FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding

Proposal 200003600: Protect And Restore Mill Creek

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
January 10, 2006 Finalized Heidi McRoberts

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 200003600
Proposal Name: Protect And Restore Mill Creek
BPA Project Manager: David Kaplowe
Agency, Institution or Organization: Nez Perce Tribe DFRM Watershed Division
Short Description: Protect, restore, and enhance the Mill Creek Watershed to provide quality habitat for anadromous and resident fish. This will be accomplished by watershed resotration projects such as culvert replacement and riparian restoration.
Information Transfer: Data will be housed at the Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resource Management, Watershed Division offices. Any data will be submitted to StreamNet for infomation sharing. Data will also be summarized in report form and submitted to Bonneville Power Administration.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Heidi McRoberts Nez Perce Tribe P.O. Box 365
Lapwai ID 83540
Ph: 208.843.7144
Fax: 208.843.9192
Email: heidim@nezperce.org
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Mark Johnson Nez Perce Tribe P.O. Box 365
Lapwai, Idaho 83540
Ph: 208-843-7144
Fax: 208-843-9192
Email: markj@nezperce.org
Technical Contact
Heidi McRoberts Nez Perce Tribe P.O. Box 365
Lapwai ID 83540
Ph: 208.843.7144
Fax: 208.843.9192
Email: heidim@nezperce.org
Project Lead

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?
45.42.00 116.00.00 Stream Mill Creek, tributary to the South Fork Clearwater River, Idaho County, Idaho Idaho, Idaho Clearwater No

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Steelhead Snake River ESU
Cutthroat Trout
Rainbow Trout

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 Awarded contract for culvert replacement project on Camp Creek that will be completed during the 2006 field season. Maintenance of riparian protection fence. Monitoring and Evaluation.
2004 Replaced Corral Creek culvert, a fish barrier, with a fully passable, stream simulation culvert. Operation and maintenace of riparian protection fence. Montioring and evaluation.
2003 Complete NEPA & Consultation for culvert replacement projects. Operation and maintenance of riparian protection fence. Monitoring & Evaluation.
2002 Inventory of all fish passage structures withn the watershed. Maintenance of riparian protection fence. Planted 1,500 native trees within riparian zone.
2001 Construction of one additional mile of riparian protection fence.
2000 Consturction of two miles of riparian protection fence, including a cattleguard and setup of monitoring stations.

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
PCSRF - Idaho 035 04 CW Nez Perce Aquatic Restoration This project is cost shared with this ongoing project over the years of 2005-2006 for culvert replacement.
BPA 198335003 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery M&E Monitoring and Evaluation, including snorkeling and redd surveys have been completed for many years.
BPA 199607705 Restore Mccomas Meadows Watershed restoration activities within Meadow Creek, including fencing, culvert replacements, road decommissioning and riparian restoration have contributed to South Fork Clearwater River subbasin improvements.
BPA 199706000 Clearwater Focus Watershed Np This project oversee's coordination of watershed restoration projects within the Nez Perce Tribe's ceded territory.
BPA 200003500 Rehabilitate Newsome Creek - S Watershed restoration activities within Newsome Creek, including road improvements/decommissioning and channel restoration, have contributed to South Fork Clearwater River subbasin improvements.
BPA 200003600 Protect And Restore Mill Creek Watershed restoration activities within Mill Creek, including fencing, culvert replacements, and riparian restoration have contributed to South Fork Clearwater River subbasin improvements.
BPA 200207200 Protect & Restore Red River Ws Watershed restoration activities within Red River, including road improvements/decommissioning and culvert replacements, have contributed to South Fork Clearwater River subbasin improvements.

