FY07-09 proposal 200712800
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Protect and Restore the Little Salmon Watershed |
Proposal ID | 200712800 |
Organization | Nez Perce Tribe DFRM Watershed Division |
Short description | This project entails conducting road/stream crossing surveys and analysis, implementing fish barrier remediation, and riparian protection/restoration in the Little Salmon watershed. Interagency coordination and watershed planning will also be targeted. |
Information transfer | Community outreach and education, professional presentations, etc. |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Contacts
Contact | Organization | |
---|---|---|
Form submitter | ||
Kent Werlin | Nez Perce Tribe DFRM - Watershed Division | kentw@nezperce.org |
All assigned contacts | ||
Arleen Henry | Nez Perce Tribe | arleenh@nezperce.org |
Ira Jones | Nez Perce Tribe | iraj@nezperce.org |
Kent Werlin | Nez Perce Tribe DFRM - Watershed Division | kentw@nezperce.org |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mountain Snake / Salmon
Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Little Salmon River | The project location is the entire Little Salmon watershed |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESUprimary: Pacific Lamprey
primary: Steelhead Snake River ESU
secondary: Westslope Cutthroat
secondary: Bull Trout
secondary: Rainbow Trout
secondary: Interior Redband Trout
secondary: Mountain Whitefish
Section 4. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishments |
---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
---|---|---|---|
Other: USDA-Forest Service | [no entry] | Little Salmon Consultation M & E | [Relationship field left blank] |
Other: US Bureau of Rec. | [no entry] | Little Salmon Geomorphology Planning and Implementation | This project includes: $24K/year (2005-2007)for coordination and technical assistance from BOR's planning programs for mainstem Little Salmon channel morphology work, $20K/year for coordination from BOR's FCRPS ESA programs to identify projects and willing landowners and attend meetings. |
Other: BOR-PCSRF? | [no entry] | Replace Squaw Creek Culvert | This is a project to remove a passage barrier on Squaw Creek (major tributary to the Little Salmon). The grant proposal for this project is currently under review by the funding agency (~$250K). |
Other: PCSRF-Idaho and ISCC WQPA | [no entry] | Rapid River Diversion Modification and Head Gate | This project involved the removal of a push-up dam in Rapid River and the installation of a fish-fiendly Rosgen crossvane and headgate (~$145K). |
Other: PCSRF-Idaho, IDFG, and City of Riggins | [no entry] | Squaw Creek Dam Removal and Headgate Modification | This project involved the breaching of a diversion dam and creation of rock ramps to allow fish passage through the old diversion foundation on Squaw Creek (~$40K). |
Other: USDA Forest Service | N/A | Little Salmon Consultation M & E - Range effects monitoring | The USFS has an ongoing project which entails collection of stream and riparian data at eleven sites within the Little Salmon watershed to assess grazing effects on aquatic/riparian habitat. |
Other: USDA Forest Service | [no entry] | Meadows Slope Wildland Fire Protection Project | This USFS project includes road decommissioning/obliteration. Approximately 10.5 miles of road are proposed to be obliterated/decommissioned with this project. Road decommissioning/obliteration includes actions such as ripping or re-contouring the road prism, applying vegetative plugs and slash, seeding, hydromulching, removing culverts, and channel restoration at stream crossings. |
Other: BPA Proposed Project | 200706500 | Coordinate and implement tributary habitat restoration in the Little Salmon River and Lower Salmon River Idaho | This project will provide a coordination and management structure to facilitate habitat restoration in the Lower Salmon River and Little Salmon River as is recommended in the Salmon Subbasin Management Plan. An inter-agency technical advisory team is envisioned as part of this approach. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
---|---|---|---|
Create a technical advisory group | Socioeconomic Prob. 66,Socioeconomic Objective 66A - In the lower portion of the Salmon subbasin, develop a group to guide implementation of this plan and to coordinate recommendations with co-managers for funding, implementation, and other management activities. | Salmon | 66A2- assist groups with organizing local watershed programs, 66A3- facilitate networking of these groups with technical assistance, 66A5- coordinate implementation with all stakeholders and avoid project duplication, 66A7- promote stewardship, 66A8, 66A9 |
