FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 200206800

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Exact cost-sharing on stream surveys between the USFS and the Tribe will be determined on a stream by stream. Decisions will be made on annual basis.

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

The proposal states that "this extensive data collection effort would support the effort to validate the Ecological Diagnosis Treatment model (EDT)" and "much of the subbasin scale restoration recommendations developed by the FWP will be based on the EDT model". However reviewers did not see further mention of how that might occur, or of the staff that would be involved, in this or any other proposal currently being reviewed in the Province.

Most of the reviewers have been involved in the past in efforts similar to that proposed (the US Forest Service GAWS program, for example) where a set of standardized habitat attributes was monitored over large spatial and temporal scales in an attempt, in part, to use those attributes in lieu of, or as a surrogate for, fish abundance data. Those programs quietly terminated after several years, leaving behind mountains of data but little else to remember them by. In the view of the panel, there is a strong likelihood that the proposed project would have a similar fate.

Reviewers have been involved in some very fruitful habitat-based study, such as the Habitat Quality Index in Wyoming, where combinations of physical/chemical stream attributes were developed to predict trout abundance. However that work was successful because it focused on establishing which biological factors were indeed determinants of fish abundance in that environment.

Reviewers are concerned by the perceived amount of separation here between habitat restoration staff and the fish monitoring staff to which they are "tiered." Although responsibility for evaluation should lie outside the on-ground habitat projects, the skill of habitat restoration personnel depends on their having strong working knowledge of what the fish require. They must continually increase that knowledge by being personally involved, seeing what aspects of habitat management worked and what did not. Please address reviewers' concern that this plan would widen, not narrow, the knowledge gap by failing to improve the staff's understanding of limiting factors. Also, are not fish the currency of success, especially where the habitat is largely underseeded?

Comment:

Comment:

As proposed, the Watershed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan would be implemented by the Fisheries/Watershed Department to evaluate habitat quality and water quality throughout the Mountain Snake Province where the Nez Perce Tribe has ongoing or proposed watershed restoration projects. Department staff would also monitor "fish metrics" (species, age class, and size range) in the lowest reach of each monitored stream. In the Clearwater subbasin the plan would be implemented in four of the eight assessment units where projects exist or are planned. Apparently ten streams would be selected for the first year's monitoring (together with some reference streams), and then six monitoring streams would be added annually.

This is the core project for the NPT habitat projects in both Clearwater and Salmon subbasins, but some detail is understandably in the process of evolution, and hence reviewers would need to take on faith that this would be well implemented. A specific concern is that the proposed protocol would not effectively assess the success of many habitat projects; for example, the possible migration of "new" fish above a newly replaced culvert would not be monitored.

A major issue involves what physical habitat parameters should be systematically gathered that (a) show how the habitat has changed after, say, riparian vegetation is re-established and (b) indicate that important fish habitat attributes have (or haven't) changed. Proponents seem only to have thought about category (a), and seem to dismiss the need to include category (b) attributes because they "link" to existing fish enumeration (from other monitoring projects). Reviewers disagree that there is adequate fish linkage. Also, reviewers would like to see a justification for the inclusion of the nine physical habitat parameters listed in objective 2, task D.

The proposal states that "this extensive data collection effort would support the effort to validate the Ecological Diagnosis Treatment model (EDT)" and "much of the subbasin scale restoration recommendations developed by the FWP will be based on the EDT model". However reviewers did not see further mention of how that might occur, or of the staff that would be involved, in this or any other proposal currently being reviewed in the Province. The proposal's response indicates that Watershed staff have no plans to be directly involved in the modeling effort

The ISRP emphasizes our support of the proponents of projects in the Mountain Snake Province to work with all Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Montana Provinces to develop compatible monitoring and evaluation procedures with common field procedures and probabilistic site selection for the entire Columbia River Basin. A proven model for this effort is the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Monitoring Program.

The implementation of such a high-level coordinated plan throughout the Columbia River Basin would likely be an unprecedented advance in research and a distinct benefit to the resource. Collocation of study sites for fish counts, aquatic habitat, and water quality would enhance the region's ability to draw meaningful conclusions from the array of M&E projects currently underway. The Nez Perce Tribe and the Idaho Department of Fish & Game could have lead roles in development of such a plan (see final reviews and the responses to the initial ISRP reviews of Projects 28051"Assess and Monitor Steelhead in the Middle Fork Salmon River Subbasin" and 199107300"Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation").

The proponents should interact closely with Project 199801600 in the Columbia Plateau (Jim Ruzycki and Richard Carmichael, ODFW, "Monitor Natural Escapement and Productivity of John Day Basin Spring Chinook Salmon." ODFW revised this proposal to create a comprehensive plan to include all monitoring and evaluation for all anadromous salmonid lifestages and habitats in the John Day Basin. The M&E program in the John Day Basin is apparently developing as a model for the Oregon section of the Columbia Basin and is being carefully reviewed by agencies in Washington.

The ISRP recommends that the proponents consider using aquatic habitat data collection protocols recommended in Johnson et al. (2001) (Johnson, D. H., N. Pittman, E. Wilder, J. A. Silver, R. W. Plotnikoff, B. C. Mason, K. K. Jones, P. Roger, T. A. O'Neil, C. Barrett. 2001. Inventory and Monitoring of Salmon Habitat in the Pacific Northwest - Directory and Synthesis of Protocols for Management/Research and Volunteers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 211pp).

Comment:

Comments
Although consistent with the RPA, there is much unused inventory data in state and federal files. Does this effort advance beyond or mesh with existing data? Until that question is answered it is uncertain that this project will result in either direct or indirect benefits.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
183

Comment:

Although the ISRP had substantial comment on this proposal, none of it was particularly critical in nature. Rather, the ISRP seemed impressed with the proposal's concepts, and spent much time suggesting that the work be coordinated in some way with other similar work taking place in the basin. In addition, this sort of project, which attempts to measure responses to varied habitat restoration strategies is investigated, could be important in advancing the thinking in the province and region on developing tiered monitoring and evaluation, and the ability and desirability of using "index" areas for monitoring and evaluation as opposed to full blown M&E effort for each project. This is an area that the ISRP has encouraged the region to further explore in past programmatic recommendations.

The Council recommends funding this new ESA related work. The sponsor has agreed to work with the ISRP to develop a more detailed statistical design and to address the ISRP's questions and comments about the choice of "physical habitat parameters" ("category a and b" issues noted) on page 94 of the final ISRP report. The Council recommends that funding proceed to allow the sponsor to proceed with the additional design work and response to the ISRP about the choice of habitat parameters, and that additional implementation activities proceed after the ISRP reports that these issues have been sufficiently resolved.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website