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
Anadromous fish habitat improvement Increase available habitat for anadromous fish by eliminating existing barrier to provide access. Clearwater 1. Identify and prioritze primary limiting factors. 2. Evaluate alternative habitat treatments to address limiting factors. 4. Develop indicies to evaluate biological response to habitat improvement. 5. Implement projects following priotization. 7. M&E. 18
Protect and restore add'l miles of riparian habita Protect and restore riparian habitats that are critical for both aquatic and terrestrial species. Clearwater 1. Identify and prioritize riparian habitats for protection and restoration. 2. Protect & restore riparian habitats. 3. Increase stewardship and public knowledge of riparian habitats through educational programs. 42-43
Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing on the fish, wildlife, and plant populations in the watershed. Clearwater Reduce grazing impacts through established exclusion fences. 45-46
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams Undersized or inappropriately functioning culverts and bridges must be replaced/removed to accommodate for aquatic species passage and properly functioning stream simulation. Clearwater Remove or modify human-caused barriers and Monitoring and evaluation of biological/hydrological response resulting from removal/replacement. 32
Reduce the extent and diversity of noxious weeds Work to implement effective methods for reducing noxious weeds and invasive plants. Clearwater 1. Prioritize noxious weed infestations for treatment. 2. Treat weed infestations with most economical and effective treatment mehtods for reducing densities or eliminating populations. 3. Encourage best practices. 4. Monitor and evaluate efforts. 45
Reduce water temperatures to levels ..... Reduce water temperatures to levels meeting applicable water quality standards fro life stage specific needs of anadromous and native resident fish, with an established upward trend in the number of stream miles meeting standards. Clearwater 1. Restore hydrologic functions. 2. Restore riparian functions related to temperature. 3. Monitor and evaluate the results of implementation. 33

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
1a: Coordination Prepare Partnering Agreements with the Nez Perce National Forest The Nez Perce Tribe has been partners with NPNF in watershed restoration since 1996, which includes sharing funds and resources to complete projects. Each year, projects specifics are spelled out in an agreement signed by both parties. 3/1/2007 2/28/2009 $25,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Anadromous fish habitat improvement
No Metrics for this Work Element

1b: Manage and Administer Projects Management, Coordination and Communication Project management includes coordinating project activities, attending meetings, attending training, seeking additional funding, preparing statements of work, managing budgets, and completing reports. Communications will include e-mail, telephone, compressed video conferencing, and face-to-face meetings. 3/1/2007 2/28/2009 $30,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Anadromous fish habitat improvement
No Metrics for this Work Element

1c: Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Provide NEPA Information to BPA The Nez Perce Tribe and the Nez Perce National Forest completed NEPA and ESA consultation for culvert replacements in 2004 3/1/2007 2/28/2009 $30,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Anadromous fish habitat improvement
No Metrics for this Work Element

1d: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Stream Habitat Data Collection Collect biological, chemical, and physical habitat parameter data in the Meadow Creek drainage at three locations. Information will be collected on macro-invertebrates, 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. 3/1/2007 2/28/2009 $9,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Anadromous fish habitat improvement
Primary R, M, and E Type: Status & Trend Monitoring

1e: Analyze/Interpret Data Mill Creek Data Analysis After data is collected on biological, chemical, physical habitat, and fish presence, abundance and distribution, it will be analyzed and compiled into a report. 3/1/2007 2/28/2009 $2,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Anadromous fish habitat improvement
Primary R, M, and E Type: Status & Trend Monitoring

1f: Produce Status Report Quarterly Reports or Pisces formatted data in Quarterly reports will track project work element completion. 3/1/2007 2/28/2009 $9,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Anadromous fish habitat improvement
No Metrics for this Work Element

1g: 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. 3/1/2007 2/28/2009 $9,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Anadromous fish habitat improvement
No Metrics for this Work Element

2a: Plant Vegetation Plant riparian vegetation Aerial photographs taken in 1927 indicate that 80 percent of the streambanks in upper Mill Creek meadows were lined with riparian hardwood shrubs. In the same reach in 1990, riparian shrubs lined less than 5 percent of the streambanks. Re-vegetation of native shrubs and trees will be planted along riparian corridors to re-establish natural vegetative cover. 3/1/2007 2/28/2009 $70,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Protect and restore add'l miles of riparian habita
* # of riparian miles treated: 6

2b: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Collect data on success of revegetation efforts Abundance of trees will be calculated from circle plots and percentage of cover within riparian zones. All data will be shared with StreamNet and reported to BPA. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $4,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Protect and restore add'l miles of riparian habita
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

2c: Analyze/Interpret Data Summarize data from monitoring of revegetation efforts. Write report summarizing data of monitoring of revegetation efforts. 10/1/2007 2/28/2010 $1,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Protect and restore add'l miles of riparian habita
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

2d: Outreach and Education Educate public through outreach/education for pubic citizens and strudents Educate public and students through field trips, public presentations, and classroom lectures. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $30,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Protect and restore add'l miles of riparian habita
* # of general public reached: 100
* # of students reached: 50
* # of teachers reached: 3