Decrease stream temperatures in the Little Salmon | Environmental Problem 49, Aquatic Objective 49A - Improve riparian conditions to decrease stream temperatures in the Little Salmon Watershed | Salmon | 8D1- reestablish properly functioning riparian areas, 8D3- rehabilitate floodplain connectivity, 8D4- riparian corridor exclusion, 8D6- ensure adequate protection for bull trout at all life stages |
Improve bank stability to PFC standards | Environmental Problem 8, Aquatic Objective 8C - Improve bank stability to properly functioning condition. The Little Salmon River is identified as an area to focus initial efforts to ameliorate Problem 8. | Salmon | 8C1 - stabilize problem areas through riparian plantings, 8C2 - protect plantings from grazing and development, 8C3 - monitor and evaluate |
Maximize benefits to local communities | Socioeconomic Prob. 64,Socioeconomic Objective 64A - In the lower portion of the Salmon subbasin, minimize negative impacts on and maximize benefits to local communities while maximizing benefits to fish and wildlife and users of those resources. | Salmon | 64A2- achieve harvestable, naturally sustaining fish populations in the Salmon subbasin to maximize benefits to tribes and communities, 64A3, 64A4- where possible, utilize local labor, conractors, and suppliers, 64A5- minimize loss of community revenues |
Protect cultural uses of natural resources | Socioeconomic Prob. 65,Socioeconomic Objective 65 - Protect and foster both Indian and non-Indian cultural uses of natural resources in the Salmon subbasin. | Salmon | 65A1- Integrate information and education on important indian and non-indian culture, treaty rights, and historic and current resource use into project selection and implementation |
Reduce instream sedimentation | Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A - Starting in important habitats, reduce instream sedimentation to levels meeting applicable water quality standards (e.g., TMDLs) and measures, with an established upward trend in the number of stream miles meeting such criterion by 2019. | Salmon | 10A1- manage riparian areas to reduce, prevent, or ameliorate sedimentation (e.g., riparian corridor exclusion), 10A5- rehabilitate riparian function to reduce sediment delivery to streams, 10A8- conduct implementation and effectiveness monitoring |
Rehabilitate connectivity & improve fish passage | Environmental Problem 12, Aquatic Objective 12A - Rehabilitate connectivity where it will benefit native fish populations, with emphasis on bull trout. Improve access to habitat currently blocked by manmade barriers. | Salmon | 12A1 - reconnect waterways and prioritize barrier removal or modification,” 12A2 - obtain a better understanding of the ecological effects of the barrier(s) on focal species,, 28A2- install fish-friendly road crossings, 8D5- reconnect tributaries |
Restore degraded riparian areas | Environmental Problem 51,Terrestrial Objective 51B - Restore 50% of degraded (functional at risk or non-functional) riparian areas to proper functioning condition by 2019. | Salmon | 51B1 - Identify and prioritize riparian habitats for restoration, 51B2 - Restore riparian habitats, 51B3, 51B4 - Encourage landowners to replant native vegetation along degraded reaches, 51B6, 51B8, 8A1, 8A2, 8D1, 9A13, 45A2, 45A3, 51A4, 51A5 |
Stabilize Little Salmon River streambanks | Environmental Problem 47, Aquatic Objective 47A - Using riparian area revegetation actions, stabilize 25 miles of streambank along the mainstem Little Salmon River | Salmon | 8C1 - stabilize problem areas through riparian plantings, 8C2 - protect plantings from grazing and development, 8C3 - monitor and evaluate, 8D1- reestablish properly functioning riparian areas, 8D3, 8D4, 8D6 |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Manage and Administer Projects | Management, Coordination and Communication | Project management includes coordination project activities, attending meetings, seeking additional funding, preparing statements of work, managing budgets, and completing reports. Includes: Produce Annual Report (WE 132)- annual reports summarize yearly activities, Produce Status Report (WE 141 &185)- quarterly reports will track project work element completion | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $124,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Coordination | General Project Coordination | Coordinate all project activities (e.g., permits, design, construction, mobilization, revegetation, outreach, etc.) Activities include meetings, phone calls, grant writing, preparing partnering agreements with Payette/Boise National Forests and other communication tasks with partners. This element will also include assisting BOR and IDSCC with the creation and coordination of an inter-agency technical advisory team for watershed restoration in the Little Salmon watershed | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $115,000 |
