Local or MSRT Comments: State Tier 2

The sponsors addressed the questions raised by the ISRP in the preliminary review. The adequacy of the answers to inform and assist the ISRP in their proposal evaluation varied. The ISRP thanks the sponsors for the time and effort in producing the revised proposal narrative and explanations of the projects’ history.

The sponsors indicated that stream habitat and watershed inventories, and a compilation on fish population abundance will be completed soon; final assessments shall be available in 2007. Based on that commitment, these projects are Fundable in Part (incrementally). In 2007, the fundable work includes completion of the inventory and assessments. Following that, work possibly fundable in 2008 and 2009 might be for restoration actions, contingent upon a written plan that uses those assessments to establish biological objectives, strategies and actions, and an approach to measure whether progress is being made in achieving the objectives.

The reporting of results was limited to a reporting of tasks accomplished, i.e., compliance monitoring. When they are developing their prescriptions they should include an evaluation of the biological results of their past actions. 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 state 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 photo points or aerial photography and be cost effective? How can stream flow and stream temperature be monitored to determine if treatments were effective? How can adult fish in and smolts out be measured? An evaluation plan is expected.

An integrated process of watershed assessment remains incomplete after several years, but they can be credited with developing conservation plans and completion of several small actions. The revised narrative for the proposed work was a much better presentation than the original, and may have been acceptable if originally submitted in this manner. It also outlined the acceptable qualifications of the proponents.

This work in Lapwai Creek is supportable because of the potential for anadromous fish production. 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. The ISRP had many questions for the sponsors, so the detailed evaluation of the response to each is beyond the space and time available in this fix it loop review.

The response requested is to include development of a revised proposal that addresses the problems identified in the current version (identified here and additionally, review comments for project #199901700). The new proposal should be required before funding or deciding whether to fund in part or full is appropriate. The revised proposal should be fewer than 25 pages.

The new proposal needs to be carefully written including an Abstract that accurately reflects the objectives and progress to date. The background should be clearly presented and show a clear basis in science. Factors known to be limiting population distribution and abundance need to be clearly identified with strategies for overcoming their impact. The strategy needs to include prioritization from within a subbasin plan or documented watershed analysis/assessment/prescription. The information presented needs to be summarized and simplified into a package that simply relates the objectives and tasks outlined in the subbasin plan. There has to be clear ties defined with project #199901700.

Monitoring plans need to be included to show implementation success and biological response following a carefully planned experimental design. Proposal development requires a rigorous involvement of personnel trained in biological science, proposal and report writing, and watershed ecology.

This project should not be funded based on the present proposal or record of results.