FY07-09 proposal 199405000

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mountain Snake / Salmon

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: O&M was estimated for this section at $1,000,000 for each restortation action. This actual estimate will be available when the feasability studies are complete in 2007-8. Outyear M&E for all the project areas is estimated at 400,000-450,000.

Termination date:
Comments:

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable in part

NPCC comments: Two proposals in one cover might be better separated into different projects, at least until the new projects succeed into a routine monitoring mode following site modifications. Sponsors should be strongly acknowledged for past monitoring and its contribution to new proposed projects. New projects on Smiley and Slate creeks represent diffuse sediment/flow problems that are difficult to attack and probably of medium priority. Smiley Creek work includes "stabilizing" 10,000 ft of bank, but technique is unfortunately not described. If this is hand labor and minimally intrusive that is OK, but not so if requires heavy equipment and soil disturbance. Rampant spread of invasive plants may make weeds more of a problem on new re-grading sites more than in the past. This should be anticipated and prevented/controlled, especially given the hazard of downstream distributions of invasives during high water events. Funding for these project elements should depend on the absence of disturbance, and absence of risk for spread of invasive plants. Not only have they been monitoring relative to measured baselines, but they report some results. They do show some increase in resident species at some projects, but not for anadromous species. The sponsors need to spend more time convincing reviewers that the monitoring project should be continued. They show some changes before and after their habitat projects, but graphing the number of parr produced in different numbers of redds does not show that their work has been successful. These graphs should have a year associated with each point so that the parr produced at any level of redds can be examined. Also, the number of smolts produced each year should have been included in the program. It is likely that the number of smolts is largely determined by survival from parr to smolt, and these data provide no insight into whether or not the number of smolts has been increased at any density by their habitat enhancement efforts. In terms of habitat, the approaches seem based upon both science and experience, and address both physical and biological conditions in parallel. The relatively long run of data would, at first glance suggest that perhaps they have monitored long enough, but explaining the influences of events such as floods and changes in land and water use, justify continuing this monitoring well into the future. However, the Bear Valley monitoring probably does not need to be continued. Sponsors did not mention whether they are endeavoring to use "standardized" M&E protocol as was recommended by last ISRP review - is this still an issue? Excellent reporting to Streamnet and intent to publish in open literature is evident. There is reason now to monitor actual focal species as well as proxies, even though out-of-basin effects persist. Adaptive management is not directly addressed. One case is noted in which data collection was discontinued when not useful, but use of data to fine-tune procedures is not explicit. Good evidence of substantially improved communication and collaboration with other projects is evident. The narrative demonstrates close integration with projects, past, present and upcoming, under various sponsorships, not just BPA, and at varied scale. They should link up with the NOAA Habitat Effectiveness Pilot Study.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable in part

NPCC comments: This proposal is actually two proposals in one cover that would be better separated into different proposals. The ISRP recommends that only the monitoring component of this proposal is fundable, with the exception of that in Bear Valley Creek. The sponsors are strongly acknowledged for past monitoring and its contribution to new proposed projects, even if they are not justified as submitted. These proposed projects on Slate and Smiley Creeks address diffuse sediment/flow problems that are difficult to attack and probably of medium priority. Fine sediment in both creeks is high but no convincing evidence is given in the proposal or response that stabilizing two reaches of bank is the best approach. The justification cites the Subbasin Plan and the Sawtooth National Forest Plan. In fact, both mention a need to reduce sediment input, but the latter especially identifies grazing management as the most needed change. Reviewers recommend passive restoration over any “hard” approaches. The proposed projects in Slate and Smiley Creeks are not fundable. Project sponsors have submitted a reasonable argument for continuing the monitoring effort, but the Bear Valley Creek monitoring has run its course, and is no longer justified. It is stated that the Bear Valley experience will provide guidance for similar projects elsewhere. The argument that higher fish densities are associated with low fines must also acknowledge that low densities also occurred at low fines. Overall results are inconclusive, and it appears that project impacts have stabilized and there is no new information about project impacts to be gained from further monitoring here. In the case of the other monitoring, the relatively long run of data would, at first glance, suggest that perhaps they have monitored long enough, but explaining the influences of events such as floods and changes in land and water use justify continuing this monitoring well into the future. There is reason now to monitor actual focal species as well as proxies, even though out-of-basin effects persist. Adaptive management is not directly addressed, but should be. One case is noted in which data collection was discontinued when not useful, but use of monitoring data to improve projects is not explicit. Reporting to Streamnet and intent to publish in open literature is evident. Substantially improved communication and collaboration with other projects is apparent. The narrative demonstrates close integration with projects, past, present and upcoming, under various sponsorships, not just BPA, and at varied scale. They should investigate linking up with the Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program (ISEMP) project #200301700 that is doing work in the Upper Salmon.