Biological objectives Create a technical advisory group Maximize benefits to local communities Protect cultural uses of natural resources |
Metrics |
||||
Outreach and Education | Provide outreach and education | The education and outreach component will focus on informing the public about the watershed restoration activities that are happening in the Little Salmon watershed. Emphasis will be placed on informing the public about important watershed issues including fish passage, fish habitat, road impacts, and invasive weeds. Education and outreach materials will encourage the public to participate in or support restoration efforts. This information will be relayed through several different formats, such as: informational brochures, workshops, public field trips, interpretive signs at project sites, and classroom/field presentations and activities for students | 3/1/2007 | 12/1/2009 | $42,000 |
Biological objectives Maximize benefits to local communities Protect cultural uses of natural resources |
Metrics * # of general public reached: 50 * # of students reached: 100 * # of teachers reached: 10 |
||||
Produce Inventory or Assessment | Survey Stream Crossings in Little Salmon Watershed | 1) Survey all sites where roads cross streams within the Little Salmon watershed. 2) Assess these crossings to determine if they are upstream migration barriers to juvenile and/or adult fish. 3) Select the highest priority man-made barriers for future replacement based on potential habitat accessed. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2009 | $221,000 |
Biological objectives Rehabilitate connectivity & improve fish passage |
Metrics |
||||
Produce Plan | Produce Road/Stream Crossing Report and Prioritize Replacements | A comprehensive plan needs to be developed identifying fish passage barriers and prioritizing culverts for replacement/barriers for removal. The plan will summarize all findings from the Little Salmon Stream Crossings Survey and will prioritize culverts for replacement. | 11/1/2008 | 12/31/2009 | $72,000 |
Biological objectives Rehabilitate connectivity & improve fish passage |
Metrics |
||||
Produce Design and/or Specifications | Produce culvert replacement design | During the 2nd or 3rd year of the project, culvert replacement designs will be developed for a minimum of one project site. Culvert design may be subcontracted. | 11/1/2008 | 2/28/2010 | $31,000 |
Biological objectives Rehabilitate connectivity & improve fish passage |
Metrics |
||||
Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Provide NEPA, ESA, and permit information to BPA | Produce NEPA, ESA, and cultural resource compliance documentation and obtain applicable USACE and state of Idaho permits. BPA Watershed Checklists as well as Section 7 information will be completed and coordinated with BPA as needed. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $62,000 |
Biological objectives Decrease stream temperatures in the Little Salmon Improve bank stability to PFC standards Maximize benefits to local communities Protect cultural uses of natural resources Reduce instream sedimentation Rehabilitate connectivity & improve fish passage Restore degraded riparian areas Stabilize Little Salmon River streambanks |
Metrics |
||||
Install Fish Passage Structure | Replace Stream/Road Crossing in Little Salmon watershed | Use report recommendations for Little Salmon Stream Crossings to determine priorities for replacement. Replace one stream crossing to reestablish connectivity and restore fish passage. | 3/1/2009 | 2/28/2010 | $150,000 |
Biological objectives Reduce instream sedimentation Rehabilitate connectivity & improve fish passage |
Metrics * Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes |
||||
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Culvert Replacement Data Collection | Data to be collected for the replaced culvert includes: redd counts, profile measurements, fish presence/absence and relative abundance (collected by snorkeling), in-culvert substrate, and gradient measurements. Monitoring stations will be set up at this site in order to record data for several seasons to monitor for effectiveness and proper construction. The purpose is to determine whether the new culvert is successful. | 6/1/2009 | 2/28/2010 | $27,000 |
Biological objectives Rehabilitate connectivity & improve fish passage |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Action Effectiveness Research |
||||
