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 |
Jennifer Boie |
|
|
| Proposal Type: |
New |
| Proposal Number: |
200710400 |
| Proposal Name: |
Protect and Restore White Bird Creek |
| Agency, Institution or Organization: |
Nez Perce Tribe Dept. Fisheries Resource Management Watershed Division |
| Short Description: |
Restore and protect the White Bird Watershed for the benefit of both resident and anadromous fish using an overall watershed approach. Restoration and protection efforts will be done cooperatively with the Nez Perce National Forest. |
| Information Transfer: |
Results from restoration and watershed improvement activities will be published in monitoring and evaluation reports. New findings, restoration techniques, and any other new technologies incorporated into design and implementation will be published in project specific reports. Results of restoration work will be shared between Forest Service Districts, other Forests, within the Nez Perce Tribe, and other various agencies. |
| |
| Project Proposal Contacts |
| Contact |
Organization |
Address |
Phone/Email |
Roles |
Notes |
|
Form Submitter |
| Jennifer Boie |
Nez Perce Tribe |
P.O. Box 365
Lapwai ID 83540 |
Ph: 208.621.3541
Fax: 208.843.9192
Email: jenniferb@nezperce.org |
Form Submitter |
|
|
All Assigned Contacts |
| Jennifer Boie |
Nez Perce Tribe |
P.O. Box 365
Lapwai ID 83540 |
Ph: 208.621.3541
Fax: 208.843.9192
Email: jenniferb@nezperce.org |
Project Lead
|
|
| Arleen Henry |
Nez Perce Tribe |
PO Box 365
Lapwai, ID 83540 |
Ph: 208-843-7317
Fax: 208-843-7319
Email: arleenh@nezperce.org |
Administrative Contact
|
NPT Finance Department accountant |
| Ira Jones |
Nez Perce Tribe |
P.O. Box 365
Lapwai ID 83540 |
Ph: 208.843.7144
Fax: 208.843.9192
Email: iraj@nezperce.org |
Contract Manager
|
Watershed Division Program Manager |
|
|
| Section 2: Project Location |
| Sponsor Province: |
Mountain Snake |
ARG Province: |
No Change |
| Sponsor Subbasin: |
Salmon |
ARG Subbasin: |
No Change |
| Location(s) at which the action will be implemented |
| Latitude |
Longitude |
Waterbody |
Location Description |
County/State |
Subbasin |
Primary? |
| 45.791
|
-116.235
|
White Bird Creek |
These lat. and lon. are an overall approximation of the entire watershed. The White Bird Creek Watershed encompasses approximately 65, 662 acres. Please see narrative for more detailed description. |
Idaho, Idaho |
Salmon |
Yes |
|
|
| Section 3: Focal Species |
| Focal Species: |
| Primary |
Secondary |
Additional Species |
Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Steelhead Snake River ESU
|
All Resident Fish
Interior Redband Trout
Westslope Cutthroat
|
|
|
|
| Section 4: Past Accomplishments |
| Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project |
This proposal is for funding a new project, and has no past accomplishments.
|
|
| 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 |
The Nez Perce Tribe Dept. of Fisheries Watershed received PCSRF funds (PCSRF 035 04 CW) for the Nez Perce Aquatic Restoration project in 2004. The goal of the Nez Perce Aquatic Restoration project is to work towards the re-establishment of healthy self-sustaining populations of key fish species (spring Chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout, and westslope cutthroat trout) through increasing habitat in all life stages on the Nez Perce National Forest, including the Salmon River and SF Clearwater River subbasins. Target drainages include White Bird Creek, Slate Creek, Red River, Meadow Creek, and Mill Creek. The NPNF is a partner in completing these projects. The NPT and the NPNF have been working cooperatively in the area of watershed restoration since 1997. The completion of these projects will replace 9 barrier (adult and juvenile) culverts, decommission 53 miles of road, improve 6 miles of trail, restore 1.5 miles of stream, and enhance 23 sites within meadow/riparian habitat. Projects in the White Bird Creek watershed include road decommissioning, culvert replacement, trail work, riparian planting, and riparian fencing. |
| Other: Forest Service |
Burnt Flats |
Burnt Flats Watershed Rehabilitation Funding |
The Nez Perce National Forest recently received funding for watershed restoration projects in the Burnt Flats area within the White Bird Creek watershed. Projects include a bridge replacement and approximately 20 miles of road decommissioning to take place between 2006 and 2008. |
|
|
| Section 6: Biological Objectives |
| Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project |
| Biological Objective |
Full Description |
Associated Subbasin Plan |
Strategy |
Page Nos |
| Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A |
Starting in important habitats, reduce instream sedimentation to levels meeting applicable water quality standards (e.g., TMDLs) and measures, with an established upward trend in the number of stream miles meeting such criterion by 2019. |
Salmon |
