The sponsors were indeed correct in their concern that part of the results section of the original proposal was not seen by reviewers prior to their preliminary response; reviewers were not aware during the initial review of a comment in the “Notes” section or the availability of a hotlink.

The sponsors’ response was comprehensive and adds sufficient detail to the original proposal to effectively address nearly all of the issues raised by the ISRP. There was a good deal of additional data provided, and it is apparent that the sponsors want to work in a strategic manner. Selection of three top priority watersheds is an excellent start.

The summary of the prioritization process to rank activities (to work initially in highest ranked Assessment Units according to the 2009 Strategy document, then work from the top of a subwatershed down, with focus on major limiting factors) is more informal than that used in other areas (where many more jurisdictions are involved). Detail of how the rankings were generated was not described, except to indicate that they are generated from the Expert Panel process.

What seems incomplete is a better discussion and listing of the full suite of priority work requiring completion in these watersheds before moving into the next tier of priority watersheds. Currently, work is focused on three limiting factors and is reportedly achieving the benchmarks established by the technical team. How it was determined that the planned work will meet these benchmarks (stated as percentage increases) remains a bit of a mystery. In the response, only water temperature was discussed. A similar discussion is needed to address flow increases and for riparian vegetation/floodplain restoration. Further, there needs to be additional discussion on addressing fish passage (see Qualification) and increased sedimentation. These limiting factors are rated nearly as high as the priority limiting factors (10% each vs. 15%) yet are really not incorporated beyond past work that has occurred.

There were no changes in the stated project objectives to include a time element, as recommended by the ISRP. Also, the description of ecological results from past restoration project work is very limited, despite nearly 10 years of work.

Goals for restoration were presented. The goals, if reviewers interpreted them correctly, were ambitious. However, habitat monitoring will not occur until 2018, and therefore it will take considerable time before we will know how much of the proposed goal has been achieved. Plus, we know little about monitoring efforts that might occur in 2018.

Evaluation of Results

The following documents were prepared under the project:
1) a comprehensive watershed analysis using the Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual
2) Clearwater Subbasin Assessment and Plan
3) the Lapwai Creek Watershed Ecological Restoration Strategy
4) Road Erosion Survey - Lapwai Creek Watershed
5) Lapwai Creek Watershed Ecological Restoration Strategy that prioritizes where restoration work should occur within the Lapwai Creek watershed.

The projects implemented by the sponsor between 2009 and 2012 are as follows:

•  1,5800.0 feet of riparian exclusion fence
•  850.0 ft of levee removal
•  720.0 ft of bank stabilization
•  25.0 acres planted to native grasses
•  9.0 acres of riparian shrub and tree planting
•  7.0 acres of restored wetland

A response is requested on the following items:

1) Describe how deliverables were ranked in the prioritization process.

2) Give examples of restoration actions that were considered but not implemented.

3) Provide responses to additional questions embedded in review comments.

This is a generally well-organized project. However, a response is requested to provide additional detail on past results and prioritization of future actions. The presentation and site visits were helpful on these issues, but they should be better documented in a response.

It was not clear how each of the specific deliverables were ranked in the prioritization process and how much effect the deliverable might have, for example move road rest stops to non-creek side. The selection of focus stream assessment units appears to have been a solid strategic approach, and additional information describing the suite of planned activities in these areas would have been useful. What are the alternative restoration actions that were considered and not adopted?

This is a good proposal in many respects that includes quantitative deliverables for a variety of specific habitat projects. The deliverables are categorized under three objectives that relate to limiting factors in the watershed, as described by previous efforts. However, the sponsors did not discuss the extent to which each limiting factor will be improved after completing the deliverables. Are these proposed projects the highest priority projects? This type of information would provide managers with some information on how much more effort is needed.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

This is a coordinated proposal, along with its companion proposal from the Nez Perce SWCD, for a tributary that is a primary producer of A-run steelhead in the Clearwater River system. It is well organized and provides solid focus on three high priority stream assessment units within Lapwai Creek. This proposal provides good technical background information that demonstrates the significance of the project objectives to regional programs.

