FY07-09 proposal 199901700

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: Following completion of Fish Passage Assessment, Road Erosion Survey and Assessment, NRAMP & SVAP Habitat Assessments, M&E Fish Distribution, Abundance, and Composition Data Collection, and other studies and assessments, the NPT wiil have a full prioritized list of Protection and Restoration implementation projects that will require increases in funding to achieve increased fish populations. Other anticipated work elements include: Annual fence maintenance; Annual Weed Control; Annual Implementation Monitoring

Termination date: None
Comments: Since begining this project, the NPT Fisheries Watershed Division has completed Road Erosion Surveys, Fish Barrier Assessments, Watershed Assessments, etc., throughout the watershed. We are now in an implementation based phase of this project and this proposal includes increased funding associated with implementation.

Final deliverables: Lapwai Creek and it's tributary watersheds will be intact, healthy, and properly functioning so that they are able to support all native anadromous and resident fish species at historical or near-historical levels. Streams within the watershed will meet TMDL and Nez Perce Tribal DFRM Watershed standards.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: Proposals 199901700 (NPT - Protect and Restore Lapwai Creek Watershed) and 200207000 (NPSWCD - Lapwai Creek Anadromous Habitat) are for companion projects on the same creek (Lapwai) for activities on NPT tribal lands (199901700) or private ranch lands (200207000). They use the same format for the entire proposal and much of the text is copied verbatim in each proposal. Despite previous positive reviews, the ISRP is becoming concerned. Between this and its sister SWCD project, many millions have been spent over the past 7 years and there is no end in sight. Project accomplishments are so minimal that the two projects should not be continued without a thorough programmatic review. Such a review is recommended as a condition of future funding. The response requested here is to produce a revised proposal that addresses the problems identified in this assessment and to include responses to requests for additional information, and incorporates the recommended changes in structure. The on-the-ground work here may have potential of producing measurable results, but there still is no comprehensive assessment and prioritized prescriptions, nor evidence of a fish response from accomplishments to date, nor plans to provide such evidence. In general the proposal is difficult to follow; the organization does not efficiently communicate the historic and contemporary status of the focal species, the historic and contemporary status of the habitat, or the desired future state of the ecosystem (habitat) or the focal species. There are general statements on the status of each of these elements, but not specific detail. Because the detail is not present it is not possible to evaluate the reasonableness of the proposal. Simultaneous with a lack of sufficient detail is considerable redundancy of general statements. This creates a proposal that is too long and difficult to follow. For example, in spite of presenting a 12-page Technical and Scientific Background, the sponsors never report how many kilometers/miles of streams exist in the watershed, broken down by the main creek and tributaries. They never identify which tributaries and reaches are believed to be the historic production areas, which are currently producing fish, and which are believed to be essential for achieving the production needed to be "recovered." This section needs a brief one-paragraph description of the stream system. Including the kilometers of stream by tributary. A brief summary of the watershed assessments and how they form the basis for the proposal should be provided. These are given in the existing proposal, but the evaluation is overly vague -- summer low flow, sediment, etc. are problems. The summary of the watershed assessments should identify a priority list of stream segments that have degraded ecosystem functions and identify the management actions that will be used to remedy these altered conditions. The sponsors could identify important stream reaches for protection and restoration on maps. The sponsors have completed a road assessment and a barrier assessment, but the recommendations from these assessments are not communicated in the technical background. How many barriers are there, which are believed critical to gaining access to productive habitat? Where is road condition worst? Where is it recommended to begin road decommissioning and renovation? Some of this is buried in the work elements - it needs to be in the technical section. The technical section should not exceed 5 pages (could be 3 or 4). The Rationale and Significance to Subbasin Plans section is too long and ineffective. It should be reduced to no more than 2 pages. There is a bulleted list of justifications for Lapwai Creek watershed restoration. Most of these may not in fact be adequate justification. For example - " …presence of at-risk wild A-run steelhead" is justification only if this is a core remnant population essential for recovery identified in the interior Columbia Basin TRT independent population reports and the updated NOAA status review for steelhead. From what is presented it is not clear that this stream is particularly important. Lapwai/Sweetwater creeks were identified by NOAA BIOP (draft) as the historical source population for A-run steelhead in the Lower Clearwater Basin. This is justification only if these creeks are still likely to serve as the contemporary and future source population for A-run steelhead in the Lower Clearwater. Clear evidence from the Clearwater subbasin plan is needed that the focal species of this project are identified as focal species, that the strategies for restoration are consistent with the plan, and that the Lapwai Creek and tributaries are identified as a priority area. This should only require a short paragraph and table. Clear evidence is also needed to show Lapwai Creek is identified in federal recovery documents (the TRT independent population report, steelhead status review, and possibly the hydrosystem BiOp). Identifying every element of the subbasin plan that may apply to these proposals, and identifying every BiOp RPA that may apply is a distraction and does not serve to communicate how this proposal will serve to fulfill the obligations of the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program or the ESA recovery actions. The section of the Mission-Lapwai Creek Watershed plan produced in 1990 and updated in 1994 and 2000 needs clarification. It simply restates what has been said over and over again in the proposal, "… improve flow, enhance riparian, and reduce sediment." The priority locations recommended by this plan need to be identified and tied to specific objectives in the proposal. There are lists of accomplishments, but there are no management implications identified. No data on fish abundance are provided. This appears to be the only accounting of the project's results. In response, please provide evidence of benefit to focal fish populations. The work element descriptions are confusing and difficult to follow and understand. Identifying each subbasin plan relationship is distracting. The organization is not helpful. The ISRP suggests beginning this section by identifying in general terms what needs to happen in the next three years. Is more field inventory needed, and if so why? Is more analysis of the past inventory data needed, if so why? What are the priority areas and strategies for activities? Finally, what are the specific methods - in general terms - so they can be identified as appropriate and consistent with current scientific thinking? The proposal contains rather prescriptive declarations to implement BMPs (for example decommission 10 miles of road, fix one more mile or road, fix 2 barriers, fence 2 miles of stream, etc.). Yet in earlier work elements, there is considerable effort expended on more inventory, planning, and project design. How can it be at this juncture that the appropriate mix is 10 miles of road decommissioning and 2 miles of fence when the assessments are not yet complete? In response, please clarify the rationale for these prescriptions. The explanation of monitoring for compliance and effectiveness needs to be clarified. The effectiveness monitoring plan should be peer-reviewed during this funding cycle to ensure it is using the same methods and metrics recommended by PNAMP and CSMEP. At the local level of communicating with landowners and stakeholders the sponsors appear to perform admirably. In communicating with the extended scientific and management community, it appears there is room for much improvement. As an example, these proposals do not provide maps and summaries from the stream inventories, fish barrier assessment, and road analysis. Until a clearer picture of the amount of work and time needed to bring this watershed into a reasonable state of productivity is given, it is difficult to assess the likely benefits to the focal fish species. It is not possible to assess whether the restoration will take 10 or 200 years, given the information supplied in the proposal. The funding request appears to have increased significantly. What is the basis for that? 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 in part