Install Fence | Install Riparian Exclusion Fence for Livestock | Install exclusion fence to limit livestock access to the stream and riparian areas. Fence will protect vegetation, reduce sedimentation, and help to improve water quality | 3/1/2008 | 2/28/2010 | $47,000 |
Biological objectives Decrease stream temperatures in the Little Salmon Improve bank stability to PFC standards Reduce instream sedimentation Stabilize Little Salmon River streambanks |
Metrics |
||||
Develop Alternative Water Source | Provide off-site watering systems for livestock | Provide off-site (i.e., out of riparian area) watering systems for livestock after riparian exclusion fence has been installed. This work element will accompany the "Install Fence" element. | 3/1/2008 | 2/28/2010 | $25,000 |
Biological objectives Decrease stream temperatures in the Little Salmon Improve bank stability to PFC standards Reduce instream sedimentation Stabilize Little Salmon River streambanks |
Metrics |
||||
Plant Vegetation | Revegetate degraded riparian areas | Plant native riparian vegetation in cooperation with USFS, IDFG, BOR, and Soil Conservation Districts to rehabilitate riparian areas, provide shade, and reduce sedimentation within the Little Salmon watershed. Planting may include dormant hardwood cuttings, rooted stock, and/or seeding. | 3/1/2008 | 2/28/2010 | $55,000 |
Biological objectives Decrease stream temperatures in the Little Salmon Improve bank stability to PFC standards Reduce instream sedimentation Restore degraded riparian areas Stabilize Little Salmon River streambanks |
Metrics |
||||
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Collect data to analyze planting and fencing project implementation | Collect and analyze data to determine planting and fencing project efficacy and provide recommendations for future riparian planting in the watershed. This analysis will primarily include establishing photopoints and vegetation plots. | 3/1/2008 | 2/28/2010 | $10,000 |
Biological objectives Reduce instream sedimentation Restore degraded riparian areas |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring |
||||
Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results | Disseminate Project Results to Professional Audiences at Scientific and Professional Conferences | Project details and results may be presented to professional audiences at scientific and professional conferences and workshops. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $30,200 |
Biological objectives Reduce instream sedimentation Rehabilitate connectivity & improve fish passage Restore degraded riparian areas Stabilize Little Salmon River streambanks |
Metrics |
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Personnel | 2 FTE includes: Project Lead, Support Staff, and Technical Staff | $127,000 | $127,000 | $127,000 |
Fringe Benefits | NPT employee fringe 30% | $38,100 | $38,100 | $38,100 |
Supplies | Field Supplies, Office Supplies, Non-expendable property | $36,000 | $42,000 | $42,000 |
Travel | Travel to meetings/conferences and perdiem | $5,300 | $5,300 | $5,300 |
Other | Consultants and Contracts- subcontracted items | $23,000 | $23,000 | $70,000 |
Other | Training | $3,700 | $3,700 | $3,700 |
Other | 2 GSA Vehicles | $9,500 | $9,500 | $9,500 |
Capital Equipment | 2 ATVs | $12,400 | $0 | $0 |
Other | Office space rental | $3,000 | $3,000 | $3,000 |
Overhead | NPT indirect rate 29.64 % | $69,000 | $67,000 | $67,000 |
Totals | $327,000 | $318,600 | $365,600 |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: | $1,011,200 |
Total work element budget: | $1,011,200 |
Cost sharing
Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Burea of Reclamation | Coordination for lower Little Salmon Technical Advisory Group and Grant-Writing Assistance | $44,000 | $44,000 | $44,000 | In-Kind | Under Review |
USDA Forest Service | Watershed Monitoring and Road Obliteration | $10,000 | $80,000 | $10,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
Totals | $54,000 | $124,000 | $54,000 |
Section 9. Project future
FY 2010 estimated budget: $320,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $320,000 |
Comments: The watershed will need protection and restoration work for years to come |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date: 3/1/2020
Comments:
Final deliverables: A restored, self-sustaining, ecosystem with healthy populations of both anadromous and resident fish species.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense |
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: This purpose of this project is to protect and restore riparian and aquatic habitats within the Little Salmon River watershed. This objective should flow directly from the subbasin plan and an adequate watershed assessment and prescription. It does not do so. There is a shopping list of habitat projects with no clear priority or connection to plans or limiting factors. The latter are not defined in terms of productivity or fish survival, but as physical elements: 1.) lack of adequate, shade-providing, bank-stabilizing riparian vegetation, 2.) decreased recruitment of large woody debris (LWD), and 3.) floodplain and channel encroachment from roads and development. Some clear examples of problem areas are provided, with photos, but reviewers cannot judge how these might play out in an overall assessment of the watershed. The response needs to include a demonstration of how needs flow from the issues identified in the subbasin planning exercise, with clear indication of connections. The technical aspects of this proposal target the recovery of riverine-riparian zones, water quality, and instream habitat. We expect the projects proposed herein to: reduce sediment delivery, improve riparian function, decrease water temperature, improve flood storage, increase habitat complexity and improve wildlife and aesthetic attributes with the completion of riparian planting, bank stabilization and cattle exclusion measures. The benefits described above directly contribute to increased survival during the egg-to-smolt life stage. This is accomplished by decreased sedimentation in spawning gravels, decreased water temperature during critical spawning and incubation periods and improved connectivity. Additionally, the NPT DFRM Watershed Division strives to disseminate information to the public and provide a sense of watershed and cultural awareness for the local students and community. This would be more effective if results on the effectiveness of the habitat work were available. The presentation is not tightly focused on limiting factors, physical attributes of the habitat that limit survival at critical life stages. The Little Salmon lies within a very constrained and flashy canyon. It may be best to focus habitat work on the lower river section and its tributaries (Squaw Creek and Rapid River) rather than work in the mid and upper basin at this time. Specifically, the sponsors should concentrate work in the bottom third of the subbasin, while focusing the work on steelhead habitat in tributary systems, thus dealing with culvert and road blockages and land use impacts from grazing, forestry, and agricultural practices. Work in the upper basin should be delayed, particularly above impassable falls, until after the pending decision on funding for the passage improvements. Barrier removals were noted in the subbasin plan. What of the other tasks? Several planning exercises and agency relationships are presented. It is time to roll these into an overall plan of habitat for the subbasin - an integrated component of a set of studies. This proposal does not do this effectively, but does indicate linkages. The objectives are presented as tasks, and listed. The response needs to include a clear statement on objectives, as defined in the proposal guidelines. Objectives, tasks, and work elements are confused and fail to follow proposal guidelines. Work elements are described as management tasks (coordination, outreach) but also surveys and reporting, providing documentation (compliance) and designing. Real tasks are listed last: fish passage, culvert replacement, fencing, off-site watering, re-vegetate, then data collection and more reporting. Physical works appear to comply with BMP. There is no experimental design. Currently, the monitoring and evaluation planned for this project will involve project-specific effectiveness monitoring. Data will be used to determine level of project success and resource response. Parameters to be monitored under project specific plans will vary depending on the nature of the project. They may include: temperature, bank stability, riparian vegetation response, fish presence/absence, and biological productivity variables. Results will be used to determine changes needed in out-year planning, effectiveness determinations, and restoration approaches undertaken in the future. The evaluation seems superficial. Culverts will be monitored for implementation effectiveness. Some coordination with regional M&E is required, and may require the advice of a statistician; the personnel on this project appear adept at habitat work but not experimental design and evaluation. The response should provide convincing evidence that a sound experimental design and a rigorous M&E program are available for this project.