FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding (Revised Summer 2006)

Proposal 200003500: Rehabilitate Newsome Creek - S

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
July 14, 2006 Finalized Stephanie Bransford

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 200003500
Proposal Name: Rehabilitate Newsome Creek - S
BPA Project Manager: David Kaplowe
Agency, Institution or Organization: Nez Perce Tribe
Short Description: Protect and restore Newsome Creek Watershed for the benefit of both anadromous and resident fish using an overall watershed approach. This project is a cooperative effort between the Nez Perce Tribe and the Nez Perce National Forest.
Information Transfer: Any information gathered or produced by this project will be available for use by other agencies, etc. Information will be stored in Forest Service databases.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Stephanie Bransford Nez Perce Tribe P.O. Box 365
Lapwai, ID 83540
Ph: 208-842-2113
Fax: 209-842-2150
Email: sbransford@fs.fed.us
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Stephanie Bransford Nez Perce Tribe P.O. Box 365
Lapwai, ID 83540
Ph: 208-842-2113
Fax: 209-842-2150
Email: sbransford@fs.fed.us
Project Lead
Technical Contact

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Mountain Snake ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Clearwater ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
46 0' 00"/45 50' 00" 115 45' 00"/115 33' 00" Newsome Creek Newsome Creek Watershed, a tributary to the South Fork Clearwater River. Idaho, Idaho Clearwater Yes

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Pacific Lamprey
Steelhead Snake River ESU
Bull Trout
Interior Redband Trout
Mountain Whitefish
Pacific Lamprey
Rainbow Trout
Resident Fish
Westslope Cutthroat

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 Engineering surveys completed for 5 miles of road obliteration and 12 miles of road improvement. BA for ESA consultation completed, SHPO clearance obtained for project, Draft EIS out for review, contracts awarded for culvert design and replacement.
2004 Archeaology and sensitive plant surveys completed. Two miles of road obliteration implemenation & monitoring, Phase I road oblit. completed (6 miles total). NEPA EIS contracted out, data gathered and analysis.
2003 All high-priorty culverts surveyed using FS National Protocol for fish passage. Newsome Creek Channel Feasibility study completed and reviewed, NEPA initiated on channel rehabilitation project (will require an EIS). Four miles of road obliterated.
2002 Newsome Creek EAWS completed. Detailed transportation plan completed. Began implementation of Newsome Road Obliteration Phase I (6 mi.) Culverts/stream crossings prioritized from road surveys, completed reports and presentations.
2001 Work on Newsome Creek EAWS continued, chapters 1-4 completed. Watershed road condition surveys completed, data generated from these surveys analyzed and displayed spatially as GIS maps. NEPA and ESA consultation performed for 6 miles of rd. obliteration
2000 Work on the Newsome Creek Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EAWS) continued. 102 miles of roads surveyed (approx. half of the watershed). New road survey method developed (data dictionary - GIS application). Completed project presentations.
1999 Newsome Creek Watershed Assessment initiated. All previously existing data gathered and synthesized to begin assessment.
1998 Haysfork Glory Hole Placer Mine sediment trap revegetated.

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
BPA 198335000 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery O&M Satellite hatchery in Newsome Creek
BPA 198335003 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery M&E Adult weir at mouth of Newsome Creek as well as a juvenile screw trap.
BPA 199303501 Red River Restoration Cumulative effects for the South Fork Clearwater River Subbasin.
BPA 199607705 Restore Mccomas Meadows Cumulative effects for the South Fork Clearwater River Subbasin
BPA 199608600 Clearwater Focus Program-IDSCC Coordinate all projects within the Clearwater Subbasin
BPA 199608702 Focus Watershed Coordination I Coordinate efforts between NPT and other agencies (Forest Service, etc.)
BPA 199706000 Clearwater Focus Watershed Np Through this project the Clearwater River Subbasin Policy Advisory Group was formed, these committees also gave direction toward the development of the Clearwater River Subbasin Assessment.
BPA 200003600 Protect And Restore Mill Creek Cumulative effects for the South Fork Clearwater River Subbasin
BPA 200206800 Evaluate Nez Pt Stream Habitat Project/program effectiveness monitoring for Watershed Program projects.
BPA 200207200 Protect & Restore Red River Ws Cumulative effects for the South Fork Clearwater River Subbasin

