FY07-09 proposal 200714200

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 American 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 American 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 200713400 - Restore and Protect Crooked 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 American 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 (American 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 sponsors provided brief and general answers to ISRP comments, rather than addressing the comments in the level of detail that was expected. The ISRP requested "greater and clearer detail of the specific activities to be undertaken." It also stated that "the proposal would benefit from a more clearly identifiable need and justification for its undertaking relative to objectives (measurable), benefits to focal species (salmon and steelhead), and effects on non-focal species..." The sponsor's response was simply to insist, "The proposal narrative gives a very specific description of work to be completed during this funding cycle." 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 does not dispute the general idea that removal of barriers can - but not necessarily will - result in increased fish production. As a fundamental and general principle this has support and documentation. Rather, the ISRP sought justification of each 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. The ISRP recommends as a precursor to barrier removal (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. Provisions also should be made for some level of assessment of fish use and abundance after barrier replacement/removal. The ISRP requested more detail on criteria for selecting roads that were to be decommissioned or improved. The sponsors did not provide this information, but rather the response was "The Nez Perce Tribe’s Fisheries Watershed Department focuses solely on watershed restoration. Roads identified for improvement or decommissioning are truly focused on reducing chronic sediment input into streams for habitat improvement." The ISRP requested that the proposal ..."needs measurable objectives specified in terms or biological response..." The sponsors responded that it is "...extremely difficult to provide direct ties to numbers of fish or wildlife..." without providing any additional details about why it is difficult or suggesting how biological responses would be assessed. The ISRP requested that the discussion of M&E needed to be expanded. The sponsors stated, essentially, that funding was not sufficient to allow data collection to show compliance and effectiveness. This response is perplexing in that the sponsors proposed to collect physical habitat and biological data in the original proposal. This data should provide insight into project effectiveness, but the sponsor’s response raises questions about whether the data will be analyzed. In short, the ISRP knows little more about this project than was provided in the original proposal. ISRP comments similar to those addressed to the sponsors of this proposal were also addressed to the sponsors of #200725500. The sponsors of the latter proposal were able to provide responses sufficient to address ISRP comments. 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.