3a: Produce Design and/or Specifications Approve final design and cost estimate for culverts Final approval of culvert/bridge designs will be approved by the Nez Perce Tribe and the Nez Perce National Forest before soliciting and awarding a sub-contract. 3/1/2007 12/31/2007 $25,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
No Metrics for this Work Element

3b: Install Fish Passage Structure Replace Hepner Creek Culvert. Replacing Hepner Creek culvert will allow passage to 4 miles of tributary habitat above the barrier. It will be replaced with a culvert/bridge that allows for natural stream simulation and passage of all aquatic organisms. 3/1/2007 12/31/2007 $120,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 4.0 miles
* Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes
* Was barrier Full or Partial?: Partial

3c: Install Fish Passage Structure Replace Merton Creek culvert Replace Merton Creek culvert with a new culvert/bridge that allows for passage of all aquatic organisms and flows. The replacement of this culvert will allow access to 2 miles of tributary habitat that is currently blocked 3/1/2008 12/31/2008 $125,356
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 2.0
* Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes
* Was barrier Full or Partial?: Full

3d: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Collect data on culverts installed in 2004 and 2006 A monitoring plan has been developed to gauge the success of culvert replacements. Data is collected at one, three, and five- year intervals to determine successes and changes that are occurring with culvert replacements and removals. 3/1/2007 2/28/2009 $8,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation Monitoring

3e: Analyze/Interpret Data Summarize data from monitoring of culvert replacements. Write report summarizing data from monitoring of culvert replacements. 9/30/2007 2/28/2010 $2,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce number or artificially blocked streams
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

5a: Remove vegetation Reduce noxious and invasive weeds along travel corridors Inventory of weeds has been completed by the Forest Service and/or Idaho County. Treat noxious/invasive weeds along travel corridors by either pulling or spraying. 3/1/2007 10/31/2008 $50,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce the extent and diversity of noxious weeds
* # of acres treated: 10

6a: Maintain Vegetation Maintain 2.5 miles of riparian protection fence Maintain 2.5 miles of fence in the upper meadow of the Mill Creek watershed and repair any damaged sections of fence caused by heavy snow loads. 3/1/2007 9/30/2009 $35,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing
No Metrics for this Work Element

6b: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Collect data on succss of riparian protection fence. Photopoints are taken every three years to document changes over time. 5/30/2008 9/1/2008 $4,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring

6d: Analyze/Interpret Data Summarize photopoints of monitoring for riparian protection Summarize photos in a report to document changes over time for riparian protection. 8/1/2008 2/28/2009 $1,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce negative impacts of livestock grazing
No Metrics for this Work Element


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
Personnel 1.2 FTE $64,247 $68,102 $39,107
Fringe Benefits 30 % $19,274 $20,431 $11,732
Supplies supplies, planting stock, etc. $14,000 $14,000 $14,000
Travel travel & vehicles $11,000 $11,000 $11,000
Overhead 29.64% $33,055 $34,540 $23,368
Other subcontracts $100,500 $80,500 $10,500
Other training/conferences $3,000 $3,000 $3,000
Totals $245,076 $231,573 $112,707

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$589,356
Total Work Element budget$589,356

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
NOAA, US Fish & Wildlife, National Forest Found. contract award funding $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 Cash Under Development
NPNF project design, contract prep, contract admin, monitoring, etc. $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 In-Kind Under Review
NPNF, PCSRF, Central Idaho RAC, etc. contract award funding $22,000 $22,000 $22,000 Cash Under Development
Totals $59,000 $59,000 $59,000

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$50,000 $50,000 Monitoring, Maintenance and Operation of past investments.
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
Fence Maintenance.
 
Termination Date Comments
2011 Project will be complete when all components of watershed meet applicable standards and are showing an upward trend.
 
Final Deliverables
Final Report

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
No changes were made to this proposal


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

FY 2007 Budget
$150,000
FY 2008 Budget
$150,000
FY 2009 Budget
$150,000
Total NPCC Rec
$450,000
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Fund
Comments: 2007 Revised Budget: Eliminate noxious weed treatment and education component. Ongoing project; previous investment; implementation complete after FY 08; FY09 reduced to O&M only.


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

FY 2007 Budget
$150,000
FY 2008 Budget
$150,000
FY 2009 Budget
$150,000
Total NPCC Rec
$450,000
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Comments:

Local or MSRT Comments: 2007 Revised Budget: Eliminate noxious weed treatment and education component. Ongoing project; previous investment; implementation complete after FY 08; FY09 reduced to O&M only.