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
Anadromous Fish Species Problem 2 Objective B Increase anadromous fish productivity and production, and life stage specific survival through habitat improvement. Clearwater Strategies 1-5, & 7 18
Environmental, Problem 10, Objective BB Protect and restore an additional 300 miles of riparian habitats by 2017. Clearwater 1, 2, 4-5 42-43
Environmental, Problem 11, Objective CC Protect the existing quality, quanitity, and diversity of native plant communities providing habitat to native wildlife species by preventing the introduction, reproduction, and spread of noxious weeds. Clearwater 1-7 44
Environmental, Problem 11, Objective DD Reduce the extent and density of established noxious weeds. Clearwater 1-4 45
Environmental, Problem 16, Objective JJ Reduce the impact of the transportation system on wildlife and fish populations and habitats. Clearwater 1-4 50
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective O Complete adequate flow designations for all anadromous fish bearing waterways by 2010. Clearwater 4,7 31
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective P Reduce number of artificially blocked streams by 2017. Clearwater 1-5 32
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective Q Reduce water temps to levels meeting applicable water quality standards for life stage specific needs of anadromous and native resident fish, with an established upward trend in the number of stream miles meeting standards by 2017. Clearwater 1-3, 5, 6 33
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective S Reduce instream sedimentation to levels meeting applicable water quality standards and measures, with an established upward trend in the number of stream miles meeting such criterion by 2017. Clearwater 1, 3-5 35
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective U Improve aquatic habitat diversity and complexity to levels consistent with other objectives outlined in this document, with particular emphasis on recovery of anadromous and fluvial stocks. Clearwater 1-7 37
Resident Fish Species Problem 4 Objective E Evaluate needs and opportunites to increase native resident populations of westslope cutthroat and bull trout throughout the subbasin by 2005. Clearwater 1-3 22
Resident Fish Species Problem 4 Objective F Increase populations of westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout where they are extirpated or low by 2017. Clearwater 2-4 22-23

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
1a: Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Provide NEPA information to BPA NEPA compliance must be obtained before implementing projects. Project personnel will conduct NEPA sufficient to meet BPA and Forest Service standards. 9/1/2007 8/31/2010 $36,286
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

1b: Manage and Administer Projects Management, Coordination and Communication Communications will include e-mail, telephone, compressed video conferences, and face-to-face meetings. 9/1/2007 8/31/2010 $77,029
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

1c: Coordination General Project Coordination Activities include meetings, phone calls, grant writing, creating MOUs/MOAs and other communication tasks with partners and cooperators. 9/1/2007 8/31/2010 $69,349
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

1d: Produce Design and/or Specifications Design Newsome Creek Channel Rehabiliatation for Stream Reaches 1, 2 & 3 Stream reach 2 has significant impacts from mining operations and nearly the entire valley floor is covered with tailings. Stream channelization and encroachment are severe. Stream reaches 1 & 3 need limited stream and floodplain work as they are fairly intact. Engineering plans will be designed (consistent with feasibility study) for rehabilitation of all stream reaches. 9/1/2007 8/31/2008 $57,179
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

1e: Produce Inventory or Assessment Survey known/suspected areas of exotic plant infestations. Exotic plant infestations need to be surveyed for location and extent. Some general locations are known but comprehensive surveys need to be conducted watershed wide, mainly focusing on road corridors, landings, and recreation locations. 9/1/2007 8/31/2008 $26,167
Biological Objectives Metrics
Environmental, Problem 11, Objective CC
Environmental, Problem 11, Objective DD
No Metrics for this Work Element

1f: Produce Plan Develop a treatment plan for areas of weed infestation. A comprehensive plan needs to be developed for treating areas of weed infestations in the Newsome Creek Watershed. The plan will include locations of infestations, species, size of infestation, potential of infestation to grow, and recommended treatments. 9/1/2007 8/31/2008 $37,339
Biological Objectives Metrics
Environmental, Problem 11, Objective CC
Environmental, Problem 11, Objective DD
No Metrics for this Work Element

1g: Remove vegetation Newsome Creek Watershed Weed Eradication Weed infestations within the Newsome Creek Watershed will be treated in accordance with the recommendations of the plan and within the scope of NEPA. 9/1/2007 8/31/2010 $60,745
Biological Objectives Metrics
Environmental, Problem 11, Objective CC
Environmental, Problem 11, Objective DD
* # of acres treated: 204

