FY07-09 proposal 200713400

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: 2025
Comments: Work in the Crooked River Watershed must be phased over several years in order to keep restoration impacts (short-term) at a minimum. Funding is also easier to secure if project work is phased.

Final deliverables: The Crooked River Watershed will be an intact, healthy, functioning watershed that is able to sustain all species at historical or near-historical levels. The watershed will meet South Fork Clearwater River TMDL recommendations as well as 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 project proposal is very similar to 200714200 - Restore and Protect American River Watershed. As such review comments are similar. This project needs greater and clearer detail of the specific activities to be undertaken and the specific timeframe toward completion (specifically a clear initiation and endpoint). Moreover, the proposal would benefit from a more clearly identifiable need and justification for its undertaking relative to objective (measurable), benefits to focal species (salmon and steelhead), and effects on non-focal species (specifically, will culvert repair facilitate colonization by non-native species?). This project is a first step in improving or restoring impaired habitat in the Crooked River watershed. As part of a longer-term set of goals and objectives aimed at addressing limiting factors identified in the Clearwater Subbasin Plan for critical salmon and trout populations. The ISRP recommends that for this group of similar “Restore and Protect” projects in this (Crooked River) and other watersheds, the sponsors prioritize which watershed(s) are justified to have the likely greatest measurable benefits. From such a prioritization the top project could be funded as a demonstration and proof of concept from which data and population responses can be used to make a stronger case for future work in the other watersheds. The ISRP also recommends that project duration be limited to those specific actions that can be completed within funding cycle; e.g., the four culverts that have been identified as problems. The ISRP could not determine if the road repair work was to be truly focused on habitat improvement for salmon or if the actions are merely to repair roads to facilitate ongoing logging operations which would continue to contribute to road-related stresses. This needs fuller clarification. If it is the latter, we recommend alternative funding avenues be sought. Also, restoration of meanders would prove a difficult proposition unless the riprap is removed and the stream is permitted access to the old flood plain. The weed control program appears to be limited to spraying and is glazed over without explanation as to its benefits, how it ties into the overall project (it appears to be a “throw in” item), and an explanation of how the habitat will be changed/improved so that weeds do not return even if it is possible to eliminate them. The proposal cites objectives that are generally stated in terms of miles of stream improved, roads decommissioned or improved, culverts removed or redesigned, etc. rather than in terms of specific or expected outcomes to salmon, trout, or wildlife. As such the proposal is a work/task list but needs measurable objectives specified in terms or biological response. Regardless, implementation is amenable to monitoring for implementation. The monitoring and evaluation needs some expansion to define the specific objectives and responses by salmon/steelhead that indicates success (or not). Methods described include working relationships among key partners including Nez Perce Tribe, Forest Service (NPNF), and BLM. Absent is any stated relationship with IDFG, who presumably participate in biological monitoring (and measurement of response).

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable

NPCC comments: The ISRP carefully reviewed the series of Restore and Protect proposals in the Clearwater Subbasin for justification based on a “needs” prioritization; assessment of expected impact to habitat at a coarse level and to focal species at a fine level, and an appropriate level of M&E. The sponsors appear to have misinterpreted the ISRP's original review comment pertaining to justification for this project’s elements (including barrier removal). The ISRP sought justification of each specific project based on the quality and quantity of habitat above a barrier and the potential increase in fish use and benefit. Here, the ISRP recommends as a precursor (perhaps as a future stand alone project) a 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. An additional rationale for requesting a project prioritization was to guide Council as to which project(s) of the group similarly submitted might yield greatest and lasting biological response to focal species per investment. Ultimately, the sponsors provided a ranking regarding this and similar projects. While the process was not transparent, nonetheless, this particular project was listed toward the bottom half of ~20 or so similar projects. 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.