10A3, 10A5, 10A6, 10A8, 10A9, 61A5 |
49-50, 99 |
| Environmental Problem 12, Aquatic Objective 12A |
Rehabilitate connectivity where it will benefit native fish populations. Improve access to habitat currently blocked by manmade barriers. |
Salmon |
12A1, 12A2, 28A2, 8D5 |
53, 63, 47 |
| Environmental Problem 49, Aquatic Objective 49C |
Reduce floodplain/channel encroachment (e.g., roads, development, etc.). |
Salmon |
8B4, 8C1, 8C2, 8C3, 9A13, 49C1 |
72, 46-47, 49 |
| Environmental Problem 51,Terrestrial Objective 51B |
Restore 50% of degraded (functional at risk or non-functional) riparian areas to proper functioning condition by 2019. |
Salmon |
51B1, 51B2, 51B4, 51B6, 51B8, 8A1, 8A2, 8D1, 9A13, 45A2, 45A3, 51A4, 51A5 |
75-76,46-49,71 |
| Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56A |
Prevent the introduction of exotic invasive plant species into native habitats (see section 6.2: Terrestrial Prioritizations) to conserve quality, quantity, and diversity of native plant communities providing habitat to native wildlife species. |
Salmon |
56A2, 56A3, 56A5, 56A8 |
86-87 |
| Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56B |
Reduce the extent and density of established exotic invasive plant species. |
Salmon |
56B1, 56B3, 56B4, 56B5, 56B6 |
89 |
| Environmental Problem 59,Terrestrial Objective 59A |
Reduce the impact of the transportation system and motorized access on wildlife and fish populations and habitats. |
Salmon |
59A1, 59A2, 59A4, 61A5, 8B4, 10A3 |
96, 99, 47, 50 |
| Socioeconomic Prob. 64,Socioeconomic Objective 64A |
In the lower portion of the Salmon subbasin, minimize negative impacts on and maximize benefits to local communities while maximizing benefits to fish and wildlife and users of those resources. |
Salmon |
64A2, 64A3, 64A4, 64A5 |
104 |
| Socioeconomic Prob. 65,Socioeconomic Objective 65A |
Protect and foster both Indian and non-Indian cultural uses of natural resources in the Salmon subbasin. |
Salmon |
65A1 |
105 |
| Socioeconomic Prob. 66,Socioeconomic Objective 66A |
In the lower portion of the Salmon subbasin, develop a group to guide implementation of this plan and to coordinate recommendations with co-managers for funding, implementation, and other management activities. |
Salmon |
66A2, 66A3, 66A7, 66A8, 66A9 |
106 |
|
|
| Section 7: Work Elements |
| Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives |
| Work Element Name |
Work Element Title |
Description |
Start Date |
End Date |
Estimated Budget |
| 01: Manage and Administer Projects |
Management, Coordination and Communication |
Project management includes coordination project activities, attending meetings, seeking additional funding, attending trainings to stay abreast of innovative techniques, preparing statements of work, managing budgets, and completing reports. Includes: Produce Annual Report (WE 132)- annual reports summarize yearly activities, Produce Status Report (WE 141 &185)- quarterly reports will track project work element completion |
3/1/2007 |
2/28/2010 |
$87,911 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
|
No Metrics for this Work Element |
|
| 02: Coordination |
General Project Coordination |
Activities include meetings, phone calls, grant writing, preparing partnering agreements with Nez Perce National Forest and other communication tasks with partners. The Nez Perce Tribe has been partners with the Nez Perce National Forest since 1996, which includes sharing funds and resources to complete projects. Each year, project specifics are spelled out in an agreement signed by both parties. |
3/1/2007 |
2/28/2010 |
$67,595 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
|
No Metrics for this Work Element |
|
| 03: Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation |
Provide NEPA Information to BPA |
NEPA compliance must be obtained before implementing projects. The Nez Perce National Forest will complete NEPA, cultural clearance, and ESA consultation for watershed restoration projects. |
3/1/2007 |
2/28/2010 |
$54,304 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A
Environmental Problem 12, Aquatic Objective 12A
Environmental Problem 49, Aquatic Objective 49C
Environmental Problem 51,Terrestrial Objective 51B
Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56A
Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56B
Environmental Problem 59,Terrestrial Objective 59A
|
No Metrics for this Work Element |
|
| 04: Outreach and Education |
White Bird Creek Watershed Education and Outreach |
The education and outreach component will focus on informing the public about the watershed restoration activities that are happening in White Bird Creek. Emphasis will be placed on informing the public on important watershed issues including fish passage, road impacts and invasive weeds. Education and outreach materials will encourage the public to participate in or support restoration efforts. This information will be relayed through several different formats, examples being: informational brochures, workshops, public field trips, interpretive signs at project sites, and classroom/field presentations and activities for students |