1h: Remove/Modify Dam Replace FS Road 1826 Culvert #2 Culvert #2 on Forest Service Road 1826 is currently a fish passage barrier. Replacement will utilize natural stream simulation design for passage of all aquatic species at all life stages. 9/1/2007 8/31/2008 $89,945
Biological Objectives Metrics
Environmental, Problem 16, Objective JJ
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective O
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective P
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective S
Resident Fish Species Problem 4 Objective E
Resident Fish Species Problem 4 Objective F
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 3

1i: Improve/Relocate Road Improve FS Road 1826 & 1832 in the Newsome Creek Watershed. Forest Service Roads 1826 and 1832 have been identified in the Watershed Assessment Transportation Plan as being needed for Administrative and Recreational use, however these roads are a major contributing source of chronic sediment. Improving these roads would reduce the amount of chronic sediment and keep them for their designated uses. 9/1/2007 8/31/2010 $195,945
Biological Objectives Metrics
Environmental, Problem 11, Objective DD
Environmental, Problem 16, Objective JJ
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective O
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective P
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective S
* # of road miles improved, upgraded, or restored: 22

1j: Decommission Road Newsome Creek Road Removal Phase II Approximately 30 miles of roads (10 miles per year) will be obliterated using a full recontour approach. Weed infestations will be treated prior to obliteration. 9/1/2007 8/31/2010 $214,945
Biological Objectives Metrics
Environmental, Problem 10, Objective BB
Environmental, Problem 11, Objective CC
Environmental, Problem 11, Objective DD
Environmental, Problem 16, Objective JJ
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective O
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective P
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective S
* # of road miles decommissioned : 30

1k: Upland Erosion and Sedimentation Control Erosion control on Decommissioned Road Upon completion of recontouring the road prism, weed free straw is placed on stream crossings, springs, and or seep areas. Native slash is placed all along on recontoured road prism. 9/1/2007 8/31/2010 $31,120
Biological Objectives Metrics
Environmental, Problem 11, Objective CC
Environmental, Problem 11, Objective DD
Environmental, Problem 16, Objective JJ
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective S
* # of acres treated: 60

1l: Plant Vegetation Seed Decommissioned Road Upon road obliteration, seeding and fertilizing the recontoured road prism is done to prevent short-term surface erosion until native grasses and vegetation take hold. 9/1/2007 8/31/2010 $76,120
Biological Objectives Metrics
Environmental, Problem 11, Objective CC
Environmental, Problem 11, Objective DD
Environmental, Problem 16, Objective JJ
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective S
* # of acres of planted: 60

1m: Increase Instream Habitat Complexity Newsome Channel Rehabilitation Project The 4 miles of Newsome Creek that will receive treatment is broken into 6 stream reaches. Each stream reach will receive a different level of treatment, depending upon it's condition. 9/1/2007 8/31/2010 $120,824
Biological Objectives Metrics
Anadromous Fish Species Problem 2 Objective B
Environmental, Problem 10, Objective BB
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective Q
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective U
Resident Fish Species Problem 4 Objective E
Resident Fish Species Problem 4 Objective F
* # of stream miles treated: 4

1n: Realign, Connect, and/or Create Channel Newsome Creek Channel Rehabiliation Project Three out of six reaches need intensive stream reconstruction. Currently, these reaches (2,4&5) are straight shallow riffles with little to no habitat complexity and fish densities are very low. These reaches historically have had high habitat complexity and still possess the potential. 9/1/2007 8/31/2010 $120,824
Biological Objectives Metrics
Anadromous Fish Species Problem 2 Objective B
Environmental, Problem 10, Objective BB
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective Q
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective U
Resident Fish Species Problem 4 Objective E
Resident Fish Species Problem 4 Objective F
* # of stream miles treated, including off-channels, after realignment: 4

1o: Remove Mine Tailings Newsome Channel Rehabilitation Project - Tailings piles regrading/removal A majority of the four mile mainstem channel of Newsome Creek is lined with mining tailings piles. These piles have straightened and narrowed the mainstem channel as well as cutting it off from its floodplain and destroying the riparian corridor. Removing or regrading the piles to the edge of the valley floor will give the stream an opportunity to regain it’s floodplain and paired with other restoration work elements give this section of stream hydrologic connectivity. 9/1/2007 8/31/2010 $179,582
Biological Objectives Metrics
Anadromous Fish Species Problem 2 Objective B
Environmental, Problem 10, Objective BB
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective Q
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective U
Resident Fish Species Problem 4 Objective E
Resident Fish Species Problem 4 Objective F
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 4