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

Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC Comments: This proposal is for continuing a six-year-old project to provide fish habitat in Mill Creek and its tributaries by restoring the watershed’s physical and biological characteristics from damage caused by such human activities as grazing, timber harvest, and road building. The focal species are Chinook salmon and steelhead. Non-focal species include cutthroat and rainbow trout.

Response was needed on the issues identified below.

(1) The section on technical and scientific background adequately describes the basic problems but could be improved by omitting the descriptions of proposed or contemplated actions. These descriptions belong in the work elements and methods of proposal Section F. The sponsors made these revisions.

(2) Significance to the subbasin plan is adequately shown, but some of the material presented here would be more appropriate for the section on technical and scientific background (Section B). For example, under the heading, Barrier Removal, on page 9, it was stated that “Salmon and steelhead require a network of connected spawning and rearing habitats …” and “reasons for decline” are discussed on page 12. These and other basic considerations should be covered in Section B, not here. The response was adequate.

(3) The project history describes actions performed, but response was needed on the physical (habitat response) and biological (fish population response) results of this work, which should be shown in tables and graphs, and then discussed. For example, fencing around the upper meadow was finished in 2001. What changes in the riparian zone, the stream channel, and the fish population resulted? The 1927 aerial photo set as the goal for riparian restoration (85% cover vs. 5% today) is a good example of work continuity. The response was brief but generally adequate. The sponsor wrote that fish population surveys, rather than being done under this project, are by the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation project. The sponsors should obtain the pertinent results from that project and present them in future proposals.

(4) The data that were collected on fluvial geomorphology indicate a good fieldwork effort but need to be used to assess the dynamics of the process, in addition to just describing the in-stream state. For example, is there good connectivity with the floodplain? Is there evidence of incision or aggradation? What changes are taking place in the short- and long-terms? An assessment of morphological change over time should become standard methodology in such projects.

The sponsors responded that connectivity with the floodplain is good, that data collected show no evidence of drastic incision or aggradation (but do show that habitat complexity is increasing), and that number of pools is increasing, resulting in more diverse habitat within the stream. They referred the ISRP to their attached monitoring report for more detail. The ISRP observes that although the subbasin plan gave little or no direction on fluvial geomorphology, the project’s Monitoring Report contains many measurements, such as Wolman pebble counts, cobble embeddedness, width/depth ratios etc, and indicates that floodplain connectivity is good, and that efforts to reduce sediment input have resulted in greater D50 measurements, etc. Although a commendable number of measurements have been taken, the implications of this data have not been developed to the extent that we know the dynamic state of the creek. What do these measurements say about the dynamic process, for example the balance between erosion and deposition, and the causes that might lead to a change in the current balance? For the work program currently identified, the level of geomorphic inquiry is good, even if it has yet to be interpreted in dynamic terms.

(5) The proposal’s objectives were logical and clearly stated. The work elements and methods, however, were vague and unclear in certain respects. For example, under objective 1, “Improve anadromous fish habitat,” none of the methods was directed at doing any improvement. They involve only administrative work and collecting data. What form is the improvement supposed to take? If the idea is to evaluate previous work, this should be explained -- and the processes by which whatever “habitat improvement” actions were performed were supposed to benefit the fish. The linkages between the work, expected physical processes, and the fish needed to be described in the response.

The sponsors explained that administrative and data collection functions were listed under the Objective titled “Improve anadromous fish habitat” because “it is that work that leads us to the on-the-ground activities and monitors our successes after implementation,” and that rather than listing administrative and evaluation work under each of the other objectives, they are grouped only under “Improve anadromous fish habitat” to avoid duplication. The ISRP observes that this is still an illogical and potentially confusing situation that could lead to misunderstandings and inefficiencies. It probably arose in this proposal because the proposal format or template calls for “Biological Objectives,” whereas non-biological objectives—such as an Administrative Objective and often some Physical Objectives, etc.—are needed, as well.

(6) The ISRP asked specification of vegetation to be planted. The response was adequate.

(7) Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are ongoing and featured in work elements. ISRP asked the sponsors to tell how the project will be modified to show the statistical design for the project M&E. ISRP observed that many variables are to be monitored every five years, and that a five-year interval between data collections may be too long. Other parts of the proposal indicate that biological monitoring is done annually. The results should be shown in the project history.