3/1/2007 |
2/28/2010 |
$37,997 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A
Environmental Problem 12, Aquatic Objective 12A
Environmental Problem 49, Aquatic Objective 49C
Environmental Problem 51,Terrestrial Objective 51B
Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56A
Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56B
Environmental Problem 59,Terrestrial Objective 59A
Socioeconomic Prob. 64,Socioeconomic Objective 64A
Socioeconomic Prob. 65,Socioeconomic Objective 65A
Socioeconomic Prob. 66,Socioeconomic Objective 66A
|
* # of general public reached: 50
* # of students reached: 100
* # of teachers reached: 5
|
|
| 05: Produce Inventory or Assessment |
Survey Stream Crossings in White Bird Watershed |
1) Survey all sites where roads cross streams within the White Bird Watershed. 2) Assess these crossings to determine if they are upstream migration barriers to juvenile and/or adult fish. 3) Select the highest priority man-made barriers for future replacement recommendations. |
5/1/2007 |
9/30/2008 |
$162,349 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Environmental Problem 12, Aquatic Objective 12A
|
No Metrics for this Work Element |
|
| 06: Produce Plan |
Report findings on White Bird Stream Crossings Survey and Prioritize Culverts for Replacement |
A comprehensive plan needs to be developed identifying fish passage barriers and prioritizing culverts for replacement/barriers for removal. The plan will summarize all findings from the White Bird Stream Crossings Survey and will prioritize culverts for replacement. |
10/1/2008 |
2/28/2009 |
$62,447 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Environmental Problem 12, Aquatic Objective 12A
|
No Metrics for this Work Element |
|
| 07: Produce Design and/or Specifications |
Culvert Design |
Designs for culvert replacement are a cooperative effort between the NPT and the Nez Perce NF. For designs on Forest Service lands, the Forest Service generally takes the lead, and the Nez Perce Tribe reviews and approves all designs before being solicited for bids on construction projects. Culvert design may be subcontracted. |
3/1/2009 |
4/30/2009 |
$20,027 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A
Environmental Problem 12, Aquatic Objective 12A
|
No Metrics for this Work Element |
|
| 08: Install Fish Passage Structure |
Replace Culvert in White Bird |
Use report findings on White Bird Stream Crossings Survey to determine priority culvert for replacement to reestablish connectivity and fish passage. |
7/1/2009 |
8/31/2009 |
$82,165 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A
Environmental Problem 12, Aquatic Objective 12A
|
* Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: yes
|
|
| 09: 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. |
3/1/2008 |
2/28/2010 |
$27,052 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A
Environmental Problem 12, Aquatic Objective 12A
|
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation
|
|
| 10: Decommission Road |
Convert 2 miles of Road to Trail |
Approximately 2 miles of roads will be converted to trail to reduce sediment delivery to streams via surface erosion and landslide prone roads. Weed infestations will be treated prior to obliteration and weed control will continue following obliteration. |
6/1/2007 |
11/30/2007 |
$17,091 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A
Environmental Problem 49, Aquatic Objective 49C
Environmental Problem 51,Terrestrial Objective 51B
Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56A
Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56B
Environmental Problem 59,Terrestrial Objective 59A
Socioeconomic Prob. 64,Socioeconomic Objective 64A
|
* # of road miles decommissioned : 2
|
|
| 11: 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. |
6/1/2007 |
11/30/2007 |
$14,988 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A
Environmental Problem 49, Aquatic Objective 49C
Environmental Problem 51,Terrestrial Objective 51B
Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56A
Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56B
Environmental Problem 59,Terrestrial Objective 59A
Socioeconomic Prob. 64,Socioeconomic Objective 64A
|
* # of acres of planted: 2 miles
|
|
| 12: 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 |
6/1/2007 |
11/30/2007 |
$11,288 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A
Environmental Problem 59,Terrestrial Objective 59A
|
* # of acres treated: 2 miles
|
|
| 13: Remove vegetation |
Reduce Noxious and Invasive Weeds along Decommissioned Roads |
Weeds are a problem on newly disturbed soils such as decommissioned roads. Treatment of roads, prior to decommissioning and following decommissioning will become practice. |
3/1/2007 |