1p: Enhance Floodplain Newsome Channel Rehabilitation Project - Floodplain Restoration Currently, thousands of tailings piles are preventing the stream from accessing its floodplain. Stream reaches 5, 4, & 2 are in the worst condition. After tailings piles are removed, the floodplain will be regraded to its natural/historic grade. 9/1/2007 8/31/2010 $179,582
Biological Objectives Metrics
Environmental, Problem 10, Objective BB
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective O
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective U
* # of acres treated: 100

1q: Plant Vegetation Newsome Channel Rehabilitation Project – Riparian Corridor Restoration The four miles selected for rehabilitation has been void of a functioning riparian corridor since mining in the 1930’ s and 40’s. Restoration of this corridor will dramatically reduce stream temperatures, provide instream cover and recruitment of large woody debris. It will also aide in the development of undercut banks. 9/1/2007 8/31/2010 $104,139
Biological Objectives Metrics
Environmental, Problem 10, Objective BB
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective Q
Environmental, Problem 7, Objective U
* # of riparian miles treated: 8

1r: 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 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. 9/1/2007 8/31/2010 $21,850
Biological Objectives Metrics
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project implementation

1s: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Removed roads data collection Monitoring stations will be set up by our Tribal road obliteration monitoring expert. Methodology has already been established for this type of monitoring, please see below milestone description for more specifics. The purpose is to determine the success of the road obliteration. 9/1/2007 8/31/2010 $22,300
Biological Objectives Metrics
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation

1t: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Stream Habitat Data Collection Data is needed to monitor and evaluate biological, chemical and physical habitat parameters that affect salmonid production the Newsome Creek watershed. Information will be collected on macro-invertebrates, periphyton, flow, temperature, sediment composition, and habitat parameters to include channel morphology, valley width index, Wolman Pebble counts, cobble embeddedness, large woody debris, bank stability, and riparian condition and density. The monitoring will occur between the start and end dates above, but the exact timing for the locations will be determined and adjusted during field season. 9/1/2007 8/31/2010 $28,195
Biological Objectives Metrics
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation

1u: Analyze/Interpret Data Condition/Health of Newsome Creek Densities and abundance of fish will be estimated using snorkeling data. Temperature, flow data, and physical habitat parameters such as macroinvertebrates, cobble embeddedness and stream morphological measurements will be summarized and used to document success for stream restoration activities. 9/1/2007 8/31/2010 $45,160
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

1v: Produce Annual Report Annual Report Annual report describes all pertinent yearly activities, successes, problems, and opportunities encountered to include photos as needed. Summarize data generated by the project, as well as discussions with StreamNet; identify appropriate data format(s) or linkages, timing of data sharing, and describe any work needed to provide data in these formats. 9/1/2007 8/31/2010 $34,012
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

1w: Outreach and Education Upper South Fork Watershed Restoration Education Outreach The education and outreach component will focus on informing the public about the watershed restoration activities that are happening in the Upper South Fork Clearwater River Subbasin and how they can participate or support restoration efforts. This information will be relayed through several different formats, examples being informational brochures, public meetings, meetings with Framing Our Community, and educational workshops with the local schools. 9/1/2007 8/31/2010 $59,006
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
Personnel 2 FTEs $66,500 $69,825 $73,316
Fringe Benefits 30% $71,574 $75,153 $78,910
Supplies field, non-expendable property $9,398 $9,398 $9,398
Travel vehicles, meetings, field per diem, etc. $13,532 $13,532 $13,532
Overhead 29.64% $48,492 $49,768 $51,916
Other Herbicide/sprayer $7,200 $17,200 $16,400
Other Subcontract items $547,534 $419,553 $217,712
Other Training / conferences $2,600 $2,600 $2,600
Totals $766,830 $657,029 $463,784

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$1,887,643
Total Work Element budget$1,887,643

Cost sharing
Funding Source or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status
Nez Perce National Forest Project design, contract prep & admin, monitoring, etc $85,000 $85,000 $75,000 In-Kind Under Review
Nez Perce NF, PCSRF, Central Idaho RAC Portion of Contract Award Funding $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Cash Under Development
Totals $185,000 $185,000 $175,000

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$542,663 $569,796 Stream Reach 02 of the Newsome Channel Restoration Project will be ready for implementation in 2010 & 2011. This reach is the most expensive to rehabilitate as it has been degraded the most by past dredge mining.
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
 
Termination Date Comments
2020 Work in the Newsome Creek Watershed must be phased over several years in order to keep restoration impacts (short-term) at a minimum. The project leader has secured several years worth of work under one NEPA EIS, however to continue work in other subwatersheds of the Newsome Creek Watershed will require another NEPA effort(s), but most likely at a smaller scale. A complete watershed assessment has been completed for Newsome Creek and the project will be on-going until all recommendations have either been implemented or other direction is given.
 
