FY07-09 proposal 200207200

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: 2030
Comments: Work in the Red River 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 Red River Watershed will require another NEPA effort(s), but most likely at a smaller scale. A complete watershed assessment has been completed for Red River and the project will be on-going until all recommendations have either been implemented or other direction is given.

Final deliverables: The Red 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: The overall objective of the work proposed here is to protect and restore the Red River watershed for the benefit of both anadromous and resident fish using an overall watershed approach. The admirable goal is perhaps distorted by the misconception that “the ability of aquatic species in the watershed to persist has been reduced mostly through man’s impacts on the land and stream.” The subbasin plan emphasizes out-of-basin impacts, but also documents the impact of high road density, as noted here. It is well accepted that most of the variation in returns, particularly to this portion of the Columbia Basin, is due to out-of-subbasin migration and ocean conditions. A thorough Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EAWS) would further demonstrate this fact. Nevertheless, habitat protection and improvement may be justified following completion of the EAWS proposed, and the setting of priorities for rehabilitation prescriptions. The emphasis here is almost entirely on roads and road rehabilitation, but the value of improved aquatic habitat is clearly recognized in the proposal. The sponsors also noted that this proposal is tied to other important initiatives within the subbasin and the Columbia Basin. Significance to the subbasin plan is adequately shown, as are relationships to other projects. The proposal lacks a project history presentation. In view of the project’s history, (funding began in 2003), a response is needed including a quantitative summary of biological and physical results produced to date. Accomplishments were listed as: 2005 - Design and construct contract awarded for 1709 culvert replacement. Bridge Creek Campground improvements implemented. 12 miles of road obliteration contract awarded. 2004 - NEPA completed for Upper Red River Project. Sensitive plant and archaeology surveys completed for project. Road improvement and obliteration engineering surveys completed for contract prep. 2003 - NEPA initiated for the Upper Red River Watershed Restoration Project; Draft EA and BA out for review and consultation. 2002 - Approximately 100 miles of roads surveyed, 264 out of 300 high priority stream crossings surveyed. There is need for a report and response on the methods and results of the evaluation of the completion and success of the 2005 road obliteration (12 miles), campground improvements, and culvert replacements. Was sediment significantly reduced? Were culverts made passable? Study of previous reviews by ISRP indicated little evidence of benefits or progress. The proposal indicated that an EAWS for the Red River watershed will be developed during the 2007 funding period, yet the 2002 ISRP review recommended the proposal for funding under the condition that EAWS be done during the 2002 funding period. The sponsor’s response to ISRP questions in the 2002 review laid out a timetable for completion of the EAWS in 2002. Please explain why this was not completed or reported. The ISRP 2002 Review notes: "In response to ISRP comment, the watershed assessment process will be accelerated for completion in 2002. The construction/treatment phase is to begin in 2004 (restricted at first to obvious needs for road rehabilitation and culvert replacement) and last at least through 2006. It is not clear how the out-year budget can be set before watershed assessment and planning are completed, so the construction proposal should be deferred to the next funding cycle.” Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) was proposed for 2005 and 2006. The reviewers previously recommended, however, that monitoring start before construction, to facilitate the comparison of pre- and post-project conditions (sponsor did not respond on this issue) and be coordinated with Project 28045 as the sponsor's previous response indicated will be done. Please explain why this was not done? The narrative’s section on technical and scientific background (and the abstract) launches into description of the watershed and other matters without stating the purpose of the project. Apparently the project’s specific purpose is not explicitly stated anywhere in the narrative. The section does, however, present an overview of envisaged watershed problems (oriented toward those caused by timber harvest), even though the EAWS has not yet been done. The proposal has clearly stated objectives. However, please explain how all of these can be considered valid if the EAWS has not yet been done. The methods are simple (as stated) and are tied well to the objectives. Objective 3 covers M&E for part of the proposed project, but M&E is needed to cover culvert replacements. Biological M&E (measurement of fish population responses) is also needed for each of the management activities. A process for future M&E was presented, but no information on M&E of past accomplishments that may use the same techniques (Stonesifer 1999) was provided. Once again, we refer the proponents to the programmatic section of this report, particularly in relation to comments on watershed assessment procedures, monitoring and evaluation. A history of accomplishments and positive response to previous recommendations is lacking. Personnel may lack the expertise and experience required for successful completion. Funding should be either denied or limited to the watershed assessments only, as recommended in the past. A response to questions above regarding comments on past reviews, recommendations for pre-project condition monitoring, and reporting of results may assist the final funding recommendation. 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?