2/28/2010 |
$5,161 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56A
Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56B
Socioeconomic Prob. 64,Socioeconomic Objective 64A
|
No Metrics for this Work Element |
|
| 14: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data |
Decommissioned Road Data Collection |
The Nez Perce NF has developed a monitoring plan for decommissioned roads. Data is used to monitor success and for suggesting improvements that could be made. |
3/1/2007 |
2/28/2010 |
$5,161 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A
Environmental Problem 49, Aquatic Objective 49C
Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56A
Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56B
Environmental Problem 59,Terrestrial Objective 59A
|
Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation
|
|
| 15: Create/Manage/Maintain Database |
Maintain White Bird Creek Project Database |
Develop and update database and GIS layers to track project installation location and project specific information over time. This database will be in coordination with the Nez Perce National Forest and shared with other agencies as well as BPA annual reporting. |
3/1/2007 |
2/28/2010 |
$61,721 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Environmental Problem 10, Aquatic Objective 10A
Environmental Problem 12, Aquatic Objective 12A
Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56A
Environmental Problem 56,Terrestrial Objective 56B
Environmental Problem 59,Terrestrial Objective 59A
|
No Metrics for this Work Element |
|
| 16: Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results |
Disseminate Project Results to Professional Audiences at Scientific and Professional Conferences |
Project details and results may be presented to professional audiences at scientific and professional conferences and workshops. |
3/1/2007 |
2/28/2010 |
$30,738 |
| 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 FTE includes: Project Lead, Support Staff, and Technical Staff |
$97,998 |
$103,877 |
$110,111 |
| Fringe Benefits |
NPT employee fringe 30% |
$29,399 |
$31,163 |
$33,033 |
| Supplies |
Field Supplies, Office Supplies, Non-expendable property |
$28,524 |
$6,291 |
$5,439 |
| Travel |
Travel to meetings/conferences and perdiem |
$4,411 |
$4,411 |
$4,411 |
| Overhead |
NPT indirect rate 29.64 % |
$50,659 |
$46,341 |
$48,487 |
| Other |
Consultants and Contracts- subcontracted items |
$22,000 |
$10,000 |
$70,000 |
| Other |
Training |
$2,169 |
$2,169 |
$2,169 |
| Other |
2 GSA Vehicles |
$8,645 |
$8,645 |
$8,645 |
| Other |
Office Space Rental |
$3,000 |
$3,000 |
$3,000 |
| Totals |
$246,804 |
$215,897 |
$285,294 |
|
|
| Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets |
| Total Itemized Budget | $747,995 |
| Total Work Element budget | $747,995 |
|
|
| Cost sharing |
| Funding Source or Organization |
Item or Service Provided |
FY 2007 Est Value ($) |
FY 2008 Est Value ($) |
FY 2009 Est Value ($) |
Cash or in-kind? |
Status |
| Nez Perce National Forest |
Burnt Flats road decommissioning contract |
$235,000 |
$ 0 |
$ 0 |
Cash |
Confirmed |
| Nez Perce National Forest |
Project design, contract preparation, contract admin, monitoring, etc |
$10,000 |
$5,000 |
$5,000 |
In-Kind |
Under Development |
| Nez Perce National Forest, PCSRF, Central ID RAC |
Portion of contract award funding |
$20,000 |
$20,000 |
$20,000 |
Cash |
Under Review |
| Totals |
$265,000 |
$25,000 |
$25,000 |
|
|
|
| Section 9: Project Future |
| Project Future Costs and/or Termination |
| FY 2010 Est Budget |
FY 2011 Est Budget |
Comments |
| $313,793 |
$345,172 |
White Bird Creek has been identified as a Forest Service priority watershed. Future work will primarily include road decommissioning, culvert replacement, habitat restoration, and monitoring. |
| Future Operations & Maintenance Costs |
| Noxious weed control and project success monitoring |
| |
| Termination Date |
Comments |
| 2020 |
|
| |
| Final Deliverables |
| White Bird Creek Watershed will be an intact, healthy, functioning watershed that is able to sustain all species at historical or near-historical levels. White Bird Creek Watershed will meet TMDL and Nez Perce National Forest Plan standards. |
|
|
| Section 10: Narrative |
|
|
|
Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
|
| Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results |
Account Type:
Expense |
No changes were made to this proposal |
BPA's in lieu Funding Review of new project proposals (August 3, 2006)
[Download letter and table]
|
BPA's in lieu Rating: 1.0
Approx. BPA share of total costs: BPA 70% (70)
Status of Cost Share: Mixed
|
| Notes: Culvert replacements, road decommis on FS lands; assume covered by BPA-FS MOU |
NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006)
[Full NPCC Council Recs]
|
FY 2007 Budget
$ 0 |
FY 2008 Budget
$ 0 |
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0 |
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0 |
| Budget Type: | Expense |
| Budget Category: | ProvinceExpense |
| Recommendation: | Do Not Fund
|
| Comments: |
NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006)
[Full NPCC Council Recs]
|
FY 2007 Budget
$ 0 |
FY 2008 Budget
$ 0 |
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0 |
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0 |
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: NPT Tier 2 - 2
|
Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006)
[Download full document]
|
| Recommendation: Not fundable
|
| NPCC Comments: This was a generic proposal. Reviewers responded with a number of detailed questions and suggestions summarized as: 1. Sponsors should provide justification in terms of benefits to fish. 2. A convincing case that conditions in the stream have caused decline in focal species in the basin is needed. 3. Sponsors should provide convincing evidence that stream flow and access to the flood plain can be restored. 4. Sponsors should describe and cite past studies that support their strategy for enhancing salmonid numbers. 5. The response should provide discussion of the risk that barrier removal might permit access to exotic species. 6. Objectives are to build culverts and decommission roads. Rather, sponsors should develop objectives to increase fish populations by some reasonable and defensible amount. 7. Efforts to restore the hydrograph and regain access to the floodplain should be high priority. 8. Where vegetation will be "treated," an IPM approach is needed. 9. Monitoring plans seem to be perfunctory. The plan seems to be to monitor tasks, rather than resource conditions. Develop a rigorous M&E plan to outline the details of their sampling and assessment methods. 10. Data storage, sharing, or amalgamation at regional level is missing. Information and education program are not information transfer in a scientific sense. In addition to the generic response that was the sole response to many of the Tribe’s original proposals, there was a specific response to the review of this proposal. Both the original proposal and response sketched a generic "shotgun" approach that in its current form with lack of detail and specificity seems to offer very limited potential to benefit the steelhead and spring chinook that use the stream, and is not fundable. Future submission as a survey/plan project as has been done with the Slate Creek revision is recommended. 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 is exactly the same proposal as 200706400 (Slate Cr.) with only the name changed. A response is requested on: 1. Justification of benefits to fish. 2. Provide a convincing case that conditions in the stream have caused decline in focal species in the basin. Despite the sponsor's view that this "project [is] essential to address problems identified in the sub-basin," the subbasin plan did not prioritize it similarly. The proposal would benefit if the distribution and abundance of migratory fish in the basin were described. Numbers must be available given the assessment of the stream's importance for fish populations. It also would be beneficial to describe what has happened to these numbers through time compared to fish in a Middle Fork Salmon River tributary for example. 3. Sponsors should provide convincing evidence that stream flow and access to the flood plain can be restored. If chances of that happening are low, it would be useful to know what the sponsors believe are realistic goals regarding fish production in the system. 4. Sponsors should describe and cite past studies that support their strategy for enhancing salmonid numbers. 5. The response should provide discussion of the risk that barrier removal might permit access to exotic species. 6. Objectives are to build culverts and decommission roads. Rather, sponsors should develop objectives to increase fish populations by some reasonable and defensible amount. 7. Efforts to restore the hydrograph and regain access to the floodplain should be high priority. Where vegetation will be "treated," an IPM approach is needed. Seeding annual rye is not re-vegetation in any long-term sense. If the goal is to manage invasive plants, establishment of adapted native species is most effective. Monitoring plans seem to be perfunctory. The plan seems to be to monitor tasks, rather resource conditions. Sponsors need to develop a rigorous M&E plan to outline the details of their sampling and assessment methods. Data storage, sharing, or amalgamation at regional level are missing. Information and education program are not information transfer in a scientific sense, but road decommissioning in particular is rarely popular and could benefit from some public understanding. The sponsor might look to State and NRCS programs on private lands to expand available technical and financial resources. |
Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.