Final Deliverables
Newsome Creek Watershed will be an intact, healthy, functioning watershed that is able to sustain all species at historical or near-historical levels. Watershed will meet South Fork Clearwater River TMDL and Nez Perce National Forest Plan standards.

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date
Fix-it Loop Documents
Documents Originally Submitted with this Proposal

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
Location:
Province: No Change
Subbasin: No Change
Primary Focal Species
No Change
ARG Comments:


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$317,474
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$317,474
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$317,474
Total NPCC Rec
$952,422
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Fund
NPCC Comments: 2007 Revised Budget: Weed program cut back to road decommissioning/improvement only, education component significantly reduced, road decomm/improvements significantly reduced or eliminated, stream/riparian/floodplain restoration reduced.


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$317,474
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$317,474
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$317,474
Total NPCC Rec
$952,422
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
NPCC Comments:

Local or MSRT Comments: 2007 Revised Budget: Weed program cut back to road decommissioning/improvement only, education component significantly reduced, road decomm/improvements significantly reduced or eliminated, stream/riparian/floodplain restoration reduced.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
Comments: The qualification is that the sponsors carry out a genuine geomorphic analysis to ensure the effectiveness of their instream work (see item 4, below).

The purpose of this project is to restore stream fish habitat from damage cause by human activities, mainly upland and riparian road building, excessive timber harvest, and mining. Proposed actions include reducing sediment input from roads, rehabilitating channel reaches damaged by dredge mining, and replacing culverts to allow fish passage. The focal species are Chinook salmon, Pacific lamprey, and steelhead. Non-focal species include bull, redband, westslope cutthroat and rainbow trout, as well as mountain whitefish. This project will benefit the focal species and non-focal species.

This proposal is well written and reasonably thorough. It contains comprehensive description of the problems. Significance to the subbasin plan and relationships to other projects are adequately shown. The ISRP asked the sponsors to respond on the following:

(1) The project history listed actions performed but did not present evidence of physical and biological results. Some data were presented in an appendix (not referred to in the project history), but without narrative interpretation, it was not always clear whether they represented benefits from the project's restorative efforts. The sponsors responded that the appendix data came only from pre-construction measurements in 2003 for project planning purposes. The only management completed to date is six miles of road decommissioning. Thus, little of the planned restoration work has been done, and no results exist. The sponsors are collecting more pre-restoration data.

(2) The project’s objectives apparently came verbatim from the subbasin plan. They were arranged in no logical sequence but seemed to cover the problems. The long list of work elements and methods in Section F was not organized in hierarchical fashion to show how the elements related. The sponsors responded by pointing out that the organization of work elements by objective is better seen in that section’s tables. The tables usefully supplement but do not substitute for narrative text, which needs to be more informative. This proposal, like several others did not incorporate much narrative into Section F (objectives, work elements and methods). This made it hard to know in many respects what is actually planned for the methods. The next problem relates to this.

(3) Some of the descriptions of methods were vague. For example, under work element 13, it was not said what would be done to increase “stream habitat complexity” (a vague concept—what are the units of complexity?). The sponsors stated they plan to modify instream structures built in the 1980s-1990s to bring them up to “today’s design standards.” The ISRP asked for descriptions of the structures involved, explanation of what is wrong with them, and descriptions of the new designs and how they will benefit fish. The sponsors responded that habitat complexity would involve “restructuring several reaches of the 4 mile section of mainstem Newsome Creek,” that a feasibility study gave detailed reach drawings of conceptual channel alignment and tables on “what type and how many habitat units will be constructed.” They included some of drawings in the response document.

The sponsors, in explaining why they feel some earlier artificial structures should be replaced, may reveal some misunderstanding about stream form and fish habitat. They say with respect to log structures that were placed perpendicular in the stream (and which create scours on the stream banks) that “today’s design standards would put them more at a natural angle, therefore reducing bank scour.” The ISRP points out that perpendicularity of logs to the stream course is not necessarily unnatural (logs can fall that way in nature) and need not cause bank erosion if suitably installed. Logs placed at some other angles can indeed have more beneficial effects than perpendicular installations, including diversion of current toward a stream bank to form a scour pool and undercut bank where fish will find shelter with drifting food within close reach.