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: (Although this proposal did not participate in the fix-it loop, 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. The comments below are from the ISRP’s June 2006 preliminary review of this proposal.) This purpose of this project is to protect and restore riparian and aquatic habitats within the Little Salmon River watershed. This objective should flow directly from the subbasin plan and an adequate watershed assessment and prescription. It does not do so. There is a shopping list of habitat projects with no clear priority or connection to plans or limiting factors. The latter are not defined in terms of productivity or fish survival, but as physical elements: 1.) lack of adequate, shade-providing, bank-stabilizing riparian vegetation, 2.) decreased recruitment of large woody debris (LWD), and 3.) floodplain and channel encroachment from roads and development. Some clear examples of problem areas are provided, with photos, but reviewers cannot judge how these might play out in an overall assessment of the watershed. The response needs to include a demonstration of how needs flow from the issues identified in the subbasin planning exercise, with clear indication of connections. The technical aspects of this proposal target the recovery of riverine-riparian zones, water quality, and instream habitat. We expect the projects proposed herein to: reduce sediment delivery, improve riparian function, decrease water temperature, improve flood storage, increase habitat complexity and improve wildlife and aesthetic attributes with the completion of riparian planting, bank stabilization and cattle exclusion measures. The benefits described above directly contribute to increased survival during the egg-to-smolt life stage. This is accomplished by decreased sedimentation in spawning gravels, decreased water temperature during critical spawning and incubation periods and improved connectivity. Additionally, the NPT DFRM Watershed Division strives to disseminate information to the public and provide a sense of watershed and cultural awareness for the local students and community. This would be more effective if results on the effectiveness of the habitat work were available. The presentation is not tightly focused on limiting factors, physical attributes of the habitat that limit survival at critical life stages. The Little Salmon lies within a very constrained and flashy canyon. It may be best to focus habitat work on the lower river section and its tributaries (Squaw Creek and Rapid River) rather than work in the mid and upper basin at this time. Specifically, the sponsors should concentrate work in the bottom third of the subbasin, while focusing the work on steelhead habitat in tributary systems, thus dealing with culvert and road blockages and land use impacts from grazing, forestry, and agricultural practices. Work in the upper basin should be delayed, particularly above impassable falls, until after the pending decision on funding for the passage improvements. Barrier removals were noted in the subbasin plan. What of the other tasks? Several planning exercises and agency relationships are presented. It is time to roll these into an overall plan of habitat for the subbasin - an integrated component of a set of studies. This proposal does not do this effectively, but does indicate linkages. The objectives are presented as tasks, and listed. The response needs to include a clear statement on objectives, as defined in the proposal guidelines. Objectives, tasks, and work elements are confused and fail to follow proposal guidelines. Work elements are described as management tasks (coordination, outreach) but also surveys and reporting, providing documentation (compliance) and designing. Real tasks are listed last: fish passage, culvert replacement, fencing, off-site watering, re-vegetate, then data collection and more reporting. Physical works appear to comply with BMP. There is no experimental design. Currently, the monitoring and evaluation planned for this project will involve project-specific effectiveness monitoring. Data will be used to determine level of project success and resource response. Parameters to be monitored under project specific plans will vary depending on the nature of the project. They may include: temperature, bank stability, riparian vegetation response, fish presence/absence, and biological productivity variables. Results will be used to determine changes needed in out-year planning, effectiveness determinations, and restoration approaches undertaken in the future. The evaluation seems superficial. Culverts will be monitored for implementation effectiveness. Some coordination with regional M&E is required, and may require the advice of a statistician; the personnel on this project appear adept at habitat work but not experimental design and evaluation. The response should provide convincing evidence that a sound experimental design and a rigorous M&E program are available for this project.