The response referred the ISRP to a monitoring report (including methods) attached in response material. The sponsors relate that statistical design has been used to develop the monitoring plan. Depending upon the parameter being monitored, sampling designs vary from systematic sampling, to cluster sampling. In general, the analysis is completed by determining trends among the variables. Some variables are monitored on an annual basis, such as macroinvertebrates and water temperature, but parameters such as channel morphology are only measured every five years. They point out that the project is focused at on-the-ground habitat improvement actions; it is not a research project that involves intense monitoring with large amounts of statistical analysis.

Sampling design of monitoring is apparent in the referenced document that is attached. Such reference (with attachment) seems the best way to cover that issue, where design is too complex for presentation in a proposal—but it would still help for design to be summarized in proposals.

(8) The ISRP found that the project will benefit focal and non-focal species but asked that in the response, the sponsors clearly describe the physical and biological processes by which they expect this to happen. The sponsors responded with ample but concise discussion that demonstrated understanding of stream habitat issues. Included was the following, which well describes physical and biological relationships for the species involved: “The physical processes are ever changing, as the environment changes. Cover is provided by overhanging vegetation, undercut banks, submerged vegetation, logs, rocks, deep water or turbidity. Vegetation also provides for physical barrier to the effects of high velocities, and creates roughness and relative stability to streambanks. It also provides shade to the streams which reduce stream temperature to levels acceptable to salmonids. Channel bank shape and condition are highly correlated with the quality of fish habitat and can influence fish distribution. Collectively, these factors affect biological conditions, including fish populations.”

(9) 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
NPCC Comments: This proposal is for continuation of a six-year old project to restore physical and biological characteristics of this watershed to provide habitat for resident and anadromous fishes. The focal species are spring/summer chinook salmon and steelhead. Non-focal species include cutthroat and rainbow trout. A response is needed on the issues identified below.

The section on technical and scientific background adequately describes the basic problems. The section could be improved by omitting the descriptions of proposed or contemplated actions. These descriptions belong in the parts of the proposal that describe work elements and methods.

Significance to the subbasin plan is adequately shown. Some of the material presented here would be more appropriate for the section on technical and scientific background. For example, under the heading, Barrier Removal, on page 9, it is stated that “Salmon and steelhead require a network of connected spawning and rearing habitats …” and “reasons for decline [of what?]” are discussed on page 12. These and other basic considerations should be covered in the technical and scientific background section, not here.

Relationships to other projects are adequately shown.

The project history describes actions performed. In the response, the physical (habitat response) and biological (fish population response) results of this work should be shown in tables and graphs, and then discussed. For example, fencing exclosure around the upper meadow was finished in 2001. What changes in the riparian zone, the stream channel, and the fish population resulted? The 1927 aerial photo set as goal for riparian restoration (85% cover vs. 5% today) is a good example of work continuity.

Also, the data that have been collected on fluvial geomorphology (page 17—this looks like a good fieldwork effort) need to be used to assess the dynamics of the process, in addition to just describing the instream state. For example, is there good connectivity with the floodplain? Is there evidence of incision or aggradation? What changes are taking place in the short- and long-terms? An assessment of morphological change over time should become standard methodology in such projects.

The objectives are logical and clearly stated. The work elements and methods, however, are vague and unclear in certain respects. For example, under objective 1, “Improve anadromous fish habitat,” none of the methods is directed at doing any improvement. They involve only administrative work and collecting data. What form is the improvement supposed to take? If the idea is to evaluate previous work, this should be explained -- and the processes by which whatever “ habitat improvement” actions were performed were supposed to benefit the fish. The linkages between the work, expected physical processes, and the fish need to be described in the response.

Work element A (plant vegetation) of biological objective 2 (protect & restore riparian habitat) contains the sentence: "Re-vegetation of native shrubs and trees will be planted along riparian corridors to re-establish natural vegetative cover." In addition to an easy editorial change in wording (re-vegetation will be planted), it would be helpful to know what species will be planted.

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are ongoing and featured in work elements. The response should show how the project will be modified to show the statistical design for the project M&E.

Bottom of p 16: "Monitoring sites were established and baseline data have been gathered for trend monitoring …" Many of the variables are only monitored every five years. A five-year interval between data collections seems unreasonably long. At that rate, it would take many decades to detect trends. Other parts of the proposal indicate that biological monitoring is done annually. The results should be shown in the project history.

The project will benefit focal and non-focal species, but in the response, the sponsors should clearly describe the physical and biological processes by which they expect this to happen.

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.