NPCC comments: This is an ISRP response to the fix it loop for proposal 199901700 Protect and Restore Lapwai Creek Watershed (NPT) and 200207000 Lapwai Creek Anadromous Habitat (NPSWCD) – integrated sister projects to address habitat restoration and protection on Lapwai Creek on tribal and private land, respectively. The sponsors addressed the questions raised by the ISRP in the preliminary review. The adequacy of the answers varied by question. The ISRP thanks the sponsors for the time and effort in producing the revised proposal narrative and explanations of the projects’ history. The ISRP had many questions for the sponsors, so the evaluation of the response to each is beyond the space and time available in this fix it loop review. Briefly, the proposal(s) were to execute tasks related to both inventory and assessment of fish populations and habitat, and habitat restoration implementation. From the proposal it was not clear to the ISRP how important to the focal species the watershed was; the focal species current status in the watershed; the role the watershed could contribute to the focal species’ status if restored; if the watershed could be restored; and how long it would take. Replies were provided to the ISRP’s questions and a revised narrative was produced. The answers to the questions and the narrative revision go a long way to clarifying for the ISRP the status and progress of anadromous fish species (primarily steelhead) and restoration potential in this watershed. Much more is needed however, before the ISRP can confidently assess whether the proposed activities in the Lapwai Creek system are scientifically sound, have quantifiable biological objectives that are measurable, and will benefit fish and wildlife (A-run steelhead). Sponsors indicate that it became apparent early in the project history (1999) that insufficient data existed to effectively address improving the status of anadromous fish in Lapwai Creek. Little was known about the status of the fish or the habitat. In the intervening period the sponsors state they have treated "hot spots" of habitat degradation, and nearly completed inventories of habitat conditions and fish population status. They report that inventory work will be completed in 2006 and that evaluation and analysis should be prepared in 2007. In the current revised narrative the biological objectives are tasks. The sponsors provide an ultimate goal: "to protect and restore the ecological and biological functions of the Lapwai Creek Watershed to assist in the recovery of anadromous and resident fish species," and this is reasonable. What is needed is a specific goal, with a timeframe for changes in habitat conditions and fish population abundance and productivity. Sponsors clarify for the ISRP their understanding of compliance and effectiveness monitoring, and inform the ISRP that they appreciate the necessity of effectiveness monitoring, but that it is beyond the willingness of Council and BPA to fund those data collections and analysis. The ISRP understands the constraints placed on sponsors, but also believes sponsors need to be creative in developing methods to determine whether their restoration efforts are providing a benefit. Can riparian habitat be evaluated by photopoints or aerial photography and be cost effective, how can stream flow and stream temperature be monitored? How can adult fish in and smolts out be measured? Sponsors indicate that stream habitat and watershed inventories, and fish population abundance will be completed soon and final assessments available in 2007. Based on that commitment, these projects are Fundable in Part (incrementally). In 2007, fundable only for completion of the inventory and assessments. Possibly fundable in 2008 and 2009 for restoration actions contingent upon a proposal narrative that uses those assessments to establish biological objectives, strategies and actions to get to those objectives, and an approach to measure whether progress is being made in achieving the objectives. 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.