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: The funding qualifications are (1) that actions to stabilize stream banks are fundable only if the bank reinforcements are done by planting vegetation, installing simulations of naturally lodged wood debris, or bioengineering methods that will eventually allow natural rates of channel migration, i.e., funding for hard-engineered structures, such as ones built primarily of rock is not justified, and (2) preparation of an appropriate, clearly organized and well-designed monitoring and evaluation plan must be done for this project. The project’s purpose is to protect and restore Red River habitat for fish. The sponsors take a watershed approach. It includes work to treat upland, riparian, and instream problems. In particular, actions will protect existing productive riparian habitats from human disturbance and development. Protection and restoration are needed with respect to damage caused by such human activities as urbanization, livestock grazing, mining, road building, logging, channelization, agricultural activities, and even recreation. Much of the proposed actions involve road improvement and decommissioning to reduce stream sedimentation and culvert replacement to remove fish migration barriers. The focal species are Chinook salmon, steelhead, and Pacific lamprey. The secondary species include four other salmonids and mountain whitefish. Other animals expected to benefit include moose, elk, and deer. Upon receiving ISRP review comments, the sponsors discovered they had mistakenly included the 2002 Provincial Review Narrative in their proposal submission instead of the 2007 version. This complication resulted in various ISRP comments that are no longer applicable. We have tried to disentangle them from the extensive re-review that was needed. The ISRP called for Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EAWS). The response clarifies that this analysis was done in 2002, and how the project plan relates to it. The project’s emphasis is on roads and road rehabilitation, but the value of improved aquatic habitat is clearly recognized in the proposal. The sponsors also noted that this proposal is tied to other important initiatives within the subbasin and the Columbia Basin. Significance to the subbasin plan is adequately shown, as are relationships to other projects. The ISRP commented that, because funding actually began in 2002, a response was needed which includes a more thorough and quantitative summary of results produced to date. The correct narrative and the response document provide a more quantitative summary of the project’s accomplishments to date. These are mainly statements of actions performed, and, of course, many physical and most biological results may not be detectable until more years have passed. The long list of work elements and methods in Section F was not organized in hierarchical fashion to show how the elements related. Organization of work elements by objective exists in that section’s table. The table is a useful supplement but does not substitute for narrative text, which would be more informative. This proposal, like several others did not bother to 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 ISRP is concerned that the project’s plans for in-channel restructuring may focus too much on rock work (boulders). Emphasis on “softer” forms of soil bioengineering using live, flexible woody vegetation in combination with root wads and other wood “debris” is recommended. The proposal’s statement, “working to stabilize stream banks and create pools,” conveys good intent but is much too vague. Inappropriate techniques of bank stabilization would harm fish habitat. The use of such hard-engineered structures as rock riprap and rock “vanes” or “J-hooks” (not specified in this proposal but implied or at least not ruled out) would not be justifiable, given the evidence provided. Qualification is placed on the funding recommendation partly for this reason. The ISRP suggests that choice of technique depends greatly upon the quality of the fluvial geomorphologic analysis, which should address whether the stream is stable, incising, or aggrading. Only when the dynamic state of the stream is known can structural work be confidently proposed with the understanding that it is unlikely to become scoured out or buried in sediment. The project’s M&E plan still needs to be organized as such and presented in detail. In the present (“correct” 2007) narrative, the probable M&E elements are still scattered among the unorganized list of work elements. This is a major deficiency, which accounts for another part of the recommended funding qualification. 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.