The sponsors failed to respond on the question of how their work would benefit fish. They could have responded with information such as is shown in the last sentence in the preceding paragraph. However, the response information shows in general, by drawing on referenced documents, greater cognizance of fish habitat characteristics than the original proposal did. It includes a table showing intended quantifiable changes in physical parameters of the channel but does not indicate how this relates to fish.

(4) The ISRP asked that the response give detailed attention to geomorphic analysis of reaches affected by the mining, including the impacts of headward incision (disconnection of stream from floodplain, for example). The ISRP commented that it is imperative that the proposal incorporate these considerations. The sponsors responded that a major part of their feasibility study was “geomorphic analysis, including past, present, and the desired (as close to historic as possible) geomorphology of the stream,” that the study analyzed current geomorphology of the stream in detail, and that “the final design for the stream rehabilitation will incorporate geomorphic analysis and potential impacts of headward incision as well as other issues such as sedimentation, gradient, sinuosity, etc."

This response indicates that the sponsors’ understanding of geomorphic analysis is the past, present and desired future shape of the stream - in effect, three “snapshots.” However, the analysis should include assessment of the dynamic changes taking place--incision or aggradation, for example. Unless the stream is assessed in this way, it is unlikely that the sponsors will know whether their proposed works will be scoured out or buried within a few years. The ISRP recommends the qualification that the sponsors will carry out a geomorphic analysis to ensure the effectiveness (including cost-effectiveness) of their instream work.

(5) The statistical design of the sampling and analysis involved in project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) (work elements 18 through 21) was missing. The proposed M&E was presented largely as a listing, rather than as a synthesized approach to identifying what is needed and describing how to measure it. The ISRP asked that this deficiency be corrected in a response. The response indicated that a more detailed M&E plan is being developed between agencies via consultation. It noted that this project was not designed to have extensive M&E, but rather to collect enough M&E data to evaluate project compliance and effectiveness.

(6) The ISRP recommended that, in the response loop, the Nez Perce Tribe prioritize and rank the numerous proposals submitted under “protect and restore” titles. This was covered in response attachments.

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.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Response requested
Comments: This is an ongoing project to restore and protect habitat for resident and anadromous fish in a tributary of the South Fork of the Clearwater River. The actions involved in this proposal include reducing sediment input from roads, rehabilitating channel reaches damaged by dredge mining, and replacing culverts to allow fish passage. The project’s focal species are spring/summer Chinook salmon, Pacific lamprey, and steelhead. Non-focal species include bull, redband, westslope cutthroat and rainbow trout, as well as mountain whitefish. This project will benefit the focal species as well as non-focal species.

This proposal is well written and reasonably thorough. The proposal contains a comprehensive description of the problems. Significance to the subbasin plan and relationships to other projects are adequately shown. A few items, however, need to be addressed and incorporated into a response.

The project history section lists actions performed but does not present evidence of the physical and biological results. A response should summarize the physical and biological results of the project. Measured physical and biological results belong in this section. Some results are presented in Appendix A, but it is not always clear whether that data represent benefits from the project's restorative efforts. Appendix A is not referred to or summarized in the Project History.

The project’s objectives apparently come directly from the subbasin plan. The objectives are arranged in no apparent logical sequence but seem to cover the problems well. The long list of work elements and methods could have been organized in some hierarchical fashion to show how the elements are related. Some of the descriptions of methods are unhelpfully vague. For example, under work element 13, what will be done to increase “stream habitat complexity” (a vague concept—what are the units of complexity?) is not explained. The sponsors state that they plan to modify instream structures that were installed in the late 1980s to early 1990s to bring them up to “today’s design standards.” A response should provide descriptions of the types of structures involved, tell what is wrong with them, and describe the new designs and the basis for concluding that they will benefit fish.

The response needs to give detailed attention to geomorphic analysis to reaches affected by the mining, including the impacts of headward incision (disconnection of stream from floodplain, for example). It is imperative that the proposal incorporate these considerations.

The statistical design of the sampling and analysis involved in project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) (work elements 18 through 21) is missing. The proposed M&E is presented largely as a listing, rather than as a synthesized approach to identifying what is needed and describing how to measure it. This deficiency needs to be corrected in the response.

Finally, in the response loop, the ISRP recommends that the Nez Perce Tribe suggest a priority and rank of the numerous proposals submitted under the titles “protect” and “restore.” Where do habitat actions and protection in the Clearwater offer the most potential benefit?

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.