to support all native anadromous and resident fish species at historical or near-historical levels. Streams within the watershed will meet Watershed/Stream standards.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: The project proposal addresses primary fish passage issue within the Lower Snake and Tucannon subbasins through an inventory of culverts and other obstructions. The problem is straightforward. Barriers can seriously hamper fish movement upstream and downstream. The sponsors propose to identify and replace barriers that impair fish movement. The project also proposes to develop an action plan to reengineer these passage issues where feasible. Fish passage issues are problematic for Lower Snake Steelhead. The ISRP finds the proposal potentially fundable if the individual projects can be appropriately justified and prioritized with habitat conditions above the current barriers as productive for focal species’ populations. Specifically, the proposal needs a stronger justification as to why it is needed, how it will lead to population responses, and where in the Subbasin priorities these actions fall. Moreover, the ISRP is uncertain as to why existing culvert inventories are inadequate to prioritize individual projects at present to justify what seem to be high inventory and design costs. Also, will an updated assessment (and priority projects) realistically lead to fish populations using the newly accessible habitats? In addition to strengthening the justification, the ISRP recommends that the response should address and clarify a number of other key issues. The timeframe (along with costs) appear to be greater than for other such “culvert” projects. A three-year time horizon for inventory seems excessive. A summary of previous efforts that justifies this time and expense might provide such support. Another benefit of summarizing what is presently known about barriers in this subbasin would provide the basis for their conclusion that present inventories are significantly incomplete. Ultimately, this is a proposal to develop a new program of passage improvement for the Lower Snake Subbasin. It is intended to be an ongoing program; the identified problems to be addressed after the initial steps of barrier identification and plans for improvement. The ISRP recommends it be approved only for the development of the needs as a standalone project. Upon identification and prioritization of substantial barriers, subsequent project proposals may be submitted for review and funding based on measurable objectives, expected impact, and suitable M&E elements. The ISRP recommends clarifying the relationship of this assessment project to other ongoing or proposed projects. Other projects are mentioned, but there is no summary of what is known and what specific actions are presently underway by other groups. Simply listing other projects and entities without a tie-in is not convincing that the assessment is critical or will lead to projects that will benefit focal fish populations. The objectives are clear and flow somewhat from the problem statement, but are really tasks rather than measurable biological objectives (e.g., return x# steelhead to watershed or provide access to y# miles of spawning/nursery habitat). Perhaps including a salmon biologist on the team would be helpful. How will quality, quantity, and type of habitat (e.g., spawning area, rearing habitat, thermal refuge) above the barrier be assessed? A barrier may receive a red rating and be replaced but the habitat above the barrier may be so degraded that it is only marginally suitable for fish. Habitat condition should be part of the prioritization process. The sponsors should explain how habitat conditions will be taken into account. Watershed-scale population monitoring will be done by co-managers. Are the co-managers aware of this and building in appropriate effectiveness and population monitoring to measure a response?

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable in part (Qualified)

NPCC comments: The ISRP recommends funding part of this project as a stand-alone effort. Specifically, we recommend the sponsors develop and complete a needs assessment to include identification (inventory) of substantial barriers with a prioritization for a removal sequence based on the expected impact and contribution to not only habitat improvement on a course level, but also to focal species at fine level. The sponsors appear to have misinterpreted the ISRP's original review comment pertaining to justification of barrier removal. The ISRP does not dispute the general fact that removal of barriers can - but not necessarily will - result in increased fish production, which seems to be the question that the sponsors were addressing. The ISRP recommended justification of each specific project based on the quality and quantity of habitat above a barrier (not just miles of stream as the sponsors propose) and the potential increase in fish use and benefit. Here, the ISRP adds the Qualification to this Fundable in Part recommendation that provisions be made in the assessment for quantitative evaluation of habitat quality and quantity above each barrier, and that these estimates should play a major role in prioritizing barrier replacement/removal projects. Provisions also should be made for some level of assessment of fish use and abundance after barrier replacement/removal. From this inventory and prioritization, subsequent project proposal(s) to remove specific barriers or groups of barriers will have greater justification (along with measurable objectives, expected outcomes, and suitable M&E – implementation and effectiveness). Ultimately, much of the required information may be available for assembly rather than a new comprehensive inventory. Many USDA Forest Service units collect such information. As for future proposals, M&E need not be a long-term, intensive monitoring program, but should include straightforward assessment indexes to verify that barrier removal did or did not provide access and use by focal species as well as non-native species. The reviewers examined the forms attached for prioritizing culvert removal. No element appears that directly addresses response or outcome to focal species. Also, the sole habitat prioritization element appeared to be stream distance (number of miles) above the barriers, which does not account for habitat quality of newly accessible habitat for the focal species.