A list of 10 limiting factors is presented, and it is stated that the proposal will address the primary ones. These are not listed. Three main objectives are provided: restore flow/wetlands, reduce stream temperature and improve habitat diversity. To some extent, quantitative deliverables and objectives were presented so reviewers and stakeholders have a good idea of what may be accomplished by this effort. However, temperature and habitat objectives are stated in quantitative terms but have no stated time frame for accomplishment. Objectives are basically reasonable, but the temperature goal of reducing temperature below 16 C, a State of Idaho water quality metric is overly conservative, especially in view of actual Lapwai Creek fish data: the Nez Perce SWCD proposal states "Significantly, wild steelhead of the Lower Clearwater basin have seemingly adapted to survive abnormally warm water temperatures. High juvenile steelhead densities have been recorded within monitoring sites in which summer water temperatures exceeded 20º C (68º F) on a daily basis." Reviewers challenge the NPT Watershed staff to craft more meaningful success criteria for habitat attributes like temperature as these projects evolve.

Importantly, the proposal is based upon and justified by the Lower Clearwater Watershed Ecological Restoration Strategy developed jointly with the SWCD. The Strategy was apparently developed in 2009 and is reported to, and does address a number of issues previously raised by ISRP. Because of this critical dependence of the proposal on that document, a serious effort should have been made to facilitate its access for reviewers. It was available in the Project Documents section but that required additional effort to locate it. Ideally excerpts from the Strategy would have been incorporated into the proposal. Next best would have been a hot link directing reviewers to specific sections.

The proposal notes that there has been little hatchery influence in Lapwai watershed, yet coho have been recently introduced. Approximately 400 adults return per year, but no mention of hatchery/natural origin components is included. The proposal does not mention how ecological interactions between coho and steelhead might affect steelhead recovery.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

The project has been ongoing since 1999. Accomplishments during each year were very briefly mentioned. Instead of providing detail, sponsors make the statement that "Projects implemented since 2009 have followed the guidance produced by the Lapwai Creek Watershed Ecological Restoration Strategy." This is reassuring but does not contain enough detail to be helpful to reviewers.

There is not a formal Adaptive Management strategy, but there is a discussion of lessons learned for project and management activities. The discussion on management considerations is vague as to lessons learned or changes in organization or approach. The proposal did describe how sponsors have learned from previous projects, for example use larger plants and water them as a means to increase survival. The project should document percentage survival of its planting efforts.

The adaptive management section also describes use of expert panels to prioritize actions, following the Restoration Strategy. A commendable inclusion was incorporation of the assessment of both current and potential, as a percent of optimal, status of limiting factors addressed by a project. Examples of this would have been very helpful. For example, reconnecting and restoring wetlands is a primary strategy for increasing water storage and increasing base flows, but there is no discussion of the extent to which past treatments appear to be doing that.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

There is an efficient division of duties with the NPT dealing with Tribal and public lands and the SWCD addressing private lands.

The use of the general and aquatic limiting factors shown above in the assessment provides a starting point for the identification and treatment of problems affecting anadromous populations throughout the Clearwater. Climate change and non-native species were identified as emerging limiting factors. The project has been in operation for more than 10 years. It would be interesting to know whether or not there seems to be improvement in some of the overall habitat metrics and even steelhead productivity. In other words, based on the restoration plan and analysis of limiting factors, has the program achieved 5% or 50% of its habitat goals? What is the timeline for achieving the habitat goals?

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

There are three primary deliverables that are stated in clear, quantitative terms. However, they appear to address only the first year of implementation. Other deliverables were described in a couple of sentences and are impossible for reviewers to evaluate without more detail, photos, and maps. The deliverables should have been more closely linked to limiting factors, including to what extent each deliverable might help reduce that limiting factor. Is the impact small or significant, in the opinion of the sponsors? Some detail is needed on why the secondary deliverables received their given priorities.

A fish passage assessment was completed in either 2004 or 2005 and will presumably provide a foundation for future project work.

Monitoring (and associated methods) is largely associated with other programs within the Tribe and by other agencies, and therefore there was little discussion of methods. There is a clear description of future incorporation of AEM and CHaMP into watershed activities. It is noted that BOR has the lead responsibility for fish population monitoring although there is little discussion how this work links to the location and application